Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
A. N. Mulla and B. N. Nigam, JJ.
DRONACHARYA - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH - Respondents
Criminal Appeal 219 Of 1956
Decided On : 07/16/1958
CRIMINAL LAW - MURDER - SECTION 302, INDIAN PENAL CODE - ADMISSION OF ACCUSED - SPLITTING UP OF STATEMENT - LEGALITY - EVIDENCE ACT, 1872, SECTION 21.
Fact of the Case:
Appellant Dronacharya, a 14-year-old boy, was convicted of murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for attacking Ram Kishore with a lathi, causing serious injuries that led to his death. The prosecution alleged that the attack was motivated by a prior incident where Ram Kishore had beaten Dronacharya, and that Dronacharya's father, Mohan Lal, had expressed a desire to settle the matter himself. The defense claimed that Dronacharya acted in self-defense after being assaulted by Ram Kishore.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court convicted Dronacharya based on his admission in a statement under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, where he admitted to striking Ram Kishore but claimed it was in self-defense. However, the court rejected the self-defense claim based on medical evidence. The court also doubted the presence of other prosecution witnesses at the scene of the incident and found their testimonies unreliable.
Issues: 1. Whether the trial court erred in splitting up the appellant's statement under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and accepting only the inculpatory part while rejecting the exculpatory part. 2. Whether the prosecution evidence was sufficient to establish the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the trial court erred in splitting up the appellant's statement under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. According to the settled law, an admission made by an accused person cannot be split up and part of it used against them. An admission must be used either as a whole or not at all. 2. The court found that the prosecution evidence was unreliable and insufficient to establish the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The court noted that the trial court had doubts about the presence of other prosecution witnesses at the scene of the incident and found their testimonies unreliable. The court also found that the appellant's statement, when read as a whole, could not be made the basis for his conviction.
Final Decision: The court set aside the appellant's conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and acquitted him. The court ordered his immediate release from jail unless he was wanted on some other charge.
( 1 ) APPELLANT Dronacharya who is a young lad of about 14 or 15 years of age has been convicted under Section 302. P. Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life by the Additional Sessions judge, Hardo. The charge against the appellant was that on 15-5-1955, at about sunset time he attacked Ram Kishore aged about 16 years, with a lathi in the grove known as Mithnu Wala bagh in village Dhonhi, Police station Sandi, District Hardoi as a result of which Ram Kishore sustained serious injuries and died a few days later. The appellants younger brother Kirpacharya aged ten years and his father Mohan Lal were also prosecuted in this case on the allegation that they had also participated in this attack upon Ram Kishore, but the learned trial court acquitted them and did not believe the prosecution evidence on this point.
( 2 ) THE prosecution story is that both the appellant and Ram Kishore deceased belonged to the same family though they were very distantly related. Sheo Charan and Ganga Charan were two brothers and Ram Kishore was the great grandson of Sheo Charan, while the appellant was the grandson of Ganga Charan. Even on the date of the incident there was some property which was owned jointly by the two branches of the family and Mithnu Wala Bagh was included in this joint property. According to the prosecution some ten or twelve days before the incident Ram kishore deceased had given a beating to Dronaeharya appellant in this very grove and the dispute arose on the plucking of mangoes. When the appellant complained to his parents, they went to Jamuna Shankar (P. W. 1), the father of Ram Kishore and protested against the conduct of Ram Kishore. Jamuna Shankar did not take any action against Ram Kishore on this complaint and. Mohan Lal, the father of the appellant came dissatisfied after the interview. He even gave an expression to the thought that he would settle the matter himself. It is alleged that it was on account of this ill-feeling that Mohan Lal and his two sons attacked Ram Kishore.
( 3 ) COMING to the date of the incident, the prosecution story is that P. W. 2 Chheda Lal, the younger brother of Ram Kishore deceased, was in the Mithnu Wala Bagh plucking and eating mangoes. Mohan Lal along with the appellant and his younger sou Kirpacharya was also present in this grove and was collecting some mangoes. Accidentally a calif belonging to Jamuna shankar strayed away and Ram Kishore came to the Mithnu Wala Bagh in search of that calf. When the appellant and his father saw Ram Kishore in the mango grove, they thought it to be a good opportunity of taking vengeance. According to the prosecution case Mohan Lal was the first to give a lathi blow to Ram Kishore and then his two sons joined in the fight and showered lathi blows upon Ram Kishore. Ram kishore tried to run away, but he succeeded in running away upto a few paces only where he was lolled down, Chheda Lal (P. W. 2), who was already present in the grove raised an alarm and so did Ram Kishore. On hearing the shouts of his two sons, Jamuna Shankar, who was at a short distance, rushed up towards the grove. So did many other persons who, when they came io the mithnu Wain Bagh, saw the appellant along with his father and brother giving lathi blows to ram Kishore. Jamuna Shankar himself did not sec the actual assault, but he saw the three assailants running away. Jurnuna Shankar and Chheda Lal then brought Ram Kishore, to their house and next morning when his condition deteriorated they took him to Sandi Hospital, which was 4 1/2 miles away. When the Doctor saw Ram Kishore, he told Jamuna Shankap that the condition of Ram kishore was serious and advised him to lodge a report at the police station. It was after this advice was given to Jamuna Shankar that he proceeded to police station Sandi and lodged the first information report, which was recorded at 2. 10 P. M. on 16-5-1955.
( 4 ) IN the report the facts mentioned above were briefly narrated with the notice
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
