Back
1999 Supreme(All) 1242
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
B. K. SHARMA
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH - Appellant
Versus
RAMESH - Respondents
G. A. 1428 Of 1994
Decided On : 08/23/1999
Apul Mishra
The High Court has the power to interfere with the order of acquittal passed by the trial court if the trial court's judgment is perverse, erroneous, and unreasonable.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL APPEAL - FACT OF THE CASE - Three accused-respondents were acquitted by the trial court for the offence under Section 308/34 IPC. The State filed an appeal against the acquittal.
Fact of the Case:
The prosecution case was that the accused-respondents assaulted the injured with weapons and inflicted various injuries on his body. The injured was sent to the hospital where he was medically examined and the injuries were found to be grievous. The police registered a case against the accused-respondents and submitted a charge sheet. The trial court acquitted the accused-respondents.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the trial court's judgment was perverse and erroneous. The High Court found that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and that the accused-respondents were guilty of the offence under Section 308/34 IPC.
Issues: Whether the trial court's judgment was perverse and erroneous.
Ratio Decidendi: The High Court held that the trial court's judgment was perverse and erroneous because the trial court had failed to appreciate the evidence on record and had made observations that were against the facts. The High Court also held that the trial court had erred in rejecting the testimony of the injured and the informant.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the State's appeal and convicted the accused-respondents of the offence under Section 308/34 IPC. The High Court sentenced the accused-respondents to three years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2000 each.
( 1 ) THIS is a Government Appeal against the judgement and order dated 18-5-1994 passed by Sri R. S. Maurya, the then Assistant Sessions Judge, Jhansi in Sessions Trial No. 126 of 1991, under Sections 308/34 I. P. C. State v. Ramesh and others, Police Station Chirgaon, district Jhansi whereby he acquitted the accused-respondents Ramesh, Har Narain, Kripa Ram and Siya Sharan under Section 308/34 IPC.
( 2 ) THE accused - respondents Ramesh, Har Narain and Kripa Ram were real brothers inter se. All the four accused - respondents, Brindavan injured and his brother Daya Ram informant were residents of Village aupara, Police Station Chigaon, district Jhansi. Brindavan injured had purchased agricultural field of Lampu in the village.
( 3 ) THE prosecution case was that on 21- 8-1989 at about 10. 00 A. M. when Brindavan injured was ploughing his agricultural field in the village, Ramesh, Har Narain, Kripa Ram and Siya Sharan accused-respondents came there and asked him as to why he purchased the agricultural field of the Lampu to which he replied that if he had purchased the field of Lampu, he had paid money for it; that at that time, Ramesh accused-respondent carried a Khuluwa while Har Narain and Kripa Ram accused-respondents carried lathis, that Ramesh, Har Narain and Kripa Ram accused-respondents started abusing him while Siya Sharan accused-respondent exhorted them to kill him whereupon Ramesh accused-respondent assaulted Brindavan injured with Khuluwa while Har Narain and Kripa Ram accused respondents assaulted him with lathis and inflicted various injuries on his body; that the occurrence was seen by his real brother Daya Ram (P. W. 2); Chhotey Lal, Km. Meera daughter of Brindavan injured and Smt. Parvati wife of Daya Ram informent; that Daya Ram informant took the injured Brindavan to the Police Station and lodged a written F. I. R. at the police station on the same day at 11. 00 A. M. the distance of the police station being 5 Kms. from the place of occurrence; that on the basis of this report, a Chik report was prepared and a case was registered against all the accused - respondents for the offences under Sections 325/324/504/506 I. P. C.
( 4 ) BRINDAVAN injured was sent from the police station to Primary Health Centre, Chirgoan where he was medically examined by Dr. V. K. Tandon ( P. W. 5 ) on 21-8- 1989 at 2. 30 P. M. He recorded the following injuries on his person:-1. Incised wound 5 cm. X 5 cm. X bone deep on right side the head, 7cm. above the ear. 2. Contusion 7cm. X 8 cm. on back of right ear pinna. 3. Lacerated wound 1. 5 cm. X. 5 cm. bone deep just behind the lower part of right ear. 4. Constusion 6 cm. X 2 cm. on outer aspect of upper part of right arm. 5. Contusion 7 cm. X 4 cm. on back and middle of right forearm with suspected fracture under bone beneath6. Contusion 6 cm. X 4 cm. on right side of the upper part of back. 7. Multiple contusion out lying each other in an area of 9 cm. X 8 cm. on outer aspect of right thigh. 8. Multiple contusion in an area of 12 cm. X 7 cm. on outer aspect of upper half of right leg with suspected fracture bone under beneath. 9. Lacerated wound 1. 5 cm. x 5 cm. Xbone deep on front and lower part of right leg with suspected fracture bones under beneath. 10. Contused swelling 7 cm. x 6 cm. on inner side of right ankle with suspected fracture. 11. Lacerated wound 2. 5 cm. x 1 cm. x 6 bone deep on front and meadial side of mid- part of left leg with compound fracture of the bones under beneath. The fractured ends of bones are seen and palpated in the wound. 12. Contused swelling 8 cm. x 5 cm. on outer side of left ankle and lower part of leg. The suspected (sic) of bone under beneath.
( 5 ) ). Injury nos. 1,5,8,9,10 and 12 were kept under observation. In the opinion of the doctor, injury no. 1 was grievous. Injury No. 1 was caused by some sharp edged weapon while the rest injuries were caused by blunt and hard object. The duration of injuries was fresh. The doctor adv
