Back
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Om Prakash-VII, J.
Ram Lachhan and Ors. - Appellant
Versus
State - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 167 of 1988
Decided On : 17-04-2017
Ram Lachhan Singh - Criminal Appeal - Section 307, Section 34 IPC - The court discussed the prosecution evidence, medical evidence, and witness statements to determine the involvement of the appellant in the offense. The court found that the appellant's role in the incident was not clearly established, and the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The appeal was allowed, and the appellant was found not guilty.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, Ram Lachhan Singh, appealed against his conviction and sentence for the offense under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC. The prosecution's case involved an incident where the appellant and others were accused of causing severe injuries to the victim.
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzed the prosecution evidence, medical evidence, and witness statements. It found that the appellant's role in the incident was not clearly established, and the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. As a result, the appeal was allowed, and the appellant was found not guilty.
Issues: The key issues included the involvement of the appellant in the offense, the credibility of witness statements, and the sufficiency of evidence to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of clear and cogent evidence to establish the appellant's involvement in the offense. It also highlighted the need for caution in evaluating witness statements and the prosecution's burden of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the appellant, Ram Lachhan Singh, was found not guilty. The impugned judgment and order convicting the appellant were set aside.
Om Prakash-VII, J.
1. The present criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant Ram Lachhan Singh against the impugned judgment and order dated 18.1.1988 passed by II Additional District and Sessions Judge Varanasi in Sessions Trial No. 171 of 1986 (State v. Ram Lachhan Singh and others) whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced for the offence under Section 307 read with section 34 IPC to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment.
2. Appellants Sobha Singh, Sitthu and Mitthu have died during pendency of the appeal, hence appeal filed in their respect was abated vide order dated 28.3.2017. Thus, there remains the appeal filed by appellant Ram Lachhan Singh to be decided.
3. Heard Sri Nirvikar Gupta and Sri Vinod Singh, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri R.D. Yadav, learned learned A.G.A. and gone through the entire record.
4. Prosecution story in brief is that written report Ex. Ka (1) was submitted by informant Kripa Shankar Singh (P.W. 1) mentioning therein that on 17.7.1984 at about 5 p.m. Vikram Singh, father of the informant, was irrigating his paddy crop. At about 5.30 p.m. Accused appellant Ram Lachhan Singh alongwith other co-accused Sobha Singh, Sitthu and Mitthu (appellants since died) came there. As per version of the written report, present appellant and one Sobha Singh (appellant since died) made exhortation to kill Vikram Singh and on this exhortation Sitthu armed with a ‘lathi’ shod with iron and Mitthu armed with a ‘Dao’ started beating to Vikram Singh. Injured received severe injuries, both legs and one hand were fractured, injury was also sustained by the injured in his mouth. Several person reached on the spot, thereafter accused person ran away. It is also the prosecution case that at the time of said incident, informant was present in the Chhawni situated in the field which was being irrigated by the injured. Informant also reached on the spot hearing hue and cry of his father and saw the entire incident.
5. On this written report Ex. Ka (1) chik First Information Report Ex. Ka (6) was registered at police station concerned on 15.7.1984 itself at 7.30 p.m. G.D. entry was also made. Matter was investigated. Investigating Officer took the bloodstained cloth from the place of occurrence and prepared fard memo Ex. Ka (4) in this respect. Since injured was taken to the hospital as is clear from the written report itself, injury report prepared in respect of injured is Ex. Ka (2). X-ray report is Ex. Ka (8). Site plan prepared by the Investigating Officer is Ex. Ka (3). The Investigating Officer after completing the entire formalities, interrogated the witnesses and submitted charge sheet as Ex. Ka (5) against the present appellant and other co-accused.
6. Concerned Magistrate took the cognizance in the matter and committed the case to the court of Sessions. Accused-appellant appeared and initially charge against the appellant was framed for the offence under Section 307 /34 IPC. Again on 11.6.1987 charge was amended clarifying the facts in the charge. Accused appellant denied from the charge framed against him and pleading not guilty, claimed his trial.
7. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined, five witnesses in all i.e. P.W. 1 Kripa Shankar Singh (Informant), P.W. 2 Vikram Singh (Injured), P.W. 3 Dr. R.A. Goal (Medical Officer), P.W. 4 S.P. Singh (Investigating Officer) and P.W. 5 Dr. S.K. Singh (Radiologist). After completing the prosecution evidence statement of the accused-appellant was recorded in which he has specifically stated that he was falsely implicated in this matter. Present prosecution was started due to previous enmity, no active role has been assigned to the appellant.
8. Learned trial court after hearing the parties vide impugned judgment and order convicted and sentenced the appellant as above, hence this appeal.
9. Submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that no over tact has been assigned to the appellant in the prosecution evidence. Learned cou
AI
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
