9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Conviction and sentencing of Balak Ram. 2. Acquittal of Nathoo, Dr. R. P. Kohli, and Mohd. Sayeed Khan @ Banney Khan by the Sessions Court. 3. Interference by the High Court with the acquittal order of Nathoo, Dr. R. P. Kohli, and Mohd. Sayeed Khan @ Banney Khan. 4. Reliability of eyewitnesses and dying declarations. 5. Political rivalry as a motive for the crime. 6. Ballistic evidence and its interpretation. 7. Defense of alibi by the accused. Detailed Analysis: 1. Conviction and Sentencing of Balak Ram: The Supreme Court upheld the concurrent findings of the Sessions Court and the High Court that Balak Ram was responsible for the murders of Tribeni Sahai and Radhey and for causing injuries to Jhilmili and Ram Prakash. The evidence against Balak Ram was considered "natural and consistent" and was corroborated by the opinion of the Ballistic Expert, which stated that the bullet recovered from Radhey's body was fired from Balak Ram's pistol. The Court dismissed the appeal by Balak Ram, confirming his conviction and the sentence of death imposed on him. 2. Acquittal of Nathoo, Dr. R. P. Kohli, and Mohd. Sayeed Khan @ Banney Khan by the Sessions Court: The Sessions Court acquitted Nathoo, Dr. R. P. Kohli, and Mohd. Sayeed Khan @ Banney Khan due to the lack of independent corroboration of the eyewitnesses' testimony and the dying declarations. The court found that the evidence against these accused was not reliable without independent corroboration. 3. Interference by the High Court with the Acquittal Order: The High Court interfered with the acquittal order passed by the Sessions Court and convicted Nathoo, Dr. R. P. Kohli, and Banney Khan under Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 149 of the Penal Code. The High Court held that the eyewitnesses Jhilmili and Ram Prakash were independent and corroborated each other, and that the dying declarations of Tribeni Sahai provided full corroboration to their testimony. 4. Reliability of Eyewitnesses and Dying Declarations: The Supreme Court found serious infirmities in the evidence of the eyewitnesses Jhilmili, Ram Prakash, and Aryendra Nath, noting that their testimonies were not independently corroborated. The Court also questioned the reliability of the three dying declarations made by Tribeni Sahai, particularly the one recorded at the Budaun hospital, given his critical condition and the influence of friends and admirers around him. The Court concluded that the High Court erroneously treated the witnesses as independent and held that they had corroborated one another. 5. Political Rivalry as a Motive: The incident leading to the murder arose out of political rivalry between the Congress (R), Congress (O), and the Bhartiya Jan Sangh. The Court noted that political differences had polluted the social life of the Dataganj citizens, leading to a series of quarrels and court cases. The long list of cases filed by Tribeni Sahai against his political opponents showed a pattern of false accusations and harassment. 6. Ballistic Evidence: The Ballistic Expert's opinion that the bullet recovered from Radhey's body was fired from Balak Ram's pistol was a key piece of evidence against Balak Ram. The Court rejected the contention that the bullet recovered from the scene of the offence must have been the one that passed through Tribeni Sahai's body, noting that there was no warrant for such an assumption. 7. Defense of Alibi: The defense of alibi presented by Balak Ram, Nathoo, and Dr. Kohli was rejected by the Sessions Court. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court ought to have considered this evidence but found that the failure to do so did not lead to a miscarriage of justice in the case of Balak Ram. Conclusion: The Supreme Court set aside the order of conviction and sentence passed by the High Court against Nathoo, Dr. R. P. Kohli, and Mohd. Sayeed Khan @ Banney Khan, allowing their appeals and ordering their release. However, the Court confirmed the conviction and sentence of death imposed on Balak Ram, dismissing his appeal.
|
