Back
2013 Supreme(All) 1820
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Zaki Ullah Khan, J.
Ram Singh -Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. -Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 940 of 2013
Decided On : 22-07-2013
Counsel for the Appellant : Ram Naresh Yadav.
Counsel for the Respondent:Gov#31;ernment Advocate.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of witness statements, contradictions, and doubts in the prosecution's story in influencing the court's decision.
Headnote:
Section 307 I.P.C. - Attempt to murder - Evidence Act - Arms Act - [FIREARM INJURIES, ATTEMPT TO MURDER, EVIDENCE ACT, ARMS ACT] - The court discussed the relevance of the statements of the witnesses, contradictions in their statements, and the application of Section 145 of the Evidence Act. It also highlighted the acquittal of the appellant under Section 25 of the Arms Act and the doubts in the prosecution's story, leading to the appellant's acquittal under Section 307 I.P.C.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted under Section 307 I.P.C. for causing firearm injuries to the complainant's brother. The trial court found the appellant guilty but acquitted the co-accused. The appellant appealed against the judgment.
Finding of the Court:
The court found contradictions in the statements of the witnesses and doubts in the prosecution's story. It highlighted the appellant's acquittal under Section 25 of the Arms Act and concluded that the appellant was entitled to the benefit of doubt.
Issues: Contradictions in witness statements, doubts in the prosecution's story, and the appellant's acquittal under Section 25 of the Arms Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the contradictions in witness statements, doubts in the prosecution's story, and the appellant's acquittal under Section 25 of the Arms Act, leading to the appellant's acquittal under Section 307 I.P.C.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the appellant was acquitted of the charge under Section 307 I.P.C. He was ordered to be released from jail forthwith if not wanted in any other case.
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
2. The instant appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 29.06.2013, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/T.E.C.P-5, Lucknow whereby convicting and sentencing the appellant to undergo four years rigorous imprisonment under Section 307 I.P.C. together with a fine of Rs.5000/- and in default of payment of fine, the appellant will have to undergo additional imprisonment for three months.
3. The factual matrix of the case is that complainant P.W.-1 Ram Gopal Yadav lodged an F.I.R. on 27.11.2009 at 3:05 a.m., at Police Station-Chowk, District Lucknow with the allegation that on 24.11.2009 his younger brother Shiv Nandan was subjected to firearm injuries with intention to kill by one Ram Singh; that on 24.11.2009 wife of injured-Shiv Nandan registered the F.I.R. to that effect and they admitted Shiv Nandan to Surgical Ward Lucknow Medical College for further treatment; that the injured was admitted in Surgical Ward No.3 at Bed no.19; that due to that enmity on 27.11.2007 at about 12:45 a.m. Ram Singh and Mithai Lal in furtherance of common intention reached at Ward No.19 armed with country made pistol; that Mithai Lal incited appellant to kill him as he was rescued on 24.11.2009 but will not be spared today; that appellant-Ram Singh on incitation of co-accused fired on Shiv Nandan; that the bullet hit him at his neck; that both the assailants were armed with the country made pistol and escaped by exhibiting the pistol in their hands and also threatening the security guard Ram Naresh Mishra, Parmeshwardin Mishra of village Younchakhera and they also pushed them aside to make way for escape; that the incident was witnessed by the complainant Prema Devi, wife of injured-Shiv Nandan; that the wife of Shiv Nandan and one Amresh were engaged in taking care of Shiv Nandan; that the complainant informed that injured-Shiv Nandan was shifted to the trauma centre for treatment of firearm and then they rushed to the police station for lodging the report.
4. On the written report, FIR Ext. Ka-4 was registered as Crime No.499 of 2009, under Section 307 I.P.C. against the appellant-Ram Singh and co-accused Mithai Lal; that the injured-Shiv Nandan was medically examined by P.W-6-Dr. Avnish Kumar and Dr. Abhishek; that during statement, the statement of injured-Shiv Nandan was recorded by Dr. Avnish Kumar which is Ext.Ka-5, whereas statement of Prema Devi wife of injured-Shiv Nandan has been recorded (Ext.Ka-6) by Dr. Avnish Kumar (P.W.6); that the Investigating Officer after collecting all the evidence prepared site-plan and submitted charge-sheet against appellant Ram Singh and one Mithai Lal and submitted Ext.Ka-3 Charge-sheet before the court concerned; that the case was committed before the Court of T.E.C.P-5, Lucknow where the charges under Section 307/34 I.P.C. have been framed; that the accused denied the charges and claimed to be tried; that the prosecution examined as many as six witnesses. P.W.1-Ram Singh is scribe of the F.I.R. who has proved written report(Ext.Ka-1); that injured-Shiv Nandan- P.W.-2 and his wife P.W.-3 were also examined; that the prosecution has also examined scribe of the F.I.R. who recorded the chik in the police station; that the prosecution has also examined P.W.5-Dipak Kumar, P.W.6 Dr. Avnish Kumar and P.W.-4 Investigating Officer who recorded the statement of the injured as well as the witnesses and after thoroughly examining the evidence on record, the trial court found appellant guilty under Section 307 I.P.C. and acquitted the other accused Mithai Lal of the charges under Section 307/34 I.P.C. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the instant appeal has been preferred.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant during the hearing of appeal argued that P.W.1 is the witness who lodged the F.I.R. As per his own statement he was also looking after care of the injured in the
