Back
2017 Supreme(All) 2672
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD (LUCKNOW BENCH)
ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA-II, J.
RAM SUDHARE - Appellant
Vs.
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 529 of 1996
Decided On : 30-03-2017
For the Appellants :K.P. Singh, Dinesh Kumar Ojha, Dr. G.P. Tripathi, Satish K. Tripathi and Sunil Kumar Singh, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Government Advocate.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the need for close scrutiny of evidence when the sole witness is a close relative of the deceased and the importance of corroborative evidence and consistency in the testimony of interested witnesses.
Headnote:
Strangulation - Criminal Law - IPC 323, IPC 506(2), IPC 304 - The court discussed the charges against the accused under section 323, section 506(2), and section 304 of the Indian Penal Code. The court highlighted the importance of the first information report and the reliability of the sole witness, the son of the deceased, in determining the mode and manner of the incident. The court also emphasized the need for close scrutiny of the evidence when the sole witness is a close relative of the deceased.
Fact of the Case:
The accused were convicted for assaulting and causing the death of the father of the complainant during a dispute over grove land. The prosecution's case was based on the testimony of the complainant, who was also an injured witness.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the charges against the accused. It highlighted contradictions in the complainant's testimony and the lack of evidence supporting the prosecution's version of the incident.
Issues: The issues revolved around the reliability of the sole witness, the complainant, who was also an injured witness, and the discrepancies in his testimony. The court also considered the importance of the first information report and the mode and manner of the incident.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for close scrutiny of the evidence when the sole witness is a close relative of the deceased and highlighted the importance of corroborative evidence and consistency in the testimony of interested witnesses.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the accused were acquitted of the charges. The judgment and order convicting the accused were set aside, and the accused were ordered to be released from jail.
Anil Kumar Srivastava-II, J.
Heard Shri Dinesh Kumar Ojha, learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
2. Instant appeal has arisen against the judgment and order dated 06.12.1996 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Raebareli in S.T. No.121/92, arising out of case crime no.79/91, Police Station-Mohanganj, District Raebareli, wherein the accused-appellants were convicted under section 323 read with section 34 IPC and sentenced for six months rigorous imprisonment, under section 506(2) IPC for six months rigorous imprisonment, under section 304 read with section 34 IPC for ten years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 4000/- each with default stipulation of two years imprisonment.
3. According to the prosecution version, accused Ram Sudhare, Chhote Lal and Kishore, son of Chhote Lal were trying to forcibly take possession of the grove land of father of complainant Gurucharan. On 21.8.1991, in the morning at 06:00 AM when they were trying to encroach upon the grove land, complainant along with his father Ram Dayal resisted them, then the accused beaten him and his father by 'lathi', 'danda' and also strangulated his father. On raising an alarm by the complainant Shobh Nath, Siya Ram and other villagers came. Accused ran away from the scene. Father of the complainant received serious injuries on his head, left arm and got unconscious.
4. First information report of the incident was lodged on the same day at Police Station at 08:20 AM under section 323, 506, 308 IPC. Ram Dayal was medically examined at District Hospital Raebareli on 21.8.1991 at 11:00 AM. Following injuries were found on his body :-
1. Lacerated wound 1.5 cm x 0.5 cm x muscle deep on lateral aspect of left arm 8 cm above left elbow joint. There is traumatic swelling 17 cm x 12 cm around the wound.
2. Traumatic swelling 4 cm x 3 cm wherein abrasions were in the area of 2.5 cm x 1.5 cm, 8 cm above root of nose. X-ray of skull was advised.
3. Abrasion 1.5 cm x 0.5 cm x dorsal aspect of right forearm 6.5 cm above right elbow.
5. According to the Doctor, all the injuries were simple except injury No. 1 and 2 which were kept under observation. X-ray was advised. Injuries were fresh in nature and were caused by blunt object.
6. On 24.01.1991 at 12:10 Noon complainant Gurucharan was examined at PHC Tiloi by Dr. S. Nand. Following injuries were found on his body.
1. Lacerated wound 0.5 cm x 0.1 cm x 0.1 cm on the dorsal of middle phalanx of ring finger of right hand.
2. Contusion 4 cm x 2 cm on the dorsal of distal part of left hand on the inner side. Half of left hand is swelling. Movement restricted.
3. Contusion 10 cm x 2 cm on the lateral aspect of middle of left thigh.
7. Injury No. 1 and 3 were simple, caused by hard and blunt object. Fresh. Injury No.2 was kept under observation and X-ray was advised. Subsequently, Ram Dayal succumbed to his injuries.
8. Inquest proceedings were conducted and the postmortem was conducted on 23.8.1991 by Dr. A. Prasad. Following injuries were found on the body of the deceased.
1. Lacerated wound 1.5 cm x 0.5 cm x muscle deep. Lateral part of left arm 9 cm above left elbow joint. Traumatic swelling 19 cm x 13 cm around the wound. On exposure there is fracture of left humorous bone.
2. Abrasion 1.5 cm x 0.5 cm x posterior aspect of right forearm 0.5 cm below right elbow joint.
3. Abraded contusions 3 cm x 1.5 cm with an area of traumatic swelling 5 cm x 3.5 cm. 8 cm above root of nose. On exposure there is fracture of scalp bone and both parietal bones. There is subdual haematoma 10 cm x 8 cm underneath congested.
9. According to the opinion of the Doctor, death was result of coma as a result of head injury. During investigation site plan was prepared. Statement of witnesses were recorded. Plain and blood stained earth was recovered. Charge sheet was submitted against the accused under section 304, 323, 506 IPC.
10. Accused were charged under section 323 read with section 34 IPC, 326 read with section
