Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(All) 499

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
RAMESH SINHA, BRIJ RAJ SINGH, JJ.
Guddu Pal – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 2228 of 2008
Decided On : 09-05-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Balram Singh, Amrendra Kumar, Anand Mohan, Anil Pratap Singh, Jayant Singh Tomar, L.K. Gupta, Manjusha Kapil, O.P. Tiwari.

Point of Law: Court is not supposed to give undue importance to omissions, contradictions and discrepancies which do not go to the heart of the matter and shake the basic version of the prosecution witnesses.

Headnote:
Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 read with Section 34 - Offence of Murder - Outraging the modesty of wife - Recovery of Banka - Cause of death is due to shock and hemorrhage due to ante mortem injuries sustained - Recovery of Banka was proved before the trial court - There is no iota of doubt that the crime was committed by the accused-appellant with the respective weapons as mentioned in the F.I.R.
Finding of the Court:
Knife was not recovered but the opinion of the doctor clearly indicates that the injuries could have been caused by Banka and knife. The injuries were not punctured wound rather they were incised wound-doctor has also given opinion that the deceased received three incised wound. The doctor had not admitted that any injury out of three was caused by any other weapon because the injuries were incised wound and no injury was punctured wound. The place of occurrence has been proved as per site plan and the same cannot be doubted.
Result: Appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

BRIJ RAJ SINGH, J.

1. The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 05.09.2008 passed by the Additional Session Judge, Court No. 5, Sitapur in Session Trial No. 602 of 2006 (State Vs. Guddu Pal and Another) in Case Crime No. 168 of 2006, under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. Police Station-Ataria, District Sitapur thereby convicting and sentencing the appellants, under the aforesaid sections for life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 10,000/- each and in case of default of payment of fine additional six months rigorous imprisonment.

2. The First Information Report was lodged on 13.07.2006 by Pappu Pal at 12:30. The complainant stated in the F.I.R. that his wife Gudda had gone to her field on 13.07.2016 to weed out the peppermint crop and he was present in his house. At about 10:30 a.m., Guddu S/o Sohanpal, Lala @ Lalji S/o Gokaran Pal of his own village and another person came to the place of incident and they outraged the modesty of his wife and tried to commit rape with her. His wife made protest and ran away from the field while making alarm. All the three accused caught her and thereafter Guddu armed with Banka and Lalji with knife caused injury to her. On alarm being raised by his wife, he and his brother Ram Singh, Prakash Pasi S/o Lekhai and Raju S/o Mahesh Pasi and other witnesses came to the place of incident. Accused Guddu and Lalji along with a third unknown person ran away from the place of incident towards the west side of the village.

3. On the said application Case Crime No. 168 of 2006, under Section 302 I.P.C. Police Station Atariya, District Sitapur, was registered. The inquest was prepared and the Investigating Officer sent the dead body for post mortem. The Investigating Officer investigated the case and a charge sheet was filed under Section 302 I.P.C. against the accused after collecting the evidences. The case was committed on 26.08.2006 before the Sessions Court by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sitapur and thereafter the charges were framed under Section 302/34 I.P.C., which was denied by the accused. The post mortem report indicates three ante mortem injuries on the body of the deceased which follows as under:

“(i) Incised wound 8cm X 3 cm X abdominal cavity deep on the right side of upper abdomen obliquely placed, underlying liver cut.

(ii) Incised wound 1.5 cm X 0.5 cm X deep abdominal cavity depth present on the illegible of abdomen. Right side illegible with underlying liver cut, plenty of clotted blood on the back of abdominal cavity, discending arte cut.

(iii) Incised wound 2 cm X 0.5 cm X abdominal cavity deep. On the left side of upper abdomen 12 cm below to right nipple underlying stomach cut.”

4. The doctor has opined the cause of death is due to shock and hemorrhage due to ante mortem injuries sustained.

5. Prosecution had produced six witnesses, namely, who were examined. (1) Pappu Pal, the complainant, (2) Sri Ram Singh, the eye-witness, (3) PW-3 Sriram, who proved the recovery of Banka, (4) PW- 4 Mukesh Kumar Chaturvedi, the constable who lodged the F.I.R. (5) PW-5 S.I. Harilal Kardam and PW-6 Dr. B.R. Jaiswal who conducted the post mortem.

6. The accused-appellants were afforded opportunity under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The accused Guddu Pal stated that he was falsely implicated due to enmity of elections of Gram Pradhan and he stated that he was caught from his house and false recovery has been shown against him. Accused Lala @ Lalji in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. stated that he too was implicated due to election of Gram Pradhan and stated that the witnesses have given false statements.

7. After adducing the evidences on record, the trial court passed judgment on 05.09.2008 and the accused have been convicted under Section 302/34 I.P.C. and sentenced with life imprisonment. Hence the present appeal.

8. We have heard Ms. Manjusha Kapil, learned Counsel for the appellant and Shri Pankaj Tewari, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondents and perused th