Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Harsh Kumar, J.
Prabhu - Appellant
Vs.
State - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 2431 of 1986
Decided On : 10-08-2018
Harsh Kumar, J. - Appeal against conviction under Section 304 (I) and Section 323 I.P.C. - Section 304 (I), Section 323 - The court discussed the legal provisions of Section 304 (I) and Section 323 IPC, the burden of proof, and the right of private defense. The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of the evidence, the nature of injuries, and the absence of a motive for murder.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute over a fruit tree, leading to a physical altercation resulting in the death of one individual and injuries to another.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the appellant guilty of causing death and injuries, but modified the conviction from Section 304 (I) to 304 (II) IPC, reducing the sentence to three years of rigorous imprisonment.
Issues: Dispute over fruit tree ownership, nature of injuries, burden of proof, and right of private defense.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the consistency of witness statements, the nature of injuries, and the absence of evidence supporting the appellant's claim of self-defense.
Final Decision: The appeal was partly allowed, modifying the conviction and reducing the sentence for the appellant.
JUDGMENT :
Harsh Kumar, J.
1. This appeal has been filed against the judgement and order dated 23.8.1986 passed by Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Azamgarh in Sessions Trial No.15 of 1984 convicting the appellant for the offences under Section 304 (I) and Section 323 I.P.C. and sentencing with rigorous imprisonment for five years under Section 304 (I) and rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months under Section 323 I.P.C.
2. Heard Sri Ravindra Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri L.D. Rajbhar, learned AGA for the State.
3. The brief facts relating to the appeal are that on 11.04.1981 at 6:20 P.M. a FIR was lodged by Vijayi son of Raja Mallah stating that at 4:00 P.M, he was processing his crop a fruit of BAIL (Sriphal) fell on the heep of his wheat which was taken by him and he started eating it, then Ramawati and Tarva respectively sister and wife of Prabhu, started abusing the first informant in the meantime and Prabhu appeared there with lathi and started abusing; that the parents of first informant were at their door and asked Prabhu and members of his family to desist from abusing and Ram Surat, Loutu and Pakhandi who had arrived also asked them, not to abuse; that Prabhu beaten his father & mother with lath. And his father who sustained injury in the eye with oozing of blood and his mother also sustained lathi injuries and the condition of his father is very serious.
4. On this report, the case was registered against the appellant Prabhu under Section 308 IPC and since the injured Raja Mallah died due to injuries sustained in the incident, the case was converted under Section 304 IPC. The Investigation Officer after preparing the inquest report and collecting the injury report of Srimati Kisundei, the mother of first informant and Post Mortem Report of Raja Mallah, the father of first informant and collecting the evidence submitted charge-sheet against the accused-appellant under Sections 308/304 IPC and case was committed to Sessions. The Additional Sessions Judge framed charges against accused-appellant for offences under Section 323 IPC for causing simple injuries to Kinsundei and under Section 304 IPC for committing death of Raja Mallah by causing lathi injuries. The accused-appellant denied the charges and demanded trial.
5. The prosecution in order to prove the charges against appellant has produced Vijayi, the first informant as PW-1, Srimati Kisundei, the injured witness and mother of first informant as PW-2, S.I. Pitambar Shukla as PW-3, Ganesh Kumar as PW-4, Constable Jagat Narayan Mishra as PW-5, Dr. G.S. Chaturvedi, the Autopsy Surgeon as PW-6 and Dr. P. Sarangi as PW-7. After completion of prosecution evidence, statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and accused produced Pharmacist Lallan Rai as DW-1 to produce and prove his injury report as well as injury report of his sister Ramawati as exihibit B-1 and B-2.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that he has been falsely implicated for causing lathi injuries to Raja Mallah and his wife resulting in death of Raja Mallah; that the real fact is that on the day of incident Raj Dev and first informant were digging their Haudi and thus damaging his property and when he with his sister Ramawati asked them to desist, they beaten both of them with the lathis and in order to save their lives his family members Ramawati etc. pelted stones by which Raja Mallah sustained injuries; that the medical examination of appellant and his sister was done in District Hospital and their report was not lodged; that there are material contradictions in the prosecution evidence and the prosecution has failed to explain the injuries of accused and his sister and has failed to produce eye-witnesses of the incident; that the appellant had no motive to commit murder of Raja Mallah and the offence of appellant, if at all, does not travel beyond the ambit of offence under Section 325 IPC; that the appellant was a young boy of 25 years old at t
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
