Back
2016 Supreme(All) 3837
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Surendra Vikram Singh Rathore, Shashi Kant, JJ.
Hari Lal alias Shambhoo - Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 572 of 2008 & Criminal Appeal No. 409 of 2008
Decided On : 07-06-2016
Criminal Appeal No. 572 of 2008.
For the Appellant :- Arshad Ahsan Siddiqui and P.K. Pandey, Advocates.
For the Respondent:- Govt. Advocate.
Criminal Appeal No. 409 of 2008.
For the Appellant :- Arshad Ahsan Siddiqui, Advocate.
For the Respondent:- Govt. Advocate.
Headnote:
Criminal Appeal - Conviction under Sections 302, 307 I.P.C. and 3/25 of the Arms Act - [Section 3/25 of the Arms Act] - The court analyzed the evidence and found that the prosecution's case was supported by the medical evidence and the testimony of the witnesses. The court emphasized the importance of a prompt FIR and the credibility of rustic witnesses. It held that the quality of evidence prevails over the quantity and minor contradictions do not affect the core of the prosecution case. The court granted benefit of doubt to one appellant due to weak evidence of exhortation and acquitted him, while affirming the conviction of the other appellant.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the conviction of two appellants under Sections 302, 307 I.P.C. and 3/25 of the Arms Act for a shooting incident resulting in the death of one person and injuries to another. The prosecution's case was based on the testimony of witnesses and medical evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution's case was supported by the medical evidence and the testimony of the witnesses. It emphasized the importance of a prompt FIR and the credibility of rustic witnesses. The court held that the quality of evidence prevails over the quantity and minor contradictions do not affect the core of the prosecution case. Benefit of doubt was granted to one appellant due to weak evidence of exhortation, leading to his acquittal, while the conviction of the other appellant was affirmed.
Issues: The issues involved the credibility of the prosecution's case, the reliability of rustic witnesses, the significance of a prompt FIR, and the impact of minor contradictions on the prosecution's case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the quality of evidence, the importance of a prompt FIR, and the credibility of rustic witnesses. It held that minor contradictions do not affect the core of the prosecution case and granted benefit of doubt to one appellant due to weak evidence of exhortation.
Final Decision: Criminal Appeal No. 572 of 2008 was dismissed, affirming the conviction of the appellant. Criminal Appeal No. 409 of 2008 was allowed, granting benefit of doubt to the appellant and acquitting him.
Surendra Vikram Singh Rathore, J. –
Both these aforesaid criminal appeals arise out of a common judgment, hence both are being disposed of together.
2. Criminal Appeal No. 572 of 2008 has been preferred by convicted appellant Hari Lal alias Shambhu while Criminal Appeal No. 409 of 2008 has been preferred by appellant Tulsi Ram.
3. Heard Mr. P.K. Pandey, learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. Mohd. Yusuf Ansari, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the lower court record.
4. Under challenge in both the aforesaid appeals is the judgment and order dated 22.1.2008 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 5, Unnao in Sessions Trial No. 38 of 2005, arising out of Case Crime No. 391 of 2004, Police Station Gangaghat, District Unnao and Sessions Trial No. 39 of 2005 arising out of Case Crime No. 392 of 2004 under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act, Police Station Gangaghat, whereby appellant Hari Lal alias Shambhu was convicted under Section 302 I.P.C. and was sentenced with imprisonment for life and also with fine of Rs. 3,000/- with default stipulation of one year simple imprisonment and was further convicted under Section 307 I.P.C. and was sentenced with rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and also with fine of Rs. 1,000/- with default stipulation of six months additional simple imprisonment. He was further convicted under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act and was sentenced with rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and also with fine of Rs. 500/- with default stipulation of three months additional simple imprisonment. Appellant Tulsi Ram was convicted under Sections 302/109 I.P.C. and was sentenced with imprisonment for life and also with fine of Rs. 3,000/- with default stipulation of one year simple imprisonment and was further convicted under Section 307/109 I.P.C. and was sentenced with rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and also with fine of Rs. 1,000/- with default stipulation of six months additional simple imprisonment. Both the sentences of the appellants were directed to run concurrently. However, by the same judgment accused Raju was acquitted of all the charges levelled against him.
5. In brief the case of the prosecution was that complainant Chhote Lal lodged an F.I.R. of this case at Police Station Gangaghat, which was at a distance of 16 kilometers, on 8.9.2004 at 18: 30 hours alleging therein that on that day at about 3: 00 p.m., he along with his son Nanha aged about 12 years and Kallu were coming from Village Shekhpur, which was his Sasural to his house. When they reached in between village Bhatpurwa and Langdapurwa then appellant Hari Lal alias Shambhu, Raju sons of Tulsi Ram and Tulsi Ram residents of Langdapurwa asked them to stop and said that you have killed his dog and your wife has badly abused them so they will not spare him. On the exhortation of Tulsi Ram, Hari Lal alias Shambhu fired with his country-made pistol on the complainant due to which the complainant and his son Nanha sustained injuries. Hearing the noise, several persons of the vicinity reached there. With the help of all these persons Hari Lal alias Shambhu was apprehended on spot along with his country-made pistol. However, Raju and Tulsi Ram were successful in making good their escape. The complainant along with arrested accused Hari Lal with country-made pistol went to the police station and lodged the F.I.R. of this case where the case was registered and the complainant and his son were send for their medical examination to District Hospital Unnao. Medical examination of complainant Chhote Lal was conducted in the District Hospital, Unnao on 8.9.2004 at 7: 00 p.m. However, his son Nanha succumbed to the injuries while on way to the hospital. After reaching the District Hospital Unnao, he was declared dead and the information of his death was sent to police station concerned on phone. On the basis of which, the case was converted under Section 302 I.P.C., which was initially registered under S
