Back
2010 Supreme(All) 2331
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Yogendra Kumar Sangal, J.
Balwant Singh & Anr. -Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. -Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 230 of 1996
Decided On : 21-07-2010
Pramod Kumar Pandey, Jyotindra Misra, Amar Nath Dubey, A.K.Tripathi
The central legal point established in the judgment is the assessment of evidence, credibility of witnesses, and the determination of the accused's intention and preparation to commit the offense.
Headnote:
307 IPC - Criminal Law - [307, 307/34 IPC] - The judgment discusses the prosecution's case of attempted murder, the defense's claim of self-defense, and the evidence presented by both sides. The court analyzes the discrepancies in the accounts of the incident, the possession of the disputed property, and the credibility of witnesses. The court concludes that the accused came prepared to commit the offense, fired shots with the intention to kill, and were the aggressors in the incident, leading to their conviction under Section 307 IPC and Section 307/34 IPC.
Fact of the Case:
The case involves an incident where the accused attempted to forcibly take possession of a disputed property, resulting in a confrontation and the shooting of the victim. The court heard the prosecution's case, the defense's denial, and the evidence presented by both sides.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the accused guilty of attempted murder under Section 307 IPC and Section 307/34 IPC based on the evidence and the lack of credibility in the defense's claims of self-defense and property ownership.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the possession of the disputed property, the credibility of witnesses, and the discrepancies in the accounts of the incident presented by the prosecution and the defense.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the discrepancies in the accounts of the incident, the lack of credible evidence supporting the defense's claims, and the evidence indicating the accused's preparation and intention to commit the offense.
Final Decision: The appeals filed by the accused were dismissed, and the sentences awarded by the trial court were confirmed. The accused were found guilty and were to serve out their sentences.
Both these appeals were filed by the accused persons of S.T. No. 334/1989 under Sections 307, 307/34, P.S. Kuriwar, District Sultanpur against the judgment and order dated 21.06.1996 passed by IVth Additional Session Judge, Sultanpur convicting the accused appellants Balwant Singh and Lal Bahadur under Section 307 IPC and Ramakant and Shiv Kumar under Section 307/34 IPC. They were sentenced seven years R.I. (Balwant Singh and Lal Bahadur) and two years R.I. (Ramakant and Shiv Kumar) respectively.
2. As per prosecution case, informant Brahamdeen Shukla submitted a written report at P.S. concerned with the averments that he had purchased land from Jagannath Pandey situated at Haroda Bazar and he is constructing house on the same. Accused Balwant Singh and Lal Bahadur got executed a fake sale-deed in their favour of the same land. His house exit their from last eight years. On 25.05.1986 Balwant Singh, Lal Bahadur, Ramakant and Shiv Kumar at 1:00 P.M. in the day came at his house and tried to take forcibly possession. He and his brother Ramroop obstructed them. Balwant Singh and Lal Bahadur with an intention to kill them fired shot causing injuries to Ramroop. On their hue and cry, Rampal, Laxmi Narayan, Jagannath reached there and they rebuked the accused persons. By jeep he brought his brother Ramroop injured and unconscious position at P.S. On this report, a case was registered against all the four named accused under Section 307 IPC. Police started investigation in the matter. Injuries of the injured Ramroop were examined by the doctor. He prepared the injury report. Site plan of place of occurrence was prepared. Blood stain and Sadamitti and blood stain cloths of injured were collected by the investigating officer and memo were prepared. Statement of witnesses were recorded. After concluding the investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against all the four accused.
3. As the case was under Section 307 IPC was exclusively triable by the Court of Session so after taking cognizance in the matter, learned Magistrate has committed the case to the Court of Session. Trial of the accused persons was started. Both the accused persons Balwant Singh and Lal Bahadur were charged for the offence under Section 307 IPC and Ramakant and Shiv Kumar were charged for the offence under Section 307/34 IPC but they have pleaded not guilty and claimed their trial.
4. On behalf of the prosecution, statement of six witnesses were recorded. PW-1 Brahamdeen informant of the case; PW-2 Ramroop injured of the case and PW-3 alleged independent witness of the case Laxmi Narayan have tried to support the prosecution case. PW-1 has also proved the written report Exhibit-Ka-1. PW-4 A.S.I. Brijesh Shanker Pandey. On the written report Exhibit-Ka-1 entered the case in G.D. and prepared the chik report and he proved the same Exhibit-Ka-3 Chik report and entry of G.D. Exhibit-Ka-4. In his cross-examination, he has stated that a report of cross case was also lodged on the same day and on the basis of the written report he prepared the chik report Exhibit-Kha-1 and entered the case in G.D., copy of Exhibit-Kha-2. PW-5 is the investigating officer of the case, he had given details of the investigation in his oath statement and proved the documents prepared by him during the course of investigation. PW-6 Doctor Rajnikant Gupta stated that he has not examined the injuries of the victim. Another witness Doctor Ashok Mohan again numbered as PW-6 stated that on 25.05.1986 he examined the injuries of Ramroop and he had given details of injuries in his oath statement and proved the injury report Exhibit-Ka-9.
5. In their statement under Section 313 CrPC, accused persons have denied the correctness of the prosecution case and evidence and accused Balwant has stated in his written statement submitted later on that he and Lal Bahadur have purchased the house in dispute eight months before from Jagannath through sale-deed. At that time, the house was in
