Back
2022 Supreme(All) 1135
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Vikram D. Chauhan, J.
Kanta – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. - 549 of 1983
Decided On : 26-08-2022
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : H.R. Misra, Amicus Curiae, Pankaj Kumar Asthana, Vrindavan Mishra
The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on prosecution witnesses and medical evidence to establish guilt, despite the absence of independent witnesses and the delay in reporting the incident.
Headnote:
IPC - Conviction under Section 304 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the application of Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the interpretation of evidence related to the use of 'Faruhi' as a weapon, the delay in lodging the First Information Report, and the absence of independent witnesses. The court also referenced legal provisions from various judgments to support its decision.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved an appeal against the conviction of the appellant under Section 304 of the IPC for causing the death of the deceased by assaulting him with a 'Faruhi' during a heated argument over the sale of agricultural land. The prosecution alleged that the appellant, along with others, had used abusive language and assaulted the deceased, resulting in his death.
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzed the evidence presented by the prosecution witnesses, including the informant and eyewitness, the post-mortem report, and the delay in lodging the First Information Report. The court found the appellant guilty based on the testimony of the witnesses and the medical evidence, dismissing the arguments related to the absence of blood stains and the delay in reporting the incident.
Issues: The key issues included the reliability of the prosecution witnesses, the nature of the weapon used in the assault, the delay in lodging the First Information Report, and the absence of independent witnesses.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, the medical evidence, and legal precedents to establish the guilt of the appellant. The court also emphasized that the absence of independent witnesses and the delay in reporting the incident did not undermine the prosecution's case.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal, upheld the conviction under Section 304 of the IPC, and ordered the appellant to surrender for serving the sentence as per the trial court judgment