Back
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
State of U.P.
Versus
Mahesh
CRIMINAL APPEAL 2976 of 1981
Decided On : 10 May 2005
Criminal Appeal 2976 Of 1981
Acquittal - Criminal Law - Section 147, 307, 148, 149 I. P. C. - The judgment discusses the evidence and circumstances to conclude that the accused Manna is guilty of the offence under Sections 323 and 326 I. P. C. The court also highlights the lack of firm evidence against the other accused and the absence of premeditation in the incident.
Fact of the Case:
The accused were tried for charges under Section 147 and 307 read with Section 149 I. P. C. for an incident involving assault and injuries. The trial judge recorded acquittal due to fault found with the prosecution case and the occurrence as claimed to have taken place.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence was not firm enough against the accused other than Manna to prove them guilty of any offence. It concluded that the incident was not preplanned or premeditated, and Manna alone was liable for the assault.
Issues: The main issue was the determination of guilt for the accused based on the evidence and circumstances surrounding the incident.
Ratio Decidendi: The court analyzed the evidence and circumstances to separate the grain of acceptable truth from the chaff of exaggerations and improbabilities, ultimately concluding that only Manna was guilty of the offence.
Final Decision: The acquittal of the accused respondents Virendra, Shankar, Mahesh, and Parashu Ram was affirmed, while the acquittal of the accused respondent Manna was converted into a conviction. Manna was held guilty for the offence under Sections 323 and 326 I. P. C. and sentenced accordingly.
( 1 ) FIVE persons namely, Mahesh, Manna, Virendra, Parashu Ram and Shankar were tried in sessions Trail No. 262 of 1976 before the II Additional Sessions Judge, Deoria and they came to be acquitted. The charges against Mahesh, Virendra, Parashu Ram and Shankar were of Section 147 and 307 read with Section 149 I. P. C. whereas accused respondent Manna was charged under sections 148 and 307 I. P. C. simpliciter. The incident took place on 19. 8. 1974 at about 8. 30 P. M. near Amar Jyoti Crossing, Police Station Kotwali, District Deoria and the F. I. R. was lodged the same night at 9. 30 P. M. by Dharamraj Singh, (PW 6) an eyewitness. Mahesh, Manna and virendra accused respondents are real brothers being sons of Radha Kishan, Parashu Ram and shankar are also real brothers being sons of Raghubir. Dharam Raj Singh and Ramagya sustained injuries in the incident.
( 2 ) PARASHU Ram died during the pendency of the appeal and the same abated respecting him on 28. 2. 2005.
( 3 ) SHORT listing, the facts are these: Dharam Raj Singh PW6 was the resident of village Bharauli, police Station Khukhundu, District Deoria. On 17. 8. 1974 the accused Parashu Ram and others had beaten up the wife and sister of one Dina, who used to run a tea stall in front of Amar Jyoti talkies in the town of Deoria Dharam Raj Singh was doing pairvy at the Police Station in respect of that incident after a report having been lodged by Dina. On account of such enmity, that very day when the informant was returning from Police Station Kotwali to his house, all the accused respondents along with others expressed their anger and annoyance against the informant and forbade him from doing pairvy for Dina. The informant refused to oblige them. The accused and their companions had then threatened the informant and had gone away.
( 4 ) ON the fateful day at about 8. 30 P. M. , the informant, Ramagya Chauhan, Ram Chhabila Misra, pradyumn Tiwari, Ramayan Shukla, Ram Lal Khatik and others were conversing near the crossing of Amar Jyoti Talkies where there was electric light. Some were taking betel leaves at the shop of Puranmasi. At that very time, the accused Parashu Ram and Mahesh were also taking betel leaves at that shop. They asked the shopkeeper to give betel leaves to them first. The informant told that they would take the betel leaves first. Parashu Ram and Mahesh thundered on the informant that he was meddling in all the matters posing to be a big Neta (leader) and they would see to it that his Netagiri (leadership) was put to an end. The informant objected to it, saying that they were unnecessarily raising their tone. Mahesh retorted angrily and exhorted the accused Manna, Virendra and Shanker calling by their names. Mahesh and Parashu Ram rushed towards the informant to assault him. He tried to save himself. By that time, Manna, Virendra and Shanker also leapt up surrounding the informant and started assaulting him with kicks and fists. When the companions of the informant came to his rescue and tried to save him, Mahesh and Parashu Ram instigated their companions to kill the informant by means of a knife. Then the accused Manna assaulted the informant on his neck by means of a Gupti (a sharp edged weapon)but the informant warded off the blow by his left hand. Then the accused Manna attacked him by gupti second time and injured him at two places on his left hand. When the accused Manna attacked the informant third time, the latter turned his neck and the Gupti blow landed on his back just below the neck. When the witness Ramagya tried to save the informant, the accused manna attacked him too by Gupti and he was also injured thereby. In the meantime, constables ram Sanware Rai, Chandrika Tiwari and Vijai Prakash Tiwari also reached the scene of occurrence. They saw the informant and Ramagya being injured by the accused Manna and they also saved the life of the informant. Out of the assailants, Mahesh was arrested at the spot with the help of the compa
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
