The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on witness testimonies, medical evidence, and legal precedents to determine the guilt of the accused and the appropriate sentence.

This is an criminal appeal against the judgment and order dated 23.03.1999 passed by 10th Additional Ses­sion Judge, Faizabad in Session Trial No. 20/1999 related to case crime No. 100/1994 State v. Laxman Yadav under Sections 307, 324, IPC, P.S. Tarun, District Faizabad. By the im­pugned judgment and order, learned Session Judge hold guilty to the accused-appellant for the offence under Section 307, IPC and sen­tenced him for 10 years R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, six months additional imprisonment. Rs. 1,000/- out of the fine deposited was awarded as compensation to injured of the case named Bakaru.

2. As per prosecution case, in the night of 2/3.08.1994 when the injured Bakaru as usual was sleeping in front of kotha of his tube-well, at about 12.30 in the night accused Laxman Yadav having "gandasa" in his hand came there and started to give blow of "gandasa" on the body of the victim. He woke up and raised alarm and tried to save himself but accused had given several blows on his head, eye-brow and other parts of the body. Ram Nayak, Shyam Lal, Shiv Bahadur Verma etc. several persons assembled there. Accused was identified in the light of electric bulb hanging on the wall of kotha of tube-well and later on, he succeeded in escaping from there.

3. In the same night, a report was lodged at police station concerned and case was registered against the accused. After investigation in the case, charge-sheet was submitted in the Court of Magistrate for the offence under Sec­tion 307, IPC. Later on, the case was commit­ted to the Court of Session for his trial.

4. Charge was framed against the accused for his trial foHhe offence under Sections 307, 324, IPC but he pleaded not guilty and claimed his trial.

5. On behalf of prosecution, PW-1 Bakaru informant injured of the case, PW-2 Ram Nayak, PW-3 Shyam Lal, PW-4 Shiv Bahadur Verma were examined as witnesses of the case. Sudhakar Pandey Inspector, after completion of the investigation, submitted charge-sheet against the accused. PW-6 Dr. Hari Om Srivastava examined the injuries of the victim. He had given details of injuries found by him on the body of the victim and proved injury report prepared by him.

6. In his statement under Section 313, CrPC, accused denied the correctness of the prosecution case and evidence and stated that he is falsely implicated in the case due to enmity. He further stated that his vision is very poor and he cannot see in the night. No litigation between him and informant is there. Informant lives to her in-laws house with his family. Severally he was rebuked for his mis­deeds. No defence evidence was adduced on his behalf.

7. After going through the arguments of the learned counsel for the accused and State counsel and perusing the record by the im­pugned judgment and order, learned trial court held him guilty for the offence under Section 307, IPC and sentenced him as above. Aggrieved by this judgment and order, this ap­peal has been filed.

8. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

9. Accused is Dever's son of informant's mother-in-law which is not denied on behalf of the accused. It is also not disputed between parties that their house situated in neighbor­hood of each other. It was suggested to the informant on behalf of the accused in his on oath statement that some unknown person has inflicted injuries on his body and he was falsely implicated in the case which was de­nied by him. This shows that it is not dis­puted to the accused that injuries found by the doctor on the body of the victim were there. Nowhere it is the case of the accused-appellant that these injuries were manufac­tured by the accused. In his oath statement PW-6 Dr. Hari Om Srivastava had given de­tails of Injuries found on the body of the vic­tim. He found five incised wound out of them four were in head region and one was on the back side of the hand. In the opinion of the doctor, all the inju

Click Here to Read the rest of this document