2010 murder attempt case: Allahabad HC bench delivers split verdict in appeal against MLA’s acquittal

The division bench comprising Justice Attau Rahman Masoodi and Ajai Kumar Srivastava had reserved its verdict on August 27 this year. The judgment was issued on Friday.

“In view of difference of opinion between the members of the Bench, let the record of the Criminal Appeal be placed before the Honourable Chief Justice under Section 433 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding Section 392 Code of Criminal Procedure) for nomination of bench,” the court said in its judgment passed on December 20.

Abhay Singh won the 2022 Assembly election from Gosaiganj seat in Ayodhya on a Samajwadi Party (SP) ticket. It is suspected that Abhay Singh had cross-voted during the Rajya Sabha polls in February this year.

According to Friday’s court order, Vikas Singh, a resident of Maharajganj in Ayodhya, filed a case at the Maharajganj police station, saying that the incident took place on May 15, 2010, when he was returning from Faizabad to his home in Devgarh village in a Scorpio vehicle with his friend Dharmendra Singh and cousins Vansh Bahadur Singh and Ajit Pratap Singh.

At a turning point near Maiji’s Mandir, a black Scorpio overtook their vehicle and stopped a short distance ahead. In the headlights of his vehicle, Vikas Singh identified the accused persons, including Abhay Singh, inside the Scorpio. The accused then exited the vehicle and stood by the roadside.

According to the complaint, suddenly, three of the accused, including Abhay Singh, allegedly fired shots at Vikas Singh’s vehicle with the intent to kill him, while shouting to exhort each other. The accused were also hurling abuses. Dharmendra Singh, who was driving, accelerated the car and managed to escape, saving everyone’s lives.

Vikas Singh claimed there was a “continuing threat to his life and his family,” as Abhay Singh was a “known mafia figure” in the state. He also said that due to the sudden braking of the vehicle, he collided with the dashboard and suffered injuries.

After an FIR was registered, Vikas Singh was admitted to the district hospital in Faizabad, where he was under treatment for three days. The Investigating Officer, after completing the probe, submitted the chargesheet against seven accused persons: Rama Kant Yadav, Ravi Kant Yadav, Abhay Singh, Sandeep Singh, Shambhunath Singh, Girish Pandey and Vijay Kumar Gupta.

The chargesheet was filed under different sections including 147 (rioting), 149 (Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object), 504 (Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace), 506 (criminal intimidation) and 307 (attempt to murder) of IPC.

The police also invoked section 27 of Arms Act against the accused. On the request made by one of the accused, the trial of the case was transferred to Ambedkar Nagar district.

On May 10, 2023, the trial court in Ambedkar Nagar, after considering the evidence on record and testimony of the injured witness, came to the conclusion that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and consequently acquitted all the accused persons of the charges levelled against them.

The complainant (Vikas Singh) then filed an appeal against the sessions court judgment.

Justice Attau Rahman Masoodi, in his order, said that the counsel for the appellant has urged that the findings of acquittal are “not based on correct appreciation of evidence on record” and are “perverse”. The trial court has given too much weight to the contradiction and omission in the statement of injured witness while recording the findings of acquittal and overlooked the documentary evidence i.e. injury report and the Technical Expert report. The damage of the vehicle fully establishes that the incident had taken place in the manner as stated in the First Information Report. Therefore, the findings of acquittal deserve to be reversed and the accused persons may be convicted for the offence committed by them, Masoodi said.

Countering the assertions of the learned Counsel for the appellant, it has been stated on behalf of the accused-respondents that the trial court has rightly acquitted the accused persons of the charges levelled against them as the prosecution has utterly failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. It has been argued that the appellant has falsely implicated Abhay Singh and his associates due to inimical terms and political rivalry, as both of them belong to different political parties. It has also been pointed out that the appellant is not an innocent and law abiding citizen but has criminal cases to his credit and he, in order to take revenge against Abhay Singh, concocted a false story implicating Abhay Singh and other persons. As a matter of fact, no such incident as alleged has taken place.

Justice Masoodi added, “The view taken by the trial court is the only view or possible view is a guiding principle applicable to unhindered and impeccably approached trial unlike the case at hand. Taking the holistic view of the matter together with detailed reasoning indicated here-in-above, the court is of the view that findings of acquittal recorded by the trial court are erroneous, perverse and are not based on correct appreciation of evidence available on record. Consequently, the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment and order dated 10.05.2023 passed by the Special Judge (MP/MLA Court), Ambedkar Nagar is set aside.”

The court added in its order that accused persons, namely, Shambhunath Singh, Rama Kant Yadav, Ravi Kant Yadav, Abhay Singh and Sandeep Singh are convicted for the charges levelled against them under Sections 147, 149, 504, 506, 307 IPC.

“However, considering the overall circumstances including remoteness of the incident and delay in conclusion of trial, the court is of the view that ends of justice would be secured by sentencing them for six months Rigorous Imprisonment under Section 147 IPC, for three years Rigorous Imprisonment under Section 307/149 IPC with a fine of Rs 5,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, accused persons will further undergo one month simple imprisonment, for six months Rigorous Imprisonment under Section 504 IPC and for six months Rigorous Imprisonment under Section 506 IPC. Accused Abhay Singh, Rama Kant Yadav and Ravi Kant Yadav, who have been assigned the role of firing in the FIR are further sentenced to three years Rigorous Imprisonment under Section of the 27 Arms Act. All the sentences are directed to run concurrently. However, acquittal of accused Girish Pandey @ Dippul Pandey and Vijay Gupta passed by the trial court is approved due to lack of evidence,” the court said in its order.

Justice Ajai Kumar Srivastava, in his order, said, “I have had the privilege of going through the draft judgment prepared by my esteemed brother, Honourable Attau Rahman Masoodi, J. With utmost reverence, I find myself unable to concur with the same. The dissent arises because of legal principles which have come to be settled by a catena of judgments of Hon’ble the Supreme Court on the subject of appreciation of evidence in an appeal filed to assail acquittal.”

He added, “However, I do concur with the finding recorded by my esteemed brother insofar as the same relates to acquittal of respondents No.5 and 6, namely, Girish Pandey and Vijay Kumar Gupta, for the reasons given hereinafter.”

The court added, “There is nothing on record indicating that any inadmissible evidence was relied upon by the learned trial court or that, while recording the finding of acquittal of the accused/ respondents No. 2 to 8, the trial court failed to consider any evidence that was otherwise admissible, but the same was not considered. It can also not be said that the mention of various cases against the first informant, P.W.-2/ Vikas Singh, was the sole reason for recording the finding of acquittal of respondents No.2 to 8 in this case by the learned trial court. In the light of what has been discussed above, the present criminal appeal lacks merit, which deserves to be dismissed and is, accordingly, dismissed. “