ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
H. C. P. TRIPATHI, J.
Gayadin - Appellant
Versus
State of U.P - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 2007 of 1962.
Decided On : 22-04-1964
JUDGMENT
H. C. P. Tripathi, J. - These twelve appellants have been convicted finder Section 307/149, I.P.C. and also under Section 324/149, I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years under the first count and for one year under the second count. Appellants Gayadin, Tulsiram and Lahuri have further been convicted under Section 148 I.P.C. and sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment. The other appellants have further been convicted under Section 147 I.P.C. and sentenced to one years rigorous imprisonment. The trial court has, however, directed the sentences to run concurrently.
2. Appellants Gayadin and Lahuri are teal brothers and Panchu and Ram Nath are their uncles. Ram Naresh alias Napai is a cousin of Gayadin. Appellants Tulsiram, Ramdeo and Ramjag are the sons of Nageshar and the other appellants are their partisans and supporters.
3. The prosecution story, in brief, is as follows:
A civil litigation had been going on tor some time between complainant Jagdamba and his brother Karya on the one side and Nageshar and some others on the other for a number of years in respect of a field in the village. Jagdamba and Kariya had lost the case both in the trial court and also in the first appellate court but have filed a second appeal which is pending disposal before the High Court. On account of this litigation Tulsiram and his brothers, who are sons of Nageshar, entertained feeling of deep animosity towards Jagdamba and his brother. A day before the occurrence, Jagdamba had ploughed the field which was the subject-matter of litigation between him and Nageshar. This had provided the appellants with an immediate motive for the commission of the crime.
4. On July 25, 1961 at about 9 a.m. when Jagdamba and Kariya were working in their other field, which is situate to the south of Sheo Dutts plot, all these appellants, out of whom Tulsiram and Lahura were armed with spears and Gayadin with a Pharsa while the others were carrying lathis, reached the field exhorting that Jagdamba and Kariya should be assaulted. Seeing this armed assembly advancing towards them, Kariya and Jagdamba ran for their life raising alarm but they were chased and overtaken in the field of Sheo Dutt by the appellants who surrounded them and severely belaboured them with their respective weapons. On the alarm raised by the victims, Katku, Ram Sabad, Rameshwar, Shyam Lal and Tej Bahadur arrived in the field. Shyamlal tried to intervene but he too was beaten by the appellants. The appellants subsequently fled towards the east.
5. Kariya and Jagdamba were escorted to their house from the field where Jagdamba got a report of the incident scribed by Sarpanch Hiralal and lodged the same at police station Bikapur six miles away on July 25, 1961 at 12.45 P.M. In this report he described the essentials of the prosecution story and mentioned the names of all the appellants as the culprits. On the basis of this report a case was registered and investigation followed.
6. Kariya and Jagdamba were medically examined by Dr. D.N. Srivastava (P. W. 3) on July 25, 1961. Kariya had ten injuries on his person, two of which were incised wounds caused by some sharp-edged weapon while the rest had been caused by a lathi. The patient was semi-conscious at the time of his examination and his pupils were dilated. Jagdamba had nine injuries on his person out of which three were caused by some sharp weapon and the rest by some blunt object as a lathi.
7. Shyam Lal who was examined by Dr. Srivastava on July 26, 1961 was found to have three contusions and two incised wounds on his person. All the injuries were simple except the injury No. 3 of Kariya Singh which was found to be grievous. The duration of the injuries synchronised almost with the time of the incident and in the opinion of the Doctor injury No. 3 of Kariya Singh could be dangerous to life. Kariya Singh had remained in hospital as an indoor patient for about 25 days.
8. At the trial, all the appellants
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.