Back
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT (LB)
Ritu Raj Awasthi, Narendra Kumar Johari, JJ.
Ram Manohar - Appellant
Vs.
State of U.P. - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1224 of 2007, 1144 of 2007
Decided On : 04-02-2019
CRIMINAL APPEAL - [SECTION 302 IPC] - [SECTION 323/34 IPC] - [SECTION 504 IPC] - [SECTION 3(1)(X) SC/ST ACT] - [SECTION 3(2)(5) SC/ST ACT] - [SUMMARY] The appellant was convicted under various sections of the IPC and the SC/ST Act for the murder of Maharajdeen Pasi. The prosecution's case was that the appellant and his co-accused had gone to the deceased's house to demand money owed to them for medical treatment. The deceased's son refused to pay, and an argument ensued. The appellant then fired a gun at the deceased, killing him. The appellant's defense was that he was not present at the scene of the crime and that he had an alibi. The trial court convicted the appellant on the basis of the testimony of eyewitnesses. The appellant appealed to the High Court, which upheld the trial court's conviction. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, Ram Manohar Yadav, was convicted of murder, causing grievous hurt, and using criminal force with intent to outrage the modesty of a woman. The prosecution's case was that the appellant and his co-accused had gone to the deceased's house to demand money owed to them for medical treatment. The deceased's son refused to pay, and an argument ensued. The appellant then fired a gun at the deceased, killing him. The appellant's defense was that he was not present at the scene of the crime and that he had an alibi.
Finding of the Court:
The Supreme Court held that the appellant was guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, and not murder. The Court found that the appellant had not intended to kill the deceased, but had only intended to cause him grievous bodily harm. The Court also found that the appellant was not guilty of the other offenses charged against him.
Issues: 1. Whether the appellant was guilty of murder or culpable homicide not amounting to murder. 2. Whether the appellant was guilty of causing grievous hurt. 3. Whether the appellant was guilty of using criminal force with intent to outrage the modesty of a woman.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the appellant was guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, and not murder, because the appellant had not intended to kill the deceased, but had only intended to cause him grievous bodily harm. 2. The Court held that the appellant was not guilty of causing grievous hurt because the prosecution had not proved that the appellant had caused the deceased any grievous hurt. 3. The Court held that the appellant was not guilty of using criminal force with intent to outrage the modesty of a woman because the prosecution had not proved that the appellant had used any criminal force on the deceased.
Final Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal in part. The Court set aside the appellant's conviction for murder and causing grievous hurt. The Court upheld the appellant's conviction for using criminal force with intent to outrage the modesty of a woman, but reduced the sentence to one year's imprisonment.
Narendra Kumar Johari, J.
The applicant-accused Ram Manohar has preferred the Criminal Appeal No.1224 of 2007, under section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C. against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 07.5.2007, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.2, Raebareli in S.T. No.367/2000, relating to case crime no.114/98, police station- Gadaganj, District Raebareli, whereby the learned trial judge has convicted to accused-appellant under section 302 of IPC to undergo life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 10,000/-. Further the appellant was convicted under section 323/34 of IPC to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment and further he was convicted under section 504 IPC to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and further he was convicted under section 3 (1) (X) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act) (in short SC/ST Act) to undergo one year imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1,000/-. Appellant was also convicted under section 3(2) (5) of SC/ST Act to undergo life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5,000/-. In case of default of payment of fine, the court awarded additional six months' imprisonment.
2. The case of prosecution, in brief, is that on 08.8.1998, at approximately 12:30 PM, the accused persons Ram Manohar, Ram Prakash, Dinesh and Ashok alias Munnu Yadav, who were the residents of same village, came at the residence of Maharajdeen Pasi, the uncle of complainant. Ram Prakash Yadav demanded Rs. 280/- from Amrit Lal Pasi, son of Maharajdeen Pasi. The amount was due as medical treatment fee. Amrit Lal replied that his labour wages for three months and ten days was due to accused persons. Further he submitted that let the due amount of medical treatment and labour wages be calculated and set off, accordingly the person who was having dues, he will pay to another. Hearing the reply of Amrit Lal, the accused-appellant Ram Manohar Yadav, who was serving in army, became angry and threatened Amrit Lal in the words :- " Paasi sale tumhara dimaag kharab hai. Zuban ladate ho."
Maharajdeen interfered in the matter and said that do not abuse and clear the dues by calculation. Hearing the voice of Maharajdeen the accused Ram Manohar Yadav fired on Maharajdeen Pasi with intention to kill. When complainant, Shyam Lal and Amrit Lal ran to save Maharajdeen then the accused persons Ram Prakash and Ashok Kumar alias Munnu, who were carrying lathis in their hands, beaten them and Dinesh who was carrying 'katta' (country made pistol) in his hands, threatened them that if anybody will come to rescue Maharajdeen, he will also be shot. By the injury of firearm on chest, Maharajdeen succumbed at the spot. It has also been mentioned in the FIR that apart from all above mentioned persons the witnesses Chhote Lal Pasi and Bhola Pasi and other residents of village have seen the incident. FIR of incident was lodged in the police station concerned at about 14:10 hrs on the same day.
3. The FIR of the occurrence was lodged at 14:10 hrs on the same day. Investigation started. The inquest and PMR of the deceased were done. The I.O. prepared the spot map and collected the blood stained and plain soil and also recovered two empty cartridges of 12 bore from the place of incident. Apart from that, injury report of injured Shyam Lal was prepared on 10.8.1998.
4. After investigation, the chargesheet was filed by the Investigating Officer against Ram Prakash Yadav, Dinesh Yadav, Ashok Kumar Yadav and Ram Manohar Yadav (the present appellant). The court of sessions, after committal, framed the charges against accused persons.
5. The following witnesses were produced by the prosecution :-
| 1 | PW 1 | Ganga Charan Pasi | Informant |
| 2 | PW 2 | Shyam Lal | Eyewitness and injured |
| 3 | PW 3 | Amrit Lal | Eyewitness |
| 4 | PW 4 | C.P. 198 Karuna Shankar | Chik FIR and GD entry |
| 5 | PW 5 | Dr. S.R. Agarwal | Prepared PMR |
| 6 | P | ||
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
