Allahabad High Court
Pawan Jaiswal vs State Of U.P. on 30 September, 2022
Author: Ashwani Kumar Mishra
Bench: Ashwani Kumar Mishra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Court No. - 43 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 7561 of 2007 Appellant :- Pawan Jaiswal Respondent :- State of U.P. Counsel for Appellant :- Ram Shiromani Shukla,A.K.Awasthi,Anshul Tiwari,Arun Kumar Mishra,Brijesh Sahai,Deepak Dubey,J.Nagar,Jai Prakash Gupta,Manish Tiwari,P.J.Nagar,Ronak Chaturvedi,Vikram Singh Shrivastava,Virendra Singh Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate,D.K.Kesarwani,Dilip Kumar,Rajiv Gupta,Satish Trivedi,Shantanu Pandey,Sunil Kumar Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
Hon'ble Shiv Shanker Prasad,J.
(Per: Hon. Ashwani Kumar Mishra, J.)
1. This criminal appeal arises out of a judgment and order of conviction and sentence, dated 14.09.2007, passed by the Additional Session Judge, Fast Track Court, Court No.25, Allahabad in Session Trial Nos. 433 of 2006 (State vs. Pawan Jaiswal) and 434 of 2006 (State vs. Pawan Jaiswal), whereby the accused appellant has been convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC with fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of fine he is to further undergo one year rigorous imprisonment. The accused appellant has also been convicted and sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment under section 3/25 Arms Act with fine of Rs.500/- and in default of fine he is further undergo one month rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences shall run concurrently.
2. Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 03.01.2006 the daughter of first informant (PW-1 Rajeshwar Prasad Gupta) aged about 20 years alongwith her cousin Km. Varsha Gupta (PW-2) aged about 15 years had gone to Samiya Mai Temple at 07.30 PM for Darshan and just then the accused appellant, who is the resident of same locality and is already known to his daughter and PW-2, came and fired upon her on head from a close distance in which she sustained injuries and fell. PW-2 rushed to the informant's house and narrated the incident. The first informant alongwith his family members took his injured daughter to Swaroop Rani Nehru Hospital where her treatment is going on. On the basis of such written report of PW-1 the First Information Report was initially lodged as Case Crime No.2 of 2006 under Section 307 IPC, Police Station Colonelgang, District Allahabad.
3. The injured on being taken to the hospital was examined by Dr. Major Vipul Kumar (PW-5), who found her having following injuries:-
"(i) An wound of entry on parietal region measuring 2cm x 1 cm x 0.5 cm. No wound of exit.
(ii) Depression in forehead measuring 3cm."
The doctor has also mentioned in injury report that the injured was brought by Yogendra Prasad Pandey on 03.01.2006 at 08.00 PM. The injured ultimately succumbed to her injuries on 07.01.2006. The postmortem of the deceased was conducted at 02.40 PM on 08.01.2006 in which the cause of death is recorded as Coma as a result of following ante-mortem injuries in brain:-
"(i) Surgically stitched wound 6cm long on right side of head just above right ear.
(ii) Surgically stitched wound 7cm long on left side of head just on left ear."
4. After the death of the deceased the offence was altered to Section 302 IPC in place of 307 IPC.
5. The police proceeded with investigation under Chapter XII of the Criminal Procedure Code and recorded statement of various witnesses, including Yogendra Prasad Pandey, who informed the police that he was not present at the spot and on hearing the gunshot he rushed to the place of occurrence and found the deceased in an injured condition; and she was taken to the hospital. The statement of Yogendra Prasad Pandey recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on 03.01.2006 mentions that he came to know that the gunshot injury was caused by the accused appellant.
6. The accused appellant was arrested and on his pointing out the weapon of assault was recovered on 14.01.2006. A recovery memo was prepared noticing that a cartridge was stuck in .315 pistol. The recovery was made from the premises of a girls school at 08.15 PM. In respect of the above recovery another First Information Report was registered as Case Crime No.11 of 2006 under Section 25 Arms Act at Police Station Colonelganj, District Allahabad.
