Back
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Zakiullah Khan, J.
Raja Ram and others -Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. -Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 907 of 2006 and Criminal Revision No. 273 of 2006
Decided On : 19-11-2013
Section 308 I.P.C. - Conviction of appellants under Section 308 I.P.C. read with Section 34 I.P.C. - Summary of Acts and Sections: Section 308 I.P.C., Section 332 I.P.C., Section 353 IPC, Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC - The court discussed the nature of injuries, intention to kill, and the circumstances of the case in reaching its decision. The court emphasized the importance of explaining injuries sustained by the accused and considered the lack of grievous injuries in its decision. The court concluded that the sentence passed by the lower court was appropriate and in accordance with the provisions of law.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were convicted under Section 308 I.P.C. read with Section 34 I.P.C. for causing injuries to the complainant and his son. The police constable and the complainant's son were beaten and fired upon by the appellants. The trial court convicted the appellants based on the evidence and circumstances of the case.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the injuries sustained were not proportionate to the offence under Section 308 I.P.C. and that the intention was not to kill. The court also considered the lack of grievous injuries and the circumstances of the case in reaching its decision. The court concluded that the sentence passed by the lower court was appropriate and in accordance with the provisions of law.
Issues: The main issue was whether the appellants were rightly convicted under Section 308 I.P.C. read with Section 34 I.P.C. The court also considered the argument for treating the appellants with leniency based on the nature of injuries and the time already served in jail.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the nature of injuries, intention to kill, and the circumstances of the case. The court emphasized the importance of explaining injuries sustained by the accused and considered the lack of grievous injuries in its decision.
Final Decision: The appeal and revision were both dismissed, and the court found no need to interfere with the sentence passed by the lower court. The appellants were to complete the sentence as awarded to them.
The instant appeal has been preferred on behalf of the appellants against the judgment and order dated 25.4.2006 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court -II, Pratapgarh, in Sessions Trial No.105 of 2003, convicting each appellants with three years' rigorous imprisonment under Section 308 I.P.C. read with Section 34 I.P.C. along with a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine, further additional six months imprisonment. The appellants have also been convicted under Section 332 I.P.C. read with Section 34 I.P.C., with imprisonment of two years and with a fine of Rs.500/- each and in default of payment of fine, with further imprisonment of three months each. The appellants have also been sentenced under Section 353 IPC for imprisonment of one year each with fine of Rs.500 and in default of payment of fine further imprisonment of three months each. In S.T. No.106/2003, the appellants have also been sentenced to undergo six months R.I., under Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC. The Court has also directed that the sentence awarded in both the sessions trial, shall run concurrently. In both the sessions trial, the appellants have been acquitted of the charges under Section 307/34 IPC.
2. The complainant Suresh Narain Pandey has also preferred a revision against the impugned judgment and order by which learned lower court convicted the appellants, and the appeal has been preferred. By instant revision, the revisionist has prayed that the punishment awarded to the appellants be enhanced as the case is made out under Section 307/34 I.P.C. and not under Section 308 I.P.C. as held by lower court. The revisionist has also prayed that the appellants be also punished under Section 325 I.P.C. in S.T. No.106 of 2003 instead of Section 323/34 I.P.C as they inflicted injury by causing fracture. Since both the appeals and revision arose out of single judgment and order dated 25.4.206, these are being taken up for decision simultaneously by a single judgment. A copy of the order passed be placed in the accompanied revision.
3. The police has submitted charge sheet in both the Crime Nos.211 of 2000 and 212 of 2000 respectively and the Magistrate after taking cognizance committed both these cases for trial before the court of sessions and after trial, the cases have been numbered as S.T. No.105 of 2003 relating to Crime No.2011 of 2000 and another case has been numbered as S.T. No.106 of 2003 relating to Crime No.212 of 2000. These cases were tried by the court simultaneously and decided by single judgment and order against which the instant appeal has been preferred by the appellants and revision has been preferred by the complainant for enhancement the sentence.
4. As per prosecution case, in S.T. No.105/2003 (State Vs. Raja Ram and others), the complainant Ram Chandra Yadav, a Constable No.190 of P.S. Antu submitted a written application Ext. Ka-1, on 4.12.2000 mentioning that on 3.12.2000, he was on regular beat duty along with Constable Jamuna Prasad Yadav. They started their beat for security of Bank from midnight; that on 4.12.2000 at about 8.30 a.m., one person came running to them and narrated that a scuffle is going on at village Chauboli; that both the constables immediately rushed for handling the situation; that immediately after reaching near Village Chauboli, they heard a sound of gun fire and they saw that Raja Ram and Vijay Prakash alias Lalloo holding lathi in their hands and Ajai of hamlet Gobari, holding country made gun were beating Suresh Narain Pandey and his son Akhilesh; that thereafter constables challenged them and then Ajai ran away along with his country made gun in his hand; that when Ajai noticed that he has been followed by police constables, he fired from his gun; that the complainant Constable tried to save him by bending down but Rajaram and his son Vijay Prakash attacked him with lathi but the complainant constable with the help of his companion managed to catch h
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
