2019 Supreme(All) 1830
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Bachchoo Lal, Narendra Kumar Johari, JJ.
Dhaukal And Others - Appellant
Vs.
State Of U.P. - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 497 of 2000
Decided On : 17-10-2019
D.R. Chaudhary, Adv., Jitendra Prasad Mishra, Adv.
JUDGMENT :
Narendra Kumar Johari, J.
Present appeal has been filed against the judgment and conviction order of Sessions Judge, Chitrakoot. Learned Sessions Judge vide order dated 05.02.2000 has convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants under Sections 302 read with Section 34 and 323 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as "I.P.C."). All the accused/appellants Dhaukal, Lulli, Kaluwa and Sundaria were sentenced for life imprisonment under Section 302/34 and rigorous imprisonment for three months under Section 323 read with Section 34 I.P.C.
2. Prosecution version in nut-shell is as follows:-
3. It has been mentioned by complainant-Kalutia @ Sentarva in her First Information Report on 23.07.1987 that she had kept a bundle of JHAKHAR on her BIRABARI which was taken by Sundaria who was daughter of her brother-in-law (Jeth). On an enquiry about aforesaid JHAKHAR, Sundaria started abusing and an altercation took place orally between them. At about 1:00 P.M. at noon, her husband-Sukhna returned at his house after ploughing the field and was eating his meal. At that time, her Jeth-Dhaukal came at her house and called her husband stated that Sagir is calling him. On his call, her husband went with Dhaukal. Complainant followed them. When they reached near their old house, Sundaria, the daughter of Dhaukal seeing them, started abusing. Hearing the voice of Sundaria, her father-Dhaukal became angry and by abusing her he exhorted to kill. Consequently, Lulli, son-in-law (Damad) of Dhaukal and Kaluwa, son of Dhaukal and Dhaukal himself moved to attack on complainant by their lathis. Seeing their activities, Sukhana (her husband) came between accused persons and complainant just to save her wife from attack. Lulli hit the first blow of lathi which attacked on head of Sukhana and second blow of lathi was hit by Dhaukal. Receiving the injuries of lathis, Sukhana fell down. Complainant just to prevent lathi blows lie down and covered his body. At that time accused Kaluwa also attacked by lathi. Complainant hurled voice for help. Hearing the voice, the other villagers of neighbour Rania Pasin, Munni Pasin, Maika Pasi, Garib Pasi, Ramla Raidas, Bhori Pasin and Kallu Brahman etc. reached on spot who prevented accused persons from their attack. Then after that all the accused persons fleed away from the spot. Her husband Sukhna by the injuries of lathi blown by Lulli, Dhaukal and Kaluwa died on spot. Accordingly, the F.I.R. was written in Police Station-Mau, Karbi, Banda on the same date at 16:55 P.M. at Crime No.106 of 1987 under Section 304 I.P.C. Scriber of F.I.R. was Munni Ram.
4. The said First Information Report was entered at Serial No.27 in General Diary of Police Station on same date. Investigating Officer reached on spot. He took blood-stained piece of KATHARI and collected blood-stained and plain soil from the place of occurrence and prepared recovery memo (FARD) (Ex. Ka-4 and Ex. Ka-5) and sent the body of deceased for post mortem (Ex. Ka-8). Post mortem of deceased-Sukhana was conducted in combined health centre, Karvi, Banda on 25.07.1987 at 1:00 P.M. Medical Examination of injured complainant-Kalutia (Ex. Ka-7) was also done on 25.07.1987 at 05:45 P.M. Investigating Officer also prepared the spot map (Ex. Ka-6), Panchnama, arrested accused persons and submitted charge-sheet(Ex. Ka-9) in Court.
5. On behalf of the prosecution, complainant Kalutia @ Sentarva deposed as PW-1, Garib Das (Scriber of Tehreer First Information Report) as PW-2, Munni Ram (who lodged First Information Report) as PW-3. Genuineness of Chik of FIR, recovery memos of KATHARI and soil, injury report of Kalutia @ Sentarva, posts mortem report, spot map and Charge-sheet was admitted by learned counsel for the accused persons under Section 294 of Cr.P.C., therefore, the aforesaid documents were exhibited in prosecution evidence without formal proof by concerned witnesses.
6. Charges under Sections 304/34, 323/34 and 302/34 I.P.C. were fra