7. On the basis of material collected during the course of investigation the prosecution found both the offence to have been committed by the accused appellant and charge sheet was accordingly submitted against the accused appellant on which the Magistrate took cognizance and committed the case to the court of sessions. Session Trial No. 433 of 2006 under Section 302 IPC and Session Trial No. 434 of 2006 under Section 3/25 Arms Act were accordingly registered. Charges were read out to the accused appellant on 07.08.2006, who denied the accusations and consequently trial commenced. Both the sessions trial have been tried together and decided vide composite judgment challenged in this appeal.
8. The prosecution in order to establish the charge against accused appellant produced oral testimony of PW-1, who happens to be the father of deceased and first informant. In his deposition he has disclosed that the incident occurred at 07.30 PM on 03.01.2006 at Samiya Mai Temple. He claimed to have received information of incident at 07.40 PM from Varsha (PW-2) while he was at home. He has stated that he left alongwith family members to the temple and found that his daughter was being taken on rickshaw by Yogendra Prasad Pandey, who happens to be the Manager of the temple. PW-2 also went with him to the hospital and her daughter was unconscious. He also deposed that contents of the report was dictated by him but he does not remember the name of the scribe. In his cross-examination PW-1 has supported the prosecution case as per which he saw his daughter on stature in the hospital in emergency ward. At one point of time he stated that he saw his daughter first at 09.00 PM but this statement was modified and it was stated that he reached the hospital at 08.05 PM.
9. PW-2 Km. Varsha, who is the star witness of the prosecution case and has seen the incident, has also deposed in support of the prosecution case, by stating that she alongwith her sister went to the temple at 07.30 PM and the accused appellant who is resident of the same locality was standing on stairs. After Darshan PW-2 alongwith deceased were returning and while she bowed on stairs the accused fired on her head with a country made pistol (Tamancha) and fled. She also stated that deceased had fallen and blood was oozing from her body. The tube light and bulb were lit in the temple complex in which she saw the incident and recognized the accused appellant. It is also disclosed that seeing her sister bleeding she rushed to the house and informed PW-1 about the incident. PW-2 deposed that she recognized the assailant and is not aware as to who took the injured to the hospital. In her statement PW-2 has further stated that she and the deceased used to visit temple previously also, on Tuesday.
10. The prosecution has also adduced the evidence of doctor who examined the deceased first and prepared the injury report as PW-3, as also the doctor who conducted postmortem as PW-5. The recovery of firearm has been verified by the PW-4. PW-6 is the Head Moharrir, who verified the Chik FIR. PW-7 is the subsequent Investigating Officer of Case Crime No.2 of 2006. PW-8 is the Investigating Officer of Case Crime No.11 of 2006 and PW-9 is the Cons. Moharrir who verified the Chik FIR lodged under the Arms Act.
11. The firearm recovered on the pointing out of the accused appellant was sent to Forensic Science Laboratory and its report has been produced before the court and is marked as paper no.12A/1. As per the forensic report the bullet recovered from the deceased marked as EB-1 has not entirely matched with the firearm recovered on the pointing out of the accused appellant. The cartridge marked as EC-1 however has matched with the firearm recovered.
12. We may also note that the Investigating Officer had collected plain earth and bloodstained earth from the spot which was also sent for forensic laboratory. The blood found on the spot has been found disintegrated and has not matched with the origin.
13. Documentary evidences have also been adduced by the prosecution consisting of two FIRs as Ex.Ka. 14 & 21; written report as Ex.Ka.1; recovery memo of country made pistol (Tamancha) with empty cartridge as Ex.Ka. 11; injury report as Ex.Ka.13; postmortem report as Ex.Ka.2; three site plan with index as Ex.Ka.18, 3 & 16.
14. The incriminating material which surfaced during the course of trial against the accused appellant was confronted to him. In his statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused appellant denied the allegation made against him. He has specifically denied the recovery of alleged firearm at his pointing out and has also stated that he has not committed the offence. A written statement has also been given by the accused appellant under section 313 Cr.P.C. as per which the family of the deceased and accused appellant had close relations and that the first informant had no regular source of income. The first informant had a shop on which locks were put as the loan amount availed against the shop was not repaid. The first informant accordingly was in financial distress during the last 4-5 years. It is further stated that the shop of the brother of accused appellant had fallen and, therefore, he needed a shop and the first informant assured that in case funds are provided he would liquidate the loan and provide his shop to him. For such purposes the accused appellant states that a sum of Rs.3 lac was given to the first informant. After reclaiming the shop PW-1 started running a STD PCO booth and did not provide the shop to the family of the accused appellant. He has further stated that about 10-15 days before of the incident the accused appellant had gone to first informant demanding his money back and there were hot talks and it is only for such reason that he has been falsely implicated by the first informant.
