.C. ), AIR2010 SC 3071 , 2010 (2 )ALD(Cri)617 , 2011 (72 ) ACC 519 , II (2011 )CCR54 (SC ), 2010 CriLJ3889 , 2010 (4 )ECrN (NULL ) 264 , 2010 INSC 471 , JT2010 (8 )SC 240 , 2010 (3 )RCR(Criminal)843 , 2010 (7 )SCALE597 , (2010 )12 SCC324 , (2011 )1 SCC(Cri)381 , [2010 ]9 SCR563 , ,MANU/SC/0553/2010
H.S. Bedi#J.M. Panchal#2322SC3320Judgment/OrderAIC#AIR#ALD(Cri)#Allahabad Criminal Cases#CCR#CriLJ#ECrN#INSC#JT#MANU#RCR (Criminal)#SCALE#SCC#SCC(Criminal)#SCRJ.M. Panchal,SUPREME COURT OF INDIA2012-9-24Time of recording,Punishment for murder,Offences Affecting the Human Body,Dying declaration,Legal topics,Honour killing,Punishment for murder,Offences Affecting the Human Body,Honour Killing,Murder,Offences Affecting the Human Body,Honor Killing,Legal topics,Cases in which statement of relevant fact by person who is dead or cannot be found, etc., is relevant,Number of witnesses,Examination-in-chief,Examination-in-chief,Examination-in-chief,Medical Jurisprudence,Indian Penal Code16125,15817,16759,16587,15735,16805 -->
MANU/SC/0553/2010
True Court CopyTM English
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Criminal Appeal No. 1180 of 2004
Decided On: 03.08.2010
Appellants: State of U.P. Vs. Respondent: Krishna Master and Ors.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
H.S. Bedi and J.M. Panchal JUDGMENT
J.M. Panchal, J.
1. The State of Uttar Pradesh has questioned legality of judgment dated April 12, 2002 rendered by Allahabad High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 574 of 2001 by which judgment dated February 20, 2001 passed by the learned Special Judge (EC Act)/Additional District Judge, Farrukhabad in Sessions Trial No. 17 of 1992 convicting the three respondents herein under Section 302 IPC and sentencing each of them to death with fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default RI for two years for commission of murder of six persons is reversed and they are acquitted.
2. The facts emerging from the record of the case are as under:
The incident in question took place on August 10/11, 1991. The first informant is one Jhabbulal. He, as well as the respondents, are residents of Village Lakhanpur, District, Farrukhabad, Uttar Pradesh. About one year before the date of incident, Sontara, daughter of the respondent No. 1 had eloped with Amar Singh, son of Jhabbulal. On one day, Amar Singh was spotted in the village and on learning that Amar Singh was back in village, the respondents had made an attempt to find him out to assault him and to take revenge. However, Ramwati, wife of Guljari, had learnt about the plans of respondents. She was neighbour of Jhabbulal. Therefore, she had given prior intimation to Amar Singh about the ill designs of respondents to assault him. Thereupon Amar Singh had left the village and this is how his life was saved. Later on, the respondents had learnt that because of the intimation given by Ramwati, Amar Singh had left the village and he could not be targeted. Since then, the respondents were bearing a grudge against Ramwati. It may be mentioned that after 3-4 days Sontara and Amar Singh had returned to the village. It is the prosecution case that at that time, Guljari Lal, husband of Ramwati had suggested the Respondent No. 1, in presence of first informant Jhabbulal to get his daughter married to the son of Jhabbulal. Thereupon, respondent No. 1 had taken exception and told Guljari Lal not to play with the honour of his family. Because of the suggestion made by Guljari Lal, the respondent No. 1 was highly agitated and had animus