Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
ARVIND KUMAR MISHRAI, J.
Ram Bali And Others – Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.1706 of 2004
Decided on : 17-11-2021
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 307, 504, 506 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 313, 161 and 437A - Arms Act - Section 25 - Motive – Offence of Murder – Testimony of Witness – Fire arms injury - Appeal against conviction - Whether prosecution has been successful in establishing charges beyond shadow of reasonable doubt against the appellants - informant stated that regarding the incident that took place at village same day by describing that there is enmity on account of landed property between the informant's family and the accused say Rambali and others - Ram Bali possessing country-made gun in his hand accompanied by his two sons both possessing 'lathi' and 'danda' (stick) in their hands, arrived on spot and insisted for raising construction (wall) over the disputed land - When they were intercepted by the uncle of informant, they felt agitated and accused-appellant Ram Bali with intention to kill fired with country-made gun on the uncle of informant due to which he fell down on the ground and in the meanwhile, informant and others arrived on spot, saw the incident and intervened in the matter, when the accused abusing the informant fled away from the scene.
Finding of the court:
As the point of recovery of the country-made gun from the accused Ram Bali is concerned, it is stated that this was the country-made gun used for commission of the offence. But there is no forensic report obtained by the Investigating Officer in this case which may confirm and establish fact that this weapon was used in causing injury (no.1) to the victim - Positively in the face of the testimony of informant himself in his cross-examination that prior to the lodging of the report, the entire incident was narrated to the police at the police station itself and then only the report was dictated to be written at the police station itself, whereas this aspect has been tried to be twisted and avoided by P.W.2 the scribe of Exhibit Ka1 that he wrote this report at the police station itself - These are the specific aspects of this case and these specific aspects ought to have been appreciated properly, vis-a-vis, the evidence and circumstances of this case by the trial court which has not been done by it. Obviously, enmity was existing between both the sides and some altercation is stated to have taken place which has been trid to be coloured differently by the prosecution witnesses. Here the specific corroboration of testimony of the two prosecution witnesses of fact is woefully lacking, therefore, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants appear to be substantial and carry weight and there is every reason to accept same and to record conclusion that in so far as the charge under Section 307 IPC against the accused appellant Ram Bali is concerned, it is not sustainable in eye of law - Finding of conviction recorded by the trial court becomes erroneous and illegal and the judgment and order of conviction passed by Additional Sessions Judge/FTC set aside.
Result: Appeal is allowed.
JUDGMENT :
(1) Heard Sri Raijv Lochan Shukla, Sri Arvind Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned counsel for the informant and Sri Bhanu Prakash Singh, learned Brief Holder for the State and perused the record.
(2) By way of instant criminal appeal, challenge has been made to the authenticity and sustainability of the judgment and order dated 25.03.2004 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C. No.3, Mirzapur in Sessions Trial No. 224 of 1998 (State Vs. Ram Bali and others), under Sections 307, 504, 506 IPC, and Sessions Trial No.396 of 1999, under Section 25 Arms Act, Police Station Kotwali Dehat, District Mirzapur, whereby in Sessions Trial No.224 of 1998 the appellant Ram Bali has been convicted and sentenced to undergo 7 years R.I. coupled with fine Rs.3000/ and the two other co accused appellants-Prakash Chandra and Subhash Chandra have been convicted and sentenced for offence u/s 307 read with Section 34 IPC to undergo 7 years R.I. coupled with fine Rs.3000/ and default clause stipulated additional R.I. for one year to be suffered by the concerned (defaulter) appellant's aforesaid.
Further, in Sessions Trial No.396 of 1999 appellant Ram Bali who was tried alone has been convicted and sentenced to undergo two years R.I. coupled with fine Rs.1000/ and default clause stipulated four months additional imprisonment.
(3) Prosecution case as discernible from record appears to be that the informant Servesh Kumar Mishra s/o Radhey Shyam Mishra resident of Bhueli Pandey, Police Station Kotwali Dehat, District Mirzapur lodged written report Exhibit Ka1 at Police Station Kotwali Dehat around 11.20 A.M. on 28.08.1995 regarding the incident that took place at village Bhueli Pandey around 9.30 A.M. the same day (28.8.1995) by describing that there is enmity on account of landed property between the informant's family and the accused say Rambali and others. On 28.08.1995 at about 9.30 A.M. Ram Bali s/o Rajroop Mishra possessing country-made gun in his hand accompanied by his two sons Prakash Chandra Mishra and Subhash Chandra Mishra both possessing 'lathi' and 'danda' (stick) in their hands, arrived on the spot and insisted for raising construction (wall) over the disputed land. When they were intercepted by the uncle of informant Bihari, they felt agitated and accused-appellant Ram Bali with intention to kill fired with the country-made gun on the uncle of informant Bihari due to which he fell down on the ground and in the meanwhile, the informant Servesh Kumar Mishra, Doodh Nath Choubey and Tikori Dubey arrived on the spot, saw the incident and intervened in the matter, when the accused abusing the informant fled away from the scene. This written report is Exhibit Ka1.
(4) Contents of this written report were taken down in the concerned Check FIR on 28.08.1995 at 11.20 A.M. at case crime no.251 of 1995, under Sections 307, 504, 506 IPC at Police Station Kotwali Dehat, district Mirzapur. The copy of the Check F.I.R. is Exhibit Ka.5. Consequent upon entries so made in the Check FIR, a case was registered against the accused at aforesaid case crime number, under aforesaid sections of Indian Penal Code vide entry made in the concerned General Diary. The relevant G.D. Entry is Exhibit Ka6.
(5) The investigation ensued and it was taken over by S.I. Ram Dhani C.W.1 on 28.08.1995. He obtained the copies of the relevant document the written report, check F.I.R. etc. made relevant entries in the case diary arrived on the spot inspected the spot and prepared the site plan, which is Exhibit Ka2.
(6) The injured Bihari s/o Jag Mohan aged about 42 years resident of Bhuli Pandey, Police Station Kotwali Dehat, District Mirzapur was brought by Constable Shambhu Nath Yadav at District Hospital, Mirzapur on 28.8.1995 and injured Bihari was medically examined at 12.00 noon. The following injuries have been noted by Dr. I.N. Tiwari C.W.2 at the time of medical examination on the person of injured Bihari.
Point of Law : Obviously, enmity was existing between both the sides and some altercation is stated to have taken place which has been trid to be coloured differently by the prosecution witnesses.
Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons - Benefit of doubt given to accused – Conviction set aside - On account of enmity based on litigation, there are chances of developing a false case and t....
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt due to significant inconsistencies in witness testimonies and lack of reliable evidence, leading to the reversal o....
The court found that an injury categorized under IPC Section 324 does not meet the criteria for attempted murder under Section 308 due to the lack of intent to endanger life.
Attempt to murder – Intention to kill must be apparent from act of accused.
The prosecution must prove the intention or knowledge of causing death under Section 307 IPC, and the injury sustained must be established as a firearm injury. Lack of forensic evidence and inconsist....
The conviction for attempted murder under Section 307 IPC was upheld based on eyewitness accounts, while the charge under the Arms Act was dismissed due to insufficient evidence.
The court affirmed conviction for attempted murder while reducing the sentence due to mitigating circumstances, highlighting scrutiny of evidence in violent crime cases and the need for direct corrob....
The direct connectivity of recovered evidence, such as bullets and firearms, can be a crucial factor in establishing guilt in criminal cases.
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
