Back
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, Vivek Chaudhary, JJ.
Misri Lal - Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1190 of 2005 with Criminal Appeal No. 1100 of 2005 with Criminal Appeal No. 1082 of 2005
Decided On : 08-06-2017
Criminal Appeal - Criminal Law - Section 374 (2) of Criminal Procedure Code - Section 307/394/34 I.P.C. - Section 302 I.P.C. - Section 304 Part-I I.P.C. - Section 394 I.P.C. - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the application of Section 302 I.P.C., Section 304 Part-I I.P.C., and Section 394 I.P.C. in relation to the facts of the case. It emphasized the importance of medical evidence in determining the cause of death and the intention of the accused. The court also highlighted the distinction between culpable homicide and murder under the Indian Penal Code.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved an incident where the appellant and co-accused attacked the deceased, resulting in injuries that led to his death. The appellant was charged under Section 302 I.P.C., but the medical evidence and circumstances led the court to consider a lesser charge under Section 304 Part-I I.P.C. The court also acquitted the appellant under Section 394 I.P.C.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence did not support the charge under Section 302 I.P.C., and instead held the appellant guilty under Section 304 Part-I I.P.C. The court also acquitted the appellant under Section 394 I.P.C. due to lack of evidence for robbery of the alleged weapon.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the cause of death, the intention of the accused, and the applicability of different sections of the Indian Penal Code, including Section 302, Section 304 Part-I, and Section 394.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of medical evidence, the intention of the accused, and the specific elements of the relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code. It emphasized the distinction between culpable homicide and murder and applied the principles to the facts of the case.
Final Decision: The appeal was partly allowed, and the appellant was held guilty under Section 304 Part-I I.P.C. The appellant was acquitted under Section 394 I.P.C., and the fine was reduced with a default sentence imposed.
1. All these three appeals arise out of a common judgment. These appeals are preferred under Section 374 (2) of Criminal Procedure Code. Appellant of Appeal No. 1190 of 2005 is in jail. He is being represented by Amicus Curiae, who has been appointed by the Court to assist the Court. The accused is in jail since more than twelve years.
2. The appeal (Case : - CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1100 of 2005) is segregated from the connected appeals as we have waited from four days but learned counsel for appellant has not turn up. Hence, we are left with no alternative but to issue non-bailable warrant and appellant should be produced in custody before this Court as expeditiously as possible so that his appeal can be heard and decided.
The appeal (Case : - CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1082 of 2005) is segregated from the connected appeals as we have waited from four days but learned counsel for appellant has not turned up. Hence, we are left with no alternative but to issue non-bailable warrant and appellant should be produced in custody before this Court as expeditiously as possible so that his appeal can be heard and decided.
Though called out the counsels for the other appellants, who are on bail, have not appeared before the Court, therefore, we propose to hear the appeal of the accused who is in jail since about more than twelve years.
3. The facts are on the fateful night a Complaint being 307 of 1998 for commission of offence under Section 307/394/34 I.P.C. against Mishri Lal, Santosh Kumar and Ram Khelawan was lodged. The deceased was an operator in the Canal Department of State of U.P. The deceased along with his brother Sri Ram took their dinner at about9.00 p.m. and went to home Shiv Kumar has owned licensee gun with him. As soon as the complainant Shiv Kumar went ahead and Mishri Lal, Santosh Kumar and Ram Khelawan came there and started shouted that Krishna Kumar be done to death and one bullet shot was fired on left shoulder and he fell down on the ground. On hearing the noise of the firearm the complainant Shiv Kumar and Krishna Kumar came there. Many people gather to gather all the three accused took away licensee gun of the deceased and running away on the northern side of the village. The complainant and other witnesses saw both accused in moon light. The complaint was lodged on 04.12.1998 unfortunately the inured was re-hospitalized on 01.01.1999 and died on 12.01.999. His post-mortem was conducted by the doctors i.e. all the accused were charged of Section 302 I.P.C. read with Section 394 I.P.C.
4. The procedural facts as they are culled out from the record are that an incident occurred on 03.12.1998, at about 9.00 p.m. at night when the present appellant along with other co-accused attacked the deceased and it was Mishri Lal, who fired the gun shot and injured the deceased. A First Information Report came to be registered on the very same night. The investigation started and it culminated into the charge-sheet being laid before the competent authority. The competent authority committed the case to the court of Sessions as it was a sessions triable offence. When the offence was registered it was for Section 394 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code but later on as a deceased succumbed to injuries the charge-sheet was laid under Section 302 Indian Penal Code. The accused were charged by the trial court and they pleaded not guilty and wanted to be tried.
5. The prosecution examined about five witnesses, namely, Sri Ram PW-1 complainant, Ashok Kumar PW-2, Anoop Kumar PW-3, Ajay Kumar Singh PW-4 and Constable 358 Sanjay Singh PW-5. The prosecution relied on ten documents, which are as follows: -
1. Written Report Ext. Ka-1 18
2. Site Plan Ext. Ka-2 19-20
3. Recovery Memo Ext. Ka-3 to 5 21-23
4. Statement Ext. Ka-6 24
5. Recovery Memo Ext. Ka-7 to 8 25-26
6. FIR Ext. Ka-10 29
7 Copy of Report Ext. Ka-11 29
8. Death Certificate Ext. Ka-12 30
9. Inquest Report Ext. Ka-13 31-33
10. Post Mortem Report Ext. Ka-18 34-35
6. After evidence of the p
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
