Back
2017 Supreme(All) 2869
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA-II, J.
RAM BAHADUR YADAV - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF U.P. - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1292 of 2008
Decided on : 30-03-2017
For the Appellant :S.K. Singh, Kapil Misra and Raj Baksh Singh, Advocates
For the Respondent: S.P. Dwivedi, G.A
The main legal point established is the significance of explaining injuries on the accused and the impact of unexplained injuries on the prosecution's case.
Headnote:
Injuries - Criminal Law - IPC 147, 323/149, 324/149, 504, 506, 304/149 - The judgment discusses the injuries sustained by the accused and the prosecution's failure to explain them, leading to doubts about the genesis of the incident. The court applies legal principles from various cases to emphasize the importance of explaining injuries and the impact on the prosecution's case.
Fact of the Case:
The prosecution alleged that the accused attacked the complainant and his family while they were cleaning a conduit, resulting in injuries and the death of the complainant. The accused denied the charges and claimed self-defense.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt and that the genesis of the incident was doubtful. It also noted that the accused sustained injuries, which the prosecution witnesses denied causing, casting doubt on the prosecution's version.
Issues: The issues revolved around the genesis of the incident, the injuries sustained by the accused, and the prosecution's failure to explain the injuries, leading to doubts about the prosecution's case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of explaining injuries on the accused and applied legal principles from various cases to highlight the impact of unexplained injuries on the prosecution's case.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the accused appellants were acquitted of the charges. The judgment and order of the trial court were set aside, and the accused were released from bail.
ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA-II, J.
1. Heard Shri Kapil Misra, learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A., Shri S.P. Dwivedi learned counsel for the complainant and perused the record.
2. Instant appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 04.6.2008, passed by learned Additional Sessions, Judge, Court No.3, Sultanpur in S.T. No.251/2004, arising out of Crime No.206/2001, Police Station Kotwali Dehat, District Sultanpur, whereby the appellants were convicted and sentenced under section 147 IPC for one year rigorous imprisonment, under section 323/149 IPC one year rigorous imprisonment, under section 324/149 IPC two years rigorous imprisonment, under section 504 IPC one year rigorous imprisonment, under section 506 one year rigorous imprisonment and under section 304/149 IPC seven years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.2000/- with default stipulation of six months.
3. According to the prosecution version, a written report was submitted by Mahabir Yadav stating that on 22.5.2001 at about 08:00 AM, he along with his wife Hubraji was cleaning the conduit at his door. Accused Ram Bahadur, Latheru, Ramesh, Ram Sumiran and Haivat Ram came armed with lathi, farsa and said that if he will try to clean the conduit they will kill him. On resistance by the complainant, all of them started beating him and his wife by lathi and farsa. When his son Premnath and grandson Sanjay came, they were also beaten. Ramesh was armed with farsa while others were armed with lathi. Rajesh Man Singh and others came at the spot. Accused ran away from the place of occurrence. On the basis of the written report case at Crime No.206/2001 was registered at Police Station Kotwali Dehat at 09:20 AM, under section 147, 323, 324, 504, 506 IPC. Investigation was handed over to S.I.D.N. Srivastava. Mahabir was brought to District Hospital Sultanpur at 11:15 AM but his injuries could not be noted as he expired during management. Hubraji was medically examined on 22.5.2001 at 10:55 AM. Following injuries were found on her body :-
(i) Lacerated wound 'V' shaped 4 x 2.5 cm over frontal region, 2 cm above from root of nose. Bleeding present.
(ii) Incised wound 2 x 0.5 cm x muscle deep, tailing present. Margins well defined. Bleeding just below right eye.
(iii) Linear abrasion 7 cm x 0.2 cm over back of right thigh. Colour reddish.
(iv) Contusion 5 x 2 cm over right shoulder joint.
Injury no.1, 3 and 4 was caused by blunt object and kept under observation. X-ray of skull was advised. Injury no.2 was caused by sharp edged weapon. Injury no.3 and 4 were simple in nature. All the injuries were fresh.
4. On the same day at 11:25 AM, Premnath, son of Mahabir was also medically examined at District hospital Sultanpur. Following injuries were found on his body.
(i) Incised wound 8 cm x 3.5 cm over right palm. Dorsally bleeding present. Margine well defined. 4 cm below from right wrist joint. Injury is kept under observation. X-ray advised.
(ii) Abrasion 1 cm x 0.5 cm on right side face 1 cm below from right lower eyelid.
Injury no.2 was simple in nature caused by hard and blunt object. Injury no.1 was caused by sharp edged weapon. All the injuries were fresh in nature.
5. At 11:50 AM on the same day Sanjay Kumar was also medically examined at District Hospital Sultanpur and following injuries were found on his body.
(i) Lacerated wound 2.5 cm x 5 cm x scalp deep over left side head. Bleeding present. 9 cm above from left eyebrow.
(ii) Linear abrasion 14 cm x 0.2 cm over left arm. Slight bleeding present. Reddish in colour.
(iii) Abrasion 1.5 cm x 0.5 cm over left thumb dorsally.
(iv) Abraded contusion over left forearm, 2 cm above left wrist joint 2.5 cm x 1 cm.
All the injuries were fresh and simple in nature, caused by hard and blunt object.
6. After the death of Mahabir inquest proceedings were conducted on 22.5.2001 at District Hospital Sultanpur. Thereafter postmortem was done on 22.5.2001 at 05:00 PM by Dr. R.K. Arya. Following antemortem injuries were found on
