Back
2017 Supreme(All) 2548
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
KRISHNA SINGH, J.
MUNNI — Appellant
Vs.
STATE — Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 234 of 1989
Decided on : 28-11-2017
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : P.N. Misra and Sanjive Kumar Gupta, adv
For the Respondent: A.G.A
The reliability of witness testimony and the significance of minor contradictions in the prosecution evidence were central to the judgment.
Headnote:
Criminal Appeal - Conviction under Section-148 IPC and Section-324 IPC - [Sections-147/148/149/307 IPC] - The court discussed the evidence and legal principles related to the charges under Sections-147/148/149/307 IPC, including the reliability of witness testimony, the significance of minor contradictions, and the impact of non-examination of the doctor. The court affirmed the findings of conviction based on the evidence and upheld the judgment of the trial court.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a criminal appeal against the conviction of the appellants-accused for offences under Section-148 IPC and Section-324 IPC. The charges arose from an incident where the appellants-accused formed an unlawful assembly, resulting in injuries to the complainant.
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzed the prosecution evidence, including witness testimony and the FIR, and found that the findings of conviction recorded by the trial court were well substantiated from the evidence available on record. The court affirmed the conviction based on the reliability of witness testimony and the coherence in the examination-in-chief and cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses.
Issues: The issues involved the reliability of witness testimony, the significance of minor contradictions, and the impact of non-examination of the doctor on the prosecution case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the reliability of witness testimony, stating that minor contradictions should not be a ground to reject the evidence. The court also noted that non-examination of the doctor did not lead to any prejudice to the appellants-accused.
Final Decision: The appeal was found to be devoid of merit and was accordingly dismissed. The findings of conviction recorded against the appellants-accused were maintained and affirmed, and no interference was required in the impugned judgment and order passed by the trial court.
Krishna Singh, J.
This criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellants-accused Munni and others against the judgment and order dated 25.1.1989 passed by the Trial Court/Special Judge (E.C. Act), Budaun in Sessions Trial No. 154 of 1986 (State v. Munni Lal and others).
2. By means of impugned judgment and order, Trial Court has convicted the appellant-accused Munni for the offence under Section-148 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years. The Trial Court has further convicted aforesaid appellant-accused for the offence under Section-324 IPC and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 500 with default sentence of six months imprisonment. Trial Court has convicted the appellants-accused Ram Bahadur, Ram Mohan, Lala Ram, Jamuna, Mangli, Om Prakash, Omkar and Pooran for the offence under Section-147 IPC and sentence each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of one year. Trial Court has further convicted the aforesaid appellants-accused for the offence under Section-324 read with Section-149 IPC and sentenced each of them to pay a fine of Rs. 250/- with a default sentence of three months imprisonment.
3. Trial Court has directed that out of the fine realised Rs. 1,000/- shall be paid to injured Ram Lal. Trial Court has also directed that sentence awarded against the accused persons shall remain suspended for the time being and instead of sentencing at once by sending them to Jail to undergo imprisonment imposed on them, accused persons shall be released on probation for the period they have been sentenced, provided accused Munni shall furnishes personal bond of Rs. 5,000/- and one surety in the like amount, similarly other accused namely Ram Bahadur, Ram Mohan, Lala Ram, Jamuna, Mangli, Om Prakash, Omkar and Pooran shall furnishes a personal bond of Rs. 3,000/- and one surety in the like amount. The accused persons were further directed by the Trial Court to keep good behaviour for the aforesaid period and in case they are found involved in any illegal criminal act, they shall be called for to serve out the sentences imposed on them.
4. At the outset, it is relevant to mention here that during the pendency of this appeal appellant-accused No. 1, Munni, appellant No. 7 Om Prakash and appellant No. 9 Pooran have died. Accordingly, vide order dated 8.5.2017 passed by this Court the appeal in respect of the aforesaid appellants-accused stood abated.
5. The case against the appellants-accused had arisen on the basis of oral complaint lodged by the complainant/injured Ram Lal on 7.7.1985 at about 6:25 P.M. at Police Station-Binawar. The facts mentioned therein are that on 7.7.1985 at about 12 o'clock daughters of accused Munni and Pahloo had wrangled with each other. Thereafter, at about 3.00 P.M. accused Munni, Rameshwar, Ram Bahadur, Ram Mohan, Lala Ram, Jamuna, Mangli, Om Prakash, Ram Prasad, Omkar and Pooran came to the Galiyara of complainant. At that time, complainant was standing beneath Pakar tree. Accused Rameshwar and Munni were armed with countrymade pistols, bhala and lathi. Accused persons throw challenge on Pahloo by shouting. Immediately, accused Munni fired with his country-made pistol at Pahloo, but the fire hit on complainant Ram Lal. However, Pahloo escaped unhurt. After hearing hue and cry witnesses Sia Ram, Ved Ram, Shyam Pal and Preetam also reached on the spot.
6. At about 6:25 P.M. the complainant Ram Pal went to the Police Station-Binawar, where he lodged an oral FIR Ext. Ka-1 of the incident which was taken down by the Constable Clerk Suresh Chandra Sharma PW-5. On the basis of oral FIR, chik FIR Ext-Ka-1/1 was prepared and Case Crime No. 264 of 1985 was registered against the appellants-accused under Section-147/148/149/307 IPC at Police Station-Binawar.
7. The case was committed to the court of Sessions, the court of Sessions/Trial Court after hearing the prosecution and defence and perusing the material available on record framed charges against the appe
