Back
2005 Supreme(All) 1812
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
M.C. Jain and M. Chaudhary, JJ.
State of U.P.
Versus
Ujiyare Lal, Ram Dayal, Surendra Ujiyare Lal and Kripal Singh
Government Appeal 88 of 1982
Decided On : 23 September 2005
Government Appeal 88 Of 1982
A.C.CHATURVEDI, AKASH MISHRA, K.M.MISHRA, K.P.Shukla, S.S.TIWARI,
The main legal point established in the judgment is the appellate court's authority to reappreciate evidence and reverse an acquittal based on erroneous appreciation of evidence, leading to a serious miscarriage of justice.
Headnote:
State v. Ujiyarey Lal and Ors. - Appeal against acquittal under section 307 IPC - Medical evidence, eyewitness testimony, and place of occurrence corroborate prosecution case - Accused convicted under Section 326 read with Section 34 IPC
Fact of the Case:
The State appealed against the acquittal of the accused Ujiyarey Lal and others in a case involving an assault under section 307 IPC. The prosecution's case was based on medical evidence, eyewitness testimony, and the place of occurrence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the trial judge's rejection of the prosecution case was based on erroneous appreciation of evidence, resulting in a serious miscarriage of justice. The court held that the medical evidence, eyewitness testimony, and the place of occurrence corroborated the prosecution's case.
Issues: The main issue was the correctness of the trial judge's acquittal of the accused despite the compelling evidence presented by the prosecution.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the trial judge's findings were perverse and based on erroneous appreciation of evidence, justifying the reversal of the acquittal. The court emphasized the importance of considering all matters on record and reasons given by the trial court in support of the acquittal.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the accused Ujiyarey Lal was reported to have died, abating the appeal against him. The accused respondents Surendra Singh and Kripal Singh were convicted under Section 326 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment.
( 1 ) THIS is an appeal filed on behalf of the State from judgment and order dated 15th of september, 1981 passed by VIII Additional Sessions Judge, Etawah in Sessions Trial No. 142 of 1981 State v. Ujiyarey Lal and Ors. acquitting them of the charge levelled against them under section 307 IPC.
( 2 ) DURING pendency of the appeal accused Ujiyarey Lal was reported having died and hence the appeal with regard to him stood abated vide order dated 7. 1. 2004.
( 3 ) BRIEF facts giving rise to this appeal are that at 6:15 p. m. on 26th of January, 1981 Tej Singh, brother of the injured Barmadin lodged an FIR at police station Phaphund, District Etawah alleging that. he and his brother Barmadin were on inimical terms with Ujiyarey Lal since long. At about 5:00 p. m. on 6th of January, 1981 Barmadin was returning back to his house at kesampur after taking permit of sugar from the side of Devarpur and as he reached at the water channel in between the two places, Ujiyarey Lal taking spud alongwith his sons Surendra Singh and Kripal Singh armed with knives and Chotey Lal with sickle met him and Ujiyarey Lal shouted that Barmadin should be killed and they would not let him go alive. Immediately all the four smote Barmadin giving " him blows with their respective weapons and on hearing the shrieks of Barmadin one Chandra Kumar who was going to Devarpur for giving cloth for stitching raised hue and cry attracting thereby Tej Singh and Vishambhar Singh to the scene of occurrence. Believing that Barmadin was done to death all the four miscreants bolted away. The police registered a crime on the basis of written report handed over to them at the police station and made entry regarding registration of the crime in the GD accordingly.
( 4 ) INJURED Barmadin was got medically examined by Dr. Shiv Kripal Singh, Medical Officer in-charge, Male Dispensary, Phaphund at 6:45 p. m. the same day. His medical examination revealed below noted injuries on his person:
1) Lacerated wound in zig-zag shape on forehead from left eyebrow towards right side 6cm x 1/2 cm x bone deep, bleeding profusely. Frontal bone suspected to be fractured. Advised x-ray of front of kull. 2) Lacerated cum incised wound on upper lip on right side placed vertically measuring 21/2 cm x 1/2 cm x bone deep upto maxilla on right side Lip divided in two parts Right side maxilla also cut and hanging teeth were loose. Bleeding profusely. Advised x ray of face. 3) Tongue crushed in center and ort tip lacerated wound. Bleeding profusely. Three teeth lying down in tongue wound extracted and sealed. One was lower incisor, two not identified. 4) Incised wound on right cheek measuring 1 /2 cm x 1/6 cm x skin deep, bleeding. 5) Incised wound at lower end of nose measuring 1 1/2 cm x 1/6 cm x skin deep extending both the nostrils, bleeding profusely. 1 6) Bleeding from nose, whole of nose is suspected to be fractured. Advised x-ray of face. 7) Small incised wound at right eyebrow I 1/2 cm x 1/4 cm x skin deep. Black eye formation in both the eyes. Swelling of face present. Complained of pain in whole of chest.
( 5 ) THE doctor opined that injuries No. "1,2,3,4 and 6 were grievous, and kept under observation. Rest of the injuries were simple in nature.- Injury No. 1 was caused by blunt object and rest by some sharp object. All the injuries were fresh. The doctor advised x-ray of whole face and the skull. He also observed that the patent was unconscious and his pulse was feeble.
( 6 ) X-RAY of whole face and the skull of the injured done under supervision of Dr. R. C. Sharma, radiologist, District Hospital, Etawah revealed fracture of right maxilla bone.
( 7 ) SI Raja Singh to whom investigation of the crime was entrusted went to Male Dispensary, phaphund next morning and recorded statement of Tej Singh, brother of the injured and the first informant. Then he alongwith Tej Singh went to the scene of occurrence and inspected the site. He collected blood stained and simple earth from
