Back
1995 Supreme(All) 40
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
G.S.N. TRIPATHI, J.
Lala Alias Ashvasthama - Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 2561 of 1979
Decided on : Jan 10, 1995
G.P .Dikshit, Hari Ashok Kumar, S.P.S. Raghav, Satish Trivedi, B.P. Gupta, Virendra Saran
The identity of an accused person can be established by the testimony of eyewitnesses, even if the incident occurred in the evening and there was limited visibility.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL APPEAL - SECTION 307, I.P.C. - CONVICTION - EVIDENCE - IDENTIFICATION OF ACCUSED - SUFFICIENCY - MOTIVE - SENTENCE - SEVERITY.
Fact of the Case:
Accused Lala, Sukhbir, and Sheetal were convicted under Section 307, I.P.C., for causing firearm injuries to Smt. Atlau and Sahdev. The incident occurred in the evening at around 8:30 p.m. in a grove. The prosecution alleged that the accused had a prior enmity with the victims and that they had challenged the victims to call their protectors, showing no fear of being identified.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution had proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The court relied on the testimony of the injured witnesses, Smt. Atlau and Sahdev, as well as the testimony of other eyewitnesses who had rushed to the scene after hearing the alarm raised by Smt. Atlau. The court also considered the medical evidence, which confirmed that the victims had sustained firearm injuries. The court rejected the defense evidence, finding it to be unreliable and fabricated.
Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution had proved the identity of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. 2. Whether there was sufficient motive for the accused to commit the crime. 3. Whether the sentence imposed by the trial court was too severe.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the identity of the accused had been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The court relied on the testimony of the injured witnesses, who had identified the accused in the torchlight, as well as the testimony of other eyewitnesses who had seen the accused fleeing the scene. The court also considered the fact that the accused had not attempted to conceal their identity, which suggested that they were not afraid of being identified. 2. The court held that there was sufficient motive for the accused to commit the crime. The court noted that there was a prior enmity between the accused and the victims, and that the accused had challenged the victims to call their protectors, showing no fear of being identified. 3. The court held that the sentence imposed by the trial court was not too severe. The court noted that the accused had caused firearm and almost fatal injuries to two persons without any provocation, and that it was only due to God's grace that the victims' lives were saved. The court also noted that the accused had shown no remorse for their actions.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court.
G.S.N. Tripathi
1. Accused Lala @ Ashvasthama has been convicted on a charge under Section 307, I.P.C. Accused Sukhbir and Sheetal have been convicted on a charge under Section 307/34, I.P.C. The accused had been sentenced to undergo R.I. for four years on respective charges.
2. The prosecution case started on the basis of F.I.R. lodged by Dhoom Singh, P.W. 4 at the police station on 12.7.77 at 10 p.m. after covering a distance of 4 miles. The incident is said to have taken place in the same evening at about 8.30 p.m.
It has been alleged by the complainant in the F.I.R. that his brother Sahdev and mother Smt. Atlau, P.W. 5 were returning after giving food to his brother Sahdev and father Dalel Singh at their tube-well. The accused Lala @ Ashvasthama, Sheetal and Sukhbir met them on the way in the grove. Sukhbir ordered his mother Smt. Atlau to stop. Thereupon Sheetal said that it was a very good opportunity and the complainant, brother and mother should be done to death. The complainant Prakash, Kalu and others, who were talking at the tube- well nearly heard the alarm. Hearing it, they rushed towards the place of occurrence. Accused Lala fired at Sahdev and Smt. Atlau and after causing injuries to these persons, they escaped. It was about 8.30 p.m. in the night. The complainant had gone with the injured persons to the police station along with the F.I.R
3. The case was registered in the police station and the injured persons were forwarded to Burhana P.H.C. for medical examination. Dr. Ajit Singh, C.W. 1 attended them in the same night at 10.35 p.m. Both the injured persons were bleeding. Therefore, he did not examine them and after applying first-aid, he referred them to the District Hospital for better treatment and examination.
4. The injured were thus taken to the District Hospital.
P.W. 2 Dr. Rakesh Kumar Jain examined Sahdev at 1.30 p.m. in the same night on 13.5.77 and found as many as 5 firearm injuries, which were quite fresh. These injuries were dressed and some medicine had been applied.
5. He examined Smt.Atlau at 2.30 a.m. in the same night and found as many as four firearm injuries. The injuries were kept under observation. Dr. Manjula Gupta, Radiologist took the X-ray of these injured persons. Only radio opaque metallic substances were found inside the wound. No fracture was observed.
6. After usual investigation, a charge-sheet was laid against the accused. The injuries of the injured persons have been noted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in the body of his judgment. Hence they are not being repeated here.
The prosecution has examined P.W. 5 Smt. Atlau, the injured person. She has narrated the entire prosecution story as contained in the F.I.R further she stated that after giving food to her husband and son, she was returning from the tube-well along with Sahdev, her son. In the grove of Shetal, she saw the three accused Lala, Shetal and Sukhbir standing. They said that these two persons (namely Smt. Atlau and Sahdev) had constructed a wall. They also used to pluck mango fruits and thus they had caused a lot of botheration to them. They asked Smt. Atlau to halt and further said that she could call anybody she liked in defiant manner. She raised alarm. Thereupon. Shetal asked Lala to fire at them, Lala accordingly fired at Sahdev. After receiving the shot, Sahdev fell down. Prakash, Hukum and Dhoom Singh and others came nearby. Then these culprits fired at her also. Thereupon, they tried to escape. The witnesses chased them but they ran away. Dhoom Singh, her son applied cloth bandage upon the injuries of these persons and took them to his tube-well and from there, they were brought to the hospital, police station etc.
7. P.W. 4 Dhoom Singh, the complainant, was at his tube-well. He has also deposed that after providing food at the tube-well, Smt. Atlau and his brother Sahdev were returning. There was enmity between the accused and the complainant side from before. At about 8.30 p.m. shortly af