15. On the basis of oral and documentary evidence led by the prosecution, as noticed above, the trial court has come to the conclusion that the deceased was fired on her head by the accused appellant which caused her death and, therefore, the charge under section 302 IPC is made out against the accused appellant. The trial court has also found the recovery of firearm to have been duly proved from the accused appellant beyond reasonable doubt. For the purpose of returning such finding the court has essentially relied upon the oral testimony of PW-2, who was present on spot and has seen the occurrence. This ocular testimony therefore forms the basis of conviction of accused appellant under section 302 IPC. Thus aggrieved by the judgement and order of conviction and sentence dated 14.09.2007 the accused appellant has preferred the present appeal before this Court.
16. Sri Sangam Lal Kesarwani and Sri J. P. Gupta, learned counsels for the accused appellant submits that the accused appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case and that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused appellant beyond reasonable doubt. It is also contended that the prosecution story is wholly shaky inasmuch as the incident is claimed to have occurred at 07.30 PM and the injured was taken to the hospital by the Manager of the temple Yogendra Prasad Pandey but he has not been examined as a witness before the court below. It is urged that the statement of PW-1 that he took the injured to the hospital is clearly contrary to the records. With reference to the statement of PW-1 in the cross-examination it is stated that the PW-1 actually came to know about the incident much later and reached the hospital for the first time at 09.00 PM but on the prompting of lawyer such statement was changed and the time of reaching the hospital was corrected as 08.05 PM. It is also stated that the incident occurred somewhere else and that is why the information with regard to it reached late to the family members and the father actually reached the hospital at 09.00 PM. It is also submitted that the presence of PW-2 on the spot is not established and that she actually had not seen the incident and that PW-2 in her statement although has claimed that she was present at the time of occurrence and has rushed home thereafter to inform the family members but has not visited the hospital thereafter. It is also argued that the presence of PW-2, on the spot, is wholly doubtful and, therefore, the conviction based upon her testimony is unsustainable.
17. Learned counsels for the accused appellant further submits that at about 07.30 PM in the evening generally a lot of crowd collects in and outside the temple and in the event incident occurred, as is being suggested by the prosecution, large number of persons would have seen the incident including the vendors who run their shops etc. and non production of any such witnesses during the course of trial has weakened the prosecution case. It is also urged that the source of light has not been explained and although PW-2 has stated that bulbs and tube lights were lit in the campus but in the site plan they have not been specified. It is also argued that there is absolutely no motive specified as to why the accused appellant killed the deceased, and it is only in the statement of PW-1 at the stage of cross examination that a statement is made that the accused appellant used to harass the deceased and that no such disclosure was made either in the statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. or in the FIR or even in the examination in chief of PW-1. Submission is that such statement is clearly an afterthought.
Learned counsel also challenges the recovery of firearm on the ground that there are no independent witness to the recovery and that the bullet recovered from the body of the deceased has otherwise not matched with the firearm. It is also urged that although recovery of plain earth and bloodstained earth is shown to have been made but the Investigating Officer in his statement admitted that when he arrived at the place of occurrence he had not collected bloodstained earth as the same was not found. Lastly, learned counsels for the accused appellant submits that the accused appellant has remained incarcerated for the last 16 years 9 months and considering the fact that evidence of eye witness is shaky and not reliable the accused appellant be acquitted of the charge levelled against him.
18. Sri Satish Trivedi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Ajay Kumar Pandey, for the informant submits that this a case of direct evidence where the testimony of sole eye witness PW-1 is convincing and as her ocular testimony matches with the medical evidence the conviction of the accused appellant based upon her statement is entirely reliable. It is also stated that the motive with regard to commissioning of crime is clearly disclosed by PW-1 in his cross-examination and that the accused appellant at the time of recovery had also informed the police that he wanted to marry the deceased but his proposal was not accepted by her on account of which he shot her. Learned counsel further urges that the mere fact that bloodstained earth has not matched would not be material as after the incident several persons may have arrived on the spot or crossed the floor where blood was lying and, therefore, the mere fact that in forensic report the blood has not matched is not material.
