Back
1988 Supreme(All) 194
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
A.N. DIKSHITA, J.
Chandra Bhan - Appellant
Versus
State Of U.P. – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1338 of 1979
Decided on : Apr 11, 1988
D.P.S.Chauhan
The prosecution must establish a sufficient motive, promptly lodge the FIR, prove the presence of witnesses, and establish the status of the victim as a public servant discharging his duty in order to secure a conviction under sections 332 and 333 IPC.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL APPEAL - SECTION 332, 333 IPC - FACTUAL CIRCUMSTANCES - DELAYED FIR - MOTIVE - PRESENCE OF WITNESSES - EVIDENCE ANALYSIS - CONVICTION SET ASIDE:
Fact of the Case:
Chandra Bhan and Gavendra were convicted under sections 332 and 333 IPC for assaulting Jagdish Prasad Sharma, a lineman, while he was on duty. The prosecution alleged that the assault was motivated by the death of Narain Singh, Chandra Bhan's brother, who died due to electrocution four years prior. The appellants denied the charges and claimed false implication due to enmity.
Finding of the Court:
The court found several inconsistencies and doubts in the prosecution's case. The motive suggested was insufficient, there was an inordinate delay in lodging the FIR, and the presence of witnesses at the scene of the incident was not fully established. The court also noted that the prosecution failed to prove that Jagdish Prasad Sharma was a public servant discharging his duty at the time of the incident.
Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution had established a sufficient motive for the assault. 2. Whether the delay in lodging the FIR weakened the prosecution case. 3. Whether the presence of witnesses at the scene of the incident was fully proved. 4. Whether the prosecution had established that Jagdish Prasad Sharma was a public servant discharging his duty at the time of the incident.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the prosecution had failed to establish a sufficient motive for the assault, as the alleged motive was too remote and there was no evidence that Jagdish Prasad Sharma was responsible for the death of Narain Singh. The court also found that the delay in lodging the FIR, coupled with the lack of explanation, weakened the prosecution case and created a suspicion in the court's mind. Furthermore, the court held that the presence of witnesses at the scene of the incident was not fully proved, as their statements were inconsistent and they were not able to provide a clear account of the events. Lastly, the court held that the prosecution had failed to establish that Jagdish Prasad Sharma was a public servant discharging his duty at the time of the incident, which was an essential element for the offenses under sections 332 and 333 IPC.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentences of the appellants, and ordered their release.
A.N.Dikshita
1. This is an appeal by Chandra Bhan and Gavendra against the judgment and order dated 4-4-1979 passed by Sri S. N. Prasad, 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Bulandshahr. Both the appellants have been convicted under section 332 and 333 IPC and each has been sentenced to 9 months' R. I. on the first count and to 1 1/2 years' R. I. and a fine of Rs. 200/- on the second count. In default of payment of fine three months' further rigorous imprisonment has been ordered.
2. The prosecution story, in brief, was as follows : on 9-10-1974 Jagdish Prasad Sharma, PW 2, lineman in the Rural Electrification Sub-Division, Debai, Bulandshahr, was directed by Sri Ramesh Chandra Agarwal, Assistant Engineer to attend to some repair work at the supply line of Kanchan Singh and Sohanpal's tubewell in village Silhari. While Jagdish Prasad Sharma was proceeding towards village Silhari on a cycle and had reached near the Bumba (canal culvert) at about 10.00 a. m. he saw the two appellants standing there armed with lathis. Appellant Chandra Bhan accosted Jagdish Prasad Sharma and stated that : " Jagdish ruk ja aaj tujhse apne bhai ki maut ka badla lunga jo bijli kay karant se mara tha. " Uttering these words both the appellants started assaulting Jagdish Prasad Sharma, PW 2. The victim raised an alarm upon which Ziley Singh, PW 1, Fateh Singh, PW 5, both of the electricity department and working nearby and Sohanpal, Tika Ram, Kanchan Singh and Mohd. Bilal rushed to the scene of occurrence and rescued him. Ziley Singh and Fateh Singh, PWs, took the injured to the hospital at Debai for medical aid. Dr. Suresh Chandra Singh, PW 3, examined Jagdish Prasad Sharma the same day at 1.35 p. m. He found 2 lacerated wounds, 4 contusions, one multiple contusion and two abrasions on the person of Jagdish Prasad Sharma. All the injuries except injury no. 4 was found to be simple caused by some blunt object. Regarding injury no. 4 X-ray was advised and it was ultimately found to be grievous in nature.
A written first information report of the incident was lodged by Jagdish Prasad Sharma through Fateh Singh at Police Out-post Ramghat the same day (9-10-74) at 5.30 p. m., the police station being 3 1/2 miles from the place of occurrence.
3. The usual investigation followed and ultimately a charge sheet was submitted against the appellants.
4. Apart from the formal witnesses the prosecution examined Ziley Singh PW 1 Jagdish Prasad Sharma PW 2, Mohd. Biial PW 4, and Fateh Singh PW 5, to give an ocular version of the incident.
The appellants pleaded not guilty and asserted that they had been falsely implicated in the case due to enmity.
5. The trial court on a consideration of the evidence on record held that the prosecution had succeeded in establishing its case and accordingly convicted and sentenced the appellants as already stated above.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the evidence on record.
There are certain features in the case which cast a reasonable doubt regarding the truthfulness of the prosecution case. The motive suggested by the prosecution was that about four years prior to the present incident one Narain Singh, brother of Chandra Bhan appellant, had died as a result of electrocution while he was cutting the electric wire and the appellants with a view to take revenge of his death had assaulted Jagdish Prasad Sharma. The prosecution has not alleged that Jagdish Prasad Sharma was in any way responsible for Narain Singh's death. If motive was to be attributed in this manner, the appellants would be said to have motive against the entire electricity department. This could not be so. Further it has come in evidence that during these four years Jagdish Prasad Sharma visited village Silhari on various occasions in connection with his official duty but nothing untoward happened. The motive suggested for the commission of this offence, therefore, cannot be held to be sufficient.
7. There is inordinat
