9911796707
TMI Blog1974 (11) TMI 106X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unwar Singh. The learned Judge convicted Sia Ram under Section 302. Penal Code and sentenced him to death. Violet was convicted under Section 302 read with Section 109 and was sentenced to imprisonment for life. The remaining three accused were acquitted by the Sessions Court. Sia Ram and Violet challenged their conviction by filing an appeal in the High Court while the State of U.P. filed an appeal against the acquittal of Shri Ram, Ram Chandra and Ramesh. The High Court confirmed the conviction and sentence of Sia Ram and Violet. It dismissed the appeal filed by the State Government except in regard to Shri Ram whom it convicted under Section 302 read with Section 109. He was sentenced to imprisonment for life. 2. The incident in quest ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the left upper chest of the deceased. There were tattooing and scorching marks around the injury. 4. The evidence of Brijendra Singh Yadav (P.W. 4) is clear on the part played by the appellant Sia Ram. That evidence shows that Sia Ram fired a shot from his gun as a result of which Kunwar Singh fell down and died within half an hour. Brijendra Singh's evidence has been accepted by both the courts and we are unable to see any valid reason for rejecting it. Brijendra Singh is a natural witness for he, like the deceased Kunwar Singh, had left the court after the court hours. Apart from the fact that he was a colleague of the deceased he was not in any manner concerned with the deep-seated enmity between the appellant Sia Ram and the d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitates the commission thereof, is said to and the doing of that act. Thus, in order to constitute abetment, the abettor must be shown to have intentionally aided the commission of the crime. Mere proof that the crime charged could not have been committed without the interposition of the alleged abettor is not enough compliance with the requirements of Section 107. A person may, for example, invite another casually or for a friendly purpose and that may facilitate the murder of the invitee. But unless the invitation was extended with intent to facilitate the commission of the murder, the person inviting cannot be said to have abetted the murder. It is not enough that an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in such a manner that they could watch persons moving about on the road. They could not have concealed their identity completely. They could realise that if they were not assisted by Smt. Violet and they had to act on their own, the deceased may notice their presence and may not proceed further. In case the accused persons concealed themselves thoroughly, they may not notice the arrival of the deceased in time to successfully aim at him. Assistance asked for and rendered by Smt. Violet was real and valuable. This chain of reasoning contains a multiplicity of inferences hardly justified by the solitary circumstance that Violet informed Sia Ram and his colleagues of the presence of Kunwar Singh. 9. The High Court found fault with Violet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... circumstance that Shri Ram had voluntarily accepted the risk of being identified in a parade but was denied that opportunity was an important point in his favour. The High Court rejected it was inconsequential by observing that the oral testimony of witnesses, even if not tested by holding an identification parade, can be made the basis of conviction if the request made by the accused is groundless and the witnesses knew the accused prior to the occurrence. It is correct to say that no rule of law requires that the oral testimony of a witness should be corroborated by evidence of identification. In fact, evidence of identification is itself a weak type of evidence. But the point of the matter is that the court which acquitted Shri Ram wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Manphool. It is doubtful whether Dubey appeared in the case at all, which explains why he made the guarded statement that he had appeared on behalf of the complainant in so far as he could remember. He was unable to say who had engaged him or who appeared the case along with him or who was examined as a witness in the case or who used to instruct him in the case. Enveloped in this atmosphere of doubt, Dubey thought the better of it to say: I think I had filed my Vakalatnama in that case . The young Dubey had a standing of but 2 years in the District when he is supposed to have appeared for the complainant in the particular case. It is unrealistic to assume that he was so flooded with work that he could remember no details of an important ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