19. It is also argued that the fact that bullet recovered from the deceased has not matched with the firearm recovered at the pointing out of the accused appellant would not weaken the prosecution case inasmuch as the ocular testimony of PW-2 is otherwise wholly reliable. Learned counsel further submits that the bulbs and tube lights were lit in the campus and, therefore, the incident has been seen by the PW-2, otherwise.
20. It is also urged that there is neither any suggestion that place was not lit and there was absence of light on spot, nor there was any suggestion given that the incident had occurred somewhere else. Lastly, it is argued that the medical evidence clearly supports the ocular testimony and that the exact motive of the offence must have been known to accused appellant and its non narration is not of any significance.
21. Learned A.G.A. for the State has adopted the argument advanced on behalf of the informant and submits that the conviction and sentence awarded to accused appellant suffers from no infirmity.
22. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the materials brought on record.
23. Prosecution case is that deceased alongwith her sister Varsha had gone to Samiya Mai Temple for offering prayers when the accused appellant fired on the head of deceased and she fell. Sister of the deceased (PW-2) was present nearby in the temple campus. It is also the prosecution case that accused appellant being resident of the same locality was known to deceased and the eye witnesses PW-2 identified him.
24. The deceased was taken to S.R.N. Hospital and the injury report clearly supports the prosecution case of deceased being shot on her head as a wound of entry on parietal region measuring 2cm x 1cm x 0.5 cm was found without any exit wound. Depression in forehead measuring 3cm was also found. The deceased apparently was operated at the hospital where she died on 07.01.2006 due to coma as a result of ante-mortem injuries. In the postmortem a surgically stitched wound 6cm long on right side of head just above right ear alongwith surgically stitched wound 7cm long on left side of head just on left ear was found. The cause of death was clearly homicidal on account of gunshot injury. The prosecution case that the deceased was shot from close distance, which proved fatal is, therefore, supported by medical evidence.
25. The question that falls for consideration is as to whether it was the accused appellant who had fired upon the deceased or not?
26. Trial court upon evaluation of evidence found the oral testimony of PW-2 to be reliable as per which she saw the accused appellant firing on the head of the deceased from a close distance on stairs in the temple. Presence of PW-2 as also her act of seeing the deceased has been found reliable and made the basis for conviction of the accused appellant. Trial court has also taken into consideration the fact that the country made pistol (Tamancha) has been recovered on the pointing out of the accused appellant which has been found to be the weapon used in the crime. The recovery of firearm at the pointing out of the accused appellant is thus an additional factor for holding the accused appellant guilty of commissioning the offence.
27. The argument on behalf of the accused appellant is essentially two fold. (i) It is urged that the presence of PW-2 on the spot is doubtful and contradictions in the statement are sought to be pointed out to discredit her disposition. It is also argued that PW-2 in fact was not present on the spot and the incident took place somewhere else, and that in the event the incident had taken place within the temple, other witnesses would have seen the occurrence and they could have been produced. It is suggested that there are various shops and shopkeepers selling flowers etc. near the the temple campus but none of them are produced. It is also argued that source of light has not been explained in the site plan. (ii) Other limb of submission on behalf of the accused appellant is that recovery of country made pistol itself is doubtful as it has not been proved in the manner required in law and the forensic report does not support the prosecution case.
28. So far as the first issue with regard to presence of PW-2 is concerned, we find that the relationship of PW-2 as being the cousin of deceased is not disputed. PW-2 in her statement has stated that she used to visit temple previously also on Tuesdays. The prosecution version that PW-2 had accompanied the deceased to temple on a Tuesday thus seems quite natural. The temple otherwise is within walking distance of the house of the deceased. The visit of PW-2 to the temple alongwith the deceased, therefore, seems natural as young girls in Indian Families are not allowed to go alone and the company of younger sister would clearly be preferred.
29. PW-2 has stated that she was present at the place of occurrence and saw the accused firing from a close distance on the deceased. Her statement is supported by the injury report in which wound of injury on the parietal region is seen and no exit wound is noticed. The injury was found fresh and caused by a firearm. The statement of PW-2 that his sister had bend near the stairs when she was fired by the accused appellant from a close distance by a firearm is, therefore, clearly consistent with the injury report. The injury report otherwise has been proved by the PW-3.
