Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
BACHCHOO LAL, SUBHASH CHANDRA SHARMA, JJ.
Foolbadan – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos. 3268, 3586, 3601 of 2015
Decided On : 06-01-2021
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 307, 302, 324 read with Section 34, 352, 504, 506 - Imprisonment - Penalty - Prosecution case in brief is that informant alongwith his brothers was cutting down the boundary line of his field located beside - His cousin and their brother-in-law Phoolbadan came there and assaulted them with sticks and spade was armed with spade and others with sticks exhorted to kill them - Held, On considering the statements made by DW-1 and DW-2, it appears that there is nothing to support the defense version as stated by them - They have not narrated the specific place of work where he was employed - No any job card/duty card/attendance sheet has been filed to support his presence at that specific place at the time of incident - No any admission slip of hospital has been filed to show that on the date of occurrence appellant was not present - Even appellant Phoolbadan has not made any statement in this regard u/s 313 Cr.P.C. Paper nos. 58-kha/1 to 58-kha/4 are prescriptions of medicines but language used therein is not legible - Paper no. 59-kha is medical certificate in which appellant has been shown to be suffering from enteric fever but the name & seal of the issuing authority is not legible - Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
SUBHASH CHANDRA SHARMA, J.
1. These appeals emanate from the common judgment and order dated 25.07.2015 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Mau in Sessions Trial No. 110 of 2012 (State vs. Rama Shankar and Others) and Sessions Trial No. 203 of 2013 (State vs. Gaurishankar @ Bhuwar) arising out of Case Crime No. 828 of 2011 under Sections 307, 302, 324 read with section 34, 352, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Haldharpur, District Mau by which appellants have been convicted and sentenced under Section 302/34 IPC with life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 10,000/- for each, in default of payment rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months; under Section 307/34 IPC with rigorous imprisonment for the period of five years' and fine of Rs. 2000/- for each, in default of payment rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month; under Section 324/34 IPC with rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year for each; under Section 352 IPC with rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month each; under Section 504 IPC with rigorous imprisonment of three months' for each and under Section 506 IPC with rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year for each which are to run concurrently, therefore these appeals are heard and being decided together.
2. The prosecution case in brief is that on 06.11.2011 at 3.00 P.M. informant Anil Kumar S/o Yodhan R/o Bilaujha (Banati), Police Station Haldharpur, District Mau alongwith his brothers Sunil, Pappu and Arvind was cutting down the boundary line of his field located beside Saiyad Baba in SHEEVAN of Naseerabad Kala. His cousin Rama Shankar, Surjeet @ Loha, Gaurishankar @ Bhuwar and their brother-in-law Phoolbadan came there and assaulted them with sticks and spade. Surjeet @ Loha was armed with spade and others with sticks. Surjeet @ Loha exhorted to kill them. They fell down on the ground as a result injured-Sunil and Pappu became unconscious. Informant and his brother Arvind cried for help. Villagers came there. Then accused-appellants fled away from the spot but Pappu succumbed to injuries and Sunil was brought to the hospital with the help of villagers where he also succumbed to injuries.
3. On the same day at 4.15 P.M. informant Anil Kumar lodged the F.I.R. at Police Station Haldharpur against accused-appellants Rama Shankar, Surjeet @ Loha, Gaurishankar @ Bhuwar and Phoolbadan as Case Crime No. 828 of 2011 under Section 307, 302, 324, 352, 504, 506 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. Entry of F.I.R. was made in G.D. Report No. 27 and chitthi majroobi of injured Sunil Kumar was prepared and he was sent to the hospital for treatment. Investigation of the case was handed over to Station Officer S.I. Indrajeet.
4. Injured Sunil Kumar was medically examined on the same day at 6.15 P.M. at District Hospital, Mau. Following injuries were found on his person:
(ii) Contusion 3 cm x 2 cm on right occipital region of skull 11 cm post to right ear. Advised for x-ray of skull.
(iii) Abraded contusion 3 cm x 2.5 cm on left side of forehead 2 cm from left ear.
(iv) Contused swelling 11 cm x 12 cm on dorsum of left hand including fingers. Advised x-ray of left hand.
(v) Abraded contusion 14 cm x 8 cm dorsum of right hand including fingers. Advised x-ray of right hand.
(vi) Lacerated wound 3 cm x 1.5 cm x 40 cm on left leg, 11 cm below from left knee joint. Advised x-ray of left leg.
(vii) Abrasion 2 cm x 1 cm on front of left leg 3 cm above the injury no. 6. Advised x-ray of left leg.
(viii) Contusion with swelling 9 cm x 7 cm around the injury no. 6 and 7. Advised x-ray of left leg.
(ix) Contused swelling 9.5 cm x 5.5 cm on lateral aspect of left ankle joint. Advised x-ray left ankle.
Opinion: all injuries KUO except injury no. 3. Injury no. 3 is simple in nature. Injury no. 1 caused by sharp object. Other injuries caused by hard and blunt object. Duration fresh. Patient admitted in emergenc
Interested evidence is not necessarily unreliable and should be scrutinized with care but cannot be rejected merely on the ground of being partisan. Minor discrepancies and contradictions should not ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on trustworthy and reliable testimony of prosecution witnesses, despite their relationship to the deceased, to establish the guilt of ....
The court upheld the conviction of three appellants for murder, emphasizing the credibility of eyewitnesses and the established motive, while acquitting two due to insufficient evidence.
The court modified the conviction from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, emphasizing the lack of intent to kill and the nature of injuries inflicted.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code to establish the shared common intention of the accused in committing the murder.
The testimonies of related witnesses must be scrutinized carefully, especially when inconsistencies exist and the prosecution fails to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
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
