Back
2014 Supreme(All) 3542
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Arvind Kumar Tripathi (II), J.
Kunwar Bahadur @ Gandhi and Ors. - Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. - 1272 of 2002
Decided On : 18-02-2014
For the Appellant :- Vijay Kumar Shukla, Parijat Belaura, Surendra Kr. Shukla, Surendra Kumar Tiwari
For the Respondent:- Govt. Advocate, Raj Kumar Pandey
The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the injuries in relation to the offence under Section 308 IPC and the consideration of compromise in cases involving multiple injured parties.
Headnote:
Section 308 IPC - Criminal Appeal - ST No.381 of 1992 - Summary of Acts and Sections: Section 147 IPC, Section 452 IPC, Section 308 IPC, Section 323 IPC, Section 504 IPC, Section 506 IPC - The court acquitted the appellants from the offence under Section 308 IPC but found them guilty under Section 323 read with 149 IPC. The court modified the sentence and imposed fines under Section 147 IPC, Section 323/149 IPC, and Section 452 IPC, with compensation to the injured.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were convicted under various sections of the IPC for assaulting the complainant and others. The injuries were examined, and the court found that while the offence under Section 308 IPC was not made out, the offence under Section 323 read with 149 IPC was established. The court also considered a compromise between the accused and one of the injured parties.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the injuries did not meet the criteria for the offence under Section 308 IPC but established the offence under Section 323 read with 149 IPC. The court also considered the compromise but concluded that it did not apply to all injured parties.
Issues: The main issue was whether the injuries sustained by the victims constituted the offence under Section 308 IPC and the validity of the compromise between the accused and the injured parties.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the examination of the injuries and the legal requirements for the offence under Section 308 IPC. The court also considered the applicability of the compromise to all injured parties.
Final Decision: The court acquitted the appellants from the offence under Section 308 IPC, modified the sentence, and imposed fines under other relevant sections of the IPC, with compensation to the injured.
Arvind Kumar Tripathi (II),J.
1. Instant criminal appeal has been filed by challenging the judgment and order dated 3.9.2012 passed by the learned Additonal Sessions Judge (FTC - 2), Sultanpur in ST No.381 of 1992 (State of U.P. v. Kunwar Bahadur @ Gandhi and another) convicting and sentencing the appellants under Section 147 IPC to undergo 1 year RI, under Section 452 read with 149 IPC to undergo 2 years RI and also to pay fine of Rs.500/- each and under Section 308 read with 149 IPC to undergo 3 years RI. In default of payment of fine to undergo 3 months additional imprisonment and the sentence to run concurrently and from the amount of fine Rs.2000/- each was to be given to the injured persons equally as compensation.
2. As per factual matrix of the case, FIR was lodged by Hausala Prasad in Police Station Munshiganj, District Sultanpur alleging that on the fateful day, at about 7.30 AM, Kunwar Bahadur @ Gandhi came to his house and complained that you had him beaten yesterday in a fair, then he stated that he is not aware of the fact that who has assaulted you, but due to that enmity Kunwar Bahadur @ Gandhi, Raj Kishore Tiwari, Hari, Ram Kripal, Dukhai, Bhandari, Sukaroo, Sahaie, Jiya Lal, Koee and Kallu assalted him by means of lathi and danda. He ran into his house and the accused persons entered into the house and assaulted him and his son Ram Charitra, Moti Lal and Smt. Guddi. On alarm, Ram Kuber, Bhuneshwar Pandey, Shiv Charan and many other persons came to rescue. On this, all the accused persons fled away threatening and abusing them. On this, a case under Sections 147, 452, 308, 323, 504, 506 IPC was registered in the police station at about 9.30 AM. After investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the accused persons under Sections 147, 308, 452, 323, 504, 506 IPC. After committal of cae, charge under Sections 147, 308, 452, 323/149, 308/149 was framed. The accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
3. Heard Shri Parijat Belaura and Surendra Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the appellants and Shri Sharad Dixit, learned AGA for the State respondent.
4. The appellants - Raj Kishore and Dukhai have died, therefore, the appeal on their behalf is abated and have been heard on behalf of nine appellants
5. Prosecution examined Hausila as PW-1, Ram Charitra as PW-2, Dr. Vinod, PHC, Amethi as PW-3, Dr. J.B. Singh, Senior Radiologist, T.B. Sapru Hospital, Allahabad as PW-4, Badri Prasad Tiwari, Constable CP 361, Kotwali, Barabanki as PW-5. The statement of accused persons was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. They have denied their involvement. No defence witness was examined by either of the parties. In the court, the injured Moti Lal and all the accused persons filed compromise, which was duly verified. The court below, after going through the evidence on record, convicted the accused persons, as mentioned above. Feeling aggrieved, this criminal appeal was filed.
6. Submission of learned counsel for the appellants is that from the injuries on record offence under Section 308 is not made out, as all the injuries are simple.
7. PW-4 Dr. J.B. Singh is radiologist, who has radiologically examined the injuries of Hausila Prasad and prepared the x-ray report. This witness has proved x-ray report as Ex.Ka.7 and x-ray plate as Ex.Ka.1 and Ex.Ka.2. In his cross examination, he has submitted that all the injuries were simple because there was no fracture beneath the injuries.
8. Injuries of Hausila Prasad is reproduced below: -
(1) Lacerated wound of 8.5 cm x 1 cm x scalp deep on the right side of scalp, 10 cm above the top of right pinna. Adviced x-ray scalp AP and lateral.
(2) Lacerated wound of 0.5 cm x 1.3 cm x muscle deep on the outer aspect of right upper arm and 8.5 cm above right elbow joint.
(3) Tramatic swelling 10 cm x 8 cm of the posterior aspect on right elbow joint.
(4) Abraded contusion of 8 cm x 2 cm on the dorsal aspect of right forearm, 10 cm below the right elbow joint.
(5) Contus