30. In the autopsy report also it has been found that a surgical stitch wound existed both on left and right side of the head of the deceased. This appears normal as the bullet fired on the deceased was stuck in her head and had to be surgically removed. This bullet has been recovered and has been sent for forensic report. The prosecution story that the deceased was shot in her head from a close distance in the presence of PW-2, who has seen the incident, therefore, entirely tallies with the injury report and the postmortem report.
31. The argument advanced on behalf of the appellant that as the Manager of the Temple Yogendra Prasad Pandey had taken the injured to the hospital he ought to have been examined as a witness by the prosecution, and the failure to do so has weakened the prosecution case, does not appeal to us.
32. Our attention has been invited to the statement of Yogendra Prasad Pandey under Section 161 Cr.P.C. in which he has clearly stated that he was not present at the place of occurrence at the time of incident and was outside the temple when he heard the gunshot, whereafter he rushed inside to find the injured bleeding clearly reveals that Yogendra Prasad Pandey had actually not seen the incident with his own eyes. He arrived at the place of occurrence later. He has only taken the injured to the hospital. In such circumstance, the prosecution version is not weakened on account of non-production of Yogendra Prasad Pandey. It was otherwise open for the defence to have produced Sri Pandey as a defence witness, but this has not been done. No suggestion has otherwise been given to the prosecution witnesses questioning the non-production of Sri Pandey during the course of trial. In such view of the matter, the plea with regard to non-production of Sri Pandey is found inconsequential.
33. Sri Sangam Lal Kesarwani has placed the statement of PW-1 and PW-2, as also their deposition at the time of cross-examination, to submit that PW-1 had not reached the place of occurrence or had not joined Yogendra Prasad Pandey in taking the injured to the hospital or that PW-1 reached hospital a little late are also not material, inasmuch as, PW-1 is admittedly not an eye-witness to the incident. Whether he joined Yogendra Prasad Pandey in taking the injured to hospital or he reached the hospital after the injured had arrived at the hospital do not make any impact on the prosecution case as these are equally inconsequential. Even if the defence argument that PW-1 reached the hospital directly is accepted, yet it would not cause any dent in the prosecution case.
34. The argument of Sri Kesarwani that the deceased was shot somewhere else and not within the temple is an argument which has been raised for the first time in appeal before us. We find from the statement of witnesses that no such suggestion was given by the defence to any of the prosecution witnesses. No defence witness has otherwise been examined to prove that the deceased was shot somewhere else and not within the temple. We otherwise find such argument not to be tenable as it remains undisputed that the Manager of the Temple Sri Yogendra Prasad Pandey had taken the injured to the hospital. The very fact that Manager of the Temple took the injured to the hospital supports the fact that the incident did occur within the temple campus.
35. The defence argument that had the incident occurred within the temple, on a Tuesday evening, the crowd gathered would have seen the incident or that independent witnesses or shop owners ought to have been produced is required to be examined next.
36. Admittedly, no defence witness has been produced to demonstrate that any other person was also present who had seen the incident occurring in a different manner. It is a matter of common knowledge that members of public generally keep themselves away from such incident and do not volunteer to make depositions in Court. In such circumstances, we do not accept the defence argument that there existed shop owners/vendors who have not supported the prosecution story. We may reiterate that no shop owner has been produced to contradict the prosecution story. It is otherwise settled that the quality of deposition matters and not the numerical strength of witnesses.
37. One of the arguments of the defence is that the Investigating Officer did not find any blood on the spot and, therefore, recovery of blood stained earth and the fact that it did not match in the forensic report also requires consideration. The place of incident in this case is the temple which is usually visited by large number of persons. In the incident of the kind where someone is shot within the temple it is but natural that people would rush and the possibility of crossing the place of occurrence in the process cannot be wiped out. Temple otherwise is a place where constant sweeping and cleaning keeps happening on account of the movement of devotees and, therefore, contradiction in the statement of I.O. that he did not find any blood is not a material irregularity and would at best discredit the recovery of blood stained earth.
38. The other defence argument that source of light is not specified in the site plan is also a weak argument. During the cross-examination PW-2 has clearly stated that bulbs and tubelights were lit in the temple complex and in its light she could easily recognize the accused appellant does not appear to be unusual or doubtful. Even otherwise it is a matter of common knowledge that Samiya Mai Mandir is an old temple and existence of bulbs and tubelights in the temple complex would be obvious. No suggestion has been given by prosecution witnesses to doubt such statement nor any defence witness has been produced to prove that light did not exist at the time of occurrence in the temple. The argument in this regard is also repelled.
