Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
(LUCKNOW BENCH, LUCKNOW)
Ramesh Sinha, Saroj Yadav, JJ.
Sri Kant - Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1314 of 2005, Criminal Appeal No. 1529 of 2005
Decided On : 30-05-2022
Criminal Appeal - Indian Penal Code - Section 302/34 - Section 323/34 - [Section 34, Section 302, Section 323] - The judgment and order dated 30.9.2005 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C. No.1, Hardoi in Sessions Trial No.257 of 2002 and 252 of 2003 jointly, whereby the appellants/convicts have been awarded a sentence for life imprisonment under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short ‘I.P.C.’) and imprisonment of six months under Section 323/34 I.P.C.
Fact of the Case:
A First Information Report (F.I.R.) was registered under Section 302/323/504 I.P.C. against the appellants/convicts at Police Station Harpalpur, District Hardoi. The appellants/convicts were alleged to have abused, beaten, and fired upon the deceased, resulting in his death. Charges were framed against the appellants/convicts, and they denied the charges and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined seven witnesses, and relevant documents were also proved and exhibited. The statements of appellants/convicts were recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, wherein they denied the crime and submitted that witnesses have deposed falsely. No witness was produced in defense by either of the appellants/convicts. The trial court held the appellants/convicts guilty under Section 302 and 323 read with Section 34 I.P.C. and punished them accordingly.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court found the evidence of the injured witness and complainant to be trustworthy and reliable. It held the appellants/convicts guilty under Section 302 and 323 read with Section 34 I.P.C. based on the sole testimony of the injured witness and complainant. The court rejected the appellants/convicts' claims of false implication and lack of evidence supporting the charges.
Issues: The main issues revolved around the credibility of the witnesses, the presence of common intention among the appellants/convicts, and the applicability of Section 34 I.P.C. in the case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the weight of the injured witness's testimony and the absence of concrete evidence to disprove the charges. It relied on the principle that a conviction can be based on the sole testimony of a witness if found creditworthy. The court also considered the applicability of Section 34 I.P.C. and the requirement of common intention among the accused.
Final Decision: The appeals of the appellants/convicts Kamla Kant and Sunil Kant were partly allowed, affirming their conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. and setting aside the conviction under Section 323/34 I.P.C. The appeal of the appellant/convict Sri Kant was partly allowed, setting aside the conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. and affirming the conviction under Section 323 I.P.C. The appellants/convicts Kamla Kant and Sunil Kant were ordered to serve out the sentence, while the appellant/convict Sri Kant was directed to surrender before the trial court to serve out the sentence awarded to him under Section 323 I.P.C.
JUDGMENT :
(Saroj Yadav, J for the Bench)
1. The Criminal Appeal No.1314 of 2005 has been filed by the appellants/ convicts Sri Kant and Ram Lakhan and the Criminal Appeal No.1529 of 2005 by appellants/convicts Kamla Kant and Sunil Kant, being aggrieved of the judgement and order dated 30.9.2005 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C. No.1, Hardoi in Sessions Trial No.257 of 2002 and 252 of 2003 jointly, whereby the appellants/convicts have been awarded a sentence for life imprisonment under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short ‘I.P.C.’) and imprisonment of six months under Section 323/34 I.P.C.
2. Since appellant Ram Lakhan died during pendency of the appeal, appeal filed by him stood abated vide order dated 22.7.2019 passed by this court.
3. The facts necessary for disposal of these appeals, shorn of unnecessary details are as under :
4. A First Information Report ( in short ‘F.I.R.’) was registered at Case Crime No.128 of 2001 under Section 302/323/504 I.P.C. against the appellants/ convicts at Police Station Harpalpur, District Hardoi on the basis of a written report submitted by the complainant Ram Babu Shukla. It was stated in the written report that Anoop Kumar son of Natthu belonging to the family of complainant, put some thorny bushes at the boundary of own paddy-field. Due to this, a way was created through the field of Hari Babu so his cousin Hari Babu during day time at about 1.00 P.M. went to the field to remove thorny bushes on the boundary of the field. As soon as he started removing the thorny bushes, Sri Kant, Kamla Kant and Sunil Kant son of Ram Chandra and Ram Lakhan son of Devi Sahai reached there and started abusing and beating Hari Babu with sticks (lathis). Hearing the noise, he, Natthu Singh and Ram Avtaar resident of same village, reached the spot. As soon as he reached on the spot Ram Lakhan and Sri kant started beating him also, with sticks and Sunil Kant and Kamla Kant fired on Hari Babu with country made pistols. Hari Babu sustained injuries on his stomach and on left side of the head. As soon as fire hit Hari Babu, he ran to save himself towards the grove of Babu Singh, he fell down and died there. Thereafter all the above four miscreants went away towards their own house and the dead body was lying in the grove.
5. After investigation, chargesheet no.96/2001 was submitted in the court against Kamla Kant, Sunil Kant and Sri Kant under Section 302, 323/34 I.P.C.; and chargesheet No.96-A/2001 against Ram Lakhan.
6. After taking cognizance, concerned Magistrate committed both the cases to Sessions court for trial where the case against Sri Kant, Kamla and Sunil Kant was registered as Sessions Trial No.257 of 2002 and against Ram Lakhan, Sessions Trial No.292/2002. Both the sessions trials were consolidated and tried together. Charges were framed against appellants/convicts. They denied the charges and claimed to be tried.
7. In order to prove the charges levelled against the appellants/ convicts, the prosecution examined seven witnesses in toto. These seven witnesses are :-
(ii). P.W.-2 Ram Babu Shukla, the complainant and the injured eye witness.
(iii). P.W.-3 Dr. V.V. Tripathi, Autopsy Surgeon who conducted postmortem on the cadaver of the deceased.
(iv). P.W.-4 Raja Ram Singh, the third investigating officer who investigated the case partially.
(v). P.W.-5 Har Narain Singh, second investigating officer who investigated the case partially.
(vi). P.W.-6 Suresh Pal, first investigating officer who did investigation, initially.
(vii). P.W.-7 Dr. C.P.Rawat who medically examined the injured.
8. Apart from the above oral evidences, relevant documents were also proved and exhibited as under :-
(ii). Exhibit Ka-2 -Post Mortem Report.
(iii). Exhibit Ka-3-Chargesheet No.96 of 2001 submitted against Kamla Kant, Sunil Kant and Sri Kant.
(iv). Exhibit Ka-4-Chargesheet No.96A/2001 against appellant/convict. Ram Lakhan
The main legal point established in the judgment is the weight given to the testimony of a single witness, the requirement of common intention under Section 34 I.P.C., and the applicability of joint ....
Criminal Law - Common Intention - Liability of one person for an offence committed by another in the course of criminal act perpetrated by several persons arises under Section 34 if such criminal act....
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 court confirmed that related eyewitnesses can provide reliable testimony in murder cases when corroborated by medical evidence, emphasizing that evidence must be assessed for credibility rather t....
Conviction upheld under Section 304 Part-II IPC based on credible eyewitness testimony despite minor contradictions; intention to murder not established.
The Court upheld the life imprisonment conviction under Section 302 IPC, affirming the case as murder due to the absence of sudden provocation and corroborative evidence supporting the eyewitness's t....
Murder conviction quashed for lack of proof that specific appellants inflicted fatal blow; eyewitness contradictions, medical evidence allowing death by fall, parity with acquitted co-accused, and un....
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