39. So far as the defence statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is concerned, although it is stated that a sum of Rs. 3 lac was paid to the father of the deceased, which he failed to return or that there was a heated talk between the accused and PW-1 but such statement cannot be accepted in the absence of any evidence in this regard. The defence statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is not a substantive piece of evidence nor can it be read as such. It is not a statement on oath which could be relied upon. The plea of false implication of accused for such reason therefore cannot be accepted.
40. The other contention on behalf of the defence doubting the recovery of firearm is required to be considered next. It is contended by Sri Kesarwani that the recovery has not been made on the pointing out of the accused appellant. He submits that the accused was taken on remand at 10.00 in the morning on 14.1.2018 but the recovery from a short distance from the police station has been made at about 8.15 in the evening. The argument is that firearm was arranged during this time from somewhere else to falsely implicate the accused appellant.
41. In our opinion not much importance can be attributed to a few hours delay in making recovery after the release of accused from the Jail. The concerned police personnels have other works to do and it is quite possible that after attending to those works the accused may have been taken to the place from where recovery was made. We do not accept the suggestion that for planting false recovery the police requires any extra time. This can always be done in advance, if recovery is to be planted. No time is required for such purpose nor any motive can be attributed for the routine delays in performance of official duties. Mere fact that recovery was made at 8.15 in the evening thus cannot be a ground to question the recovery itself. The recovery has otherwise been proved by PW-4.
42. We are of the view that not much importance can be attached to any alleged inconsistency in recovery of firearm as it is not mandatory in every case that the recovery of firearm has to be made, nor such recovery is a condition precedent for returning a finding of guilt where the eye-witnesses account is firm and reliable. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Nankaunoo vs State Of U.P, (2016) 3 SCC 317, where the Court observed as under:-
"Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the courts below failed to take note of the fact that the alleged weapon ''countrymade pistol' was never recovered by the investigating officer and in the absence of any clear connection between the weapon used for crime and ballistic report and resultant injury, the prosecution cannot be said to have established the guilt of the appellant. In the light of unimpeachable oral evidence which is amply corroborated by the medical evidence, non-recovery of ''countrymade pistol' does not materially affect the case of the prosecution. In a case of this nature, any omission on the part of the investigating officer cannot go against the prosecution case. Story of the prosecution is to be examined dehors such omission by the investigating agency. Otherwise, it would shake the confidence of the people not merely in the law enforcing agency but also in the administration of justice."
43. In the forensic report also the striation marks of firing pin, bleach and chamber have matched with the empty cartridges. The bullet recovered from the deceased however has not matched with the firearm. It may only lessen the importance of recovery of firearm at the pointing out of accused appellant, but in view of the ocular testimony of PW-2 the defence is not entitled to any benefit either on the count of recovery or non matching of bullet with the firearm in the forensic report.
44. So far as the motive of crime is concerned, the father of the deceased has stated that deceased was being harassed by the accused appellant since long. The mere fact that no prior complaint was made or such disclosure was not made earlier would not be to the prejudice of prosecution, inasmuch as, there is generally a reluctance to report such incidents as it often discredits the image of young girls in society. The fact that PW-1 had not disclosed such facts earlier at the time of lodging of the FIR would, therefore, not be material. Even otherwise in a case of availability of credible ocular testimony which matches with the medical report, the motive loses its importance.
45. Considering the nature of offence committed by the accused appellant upon a young lady who had apparently not accepted a proposal and has been shot dead from a close distance does not merit any leniency. We are of the view that such incident needs to be dealt with firmly and the court below has correctly awarded the sentence of life imprisonment.
46. For the reasons and deliberations made above, we find that this is a case in which a young girl has been shot from a close distance by the accused appellant in the presence of an eye-witness whose version is found credible and reliable. The finding of guilt returned against the accused appellant is, therefore, based upon appreciation of evidence on record which does not require any interference. Consequently, the appeal fails and is dismissed.
Order Date:- 30.09.2022 Ashok Kr.
(Shiv Shanker Prasad, J.) (Ashwani Kumar Mishra, J.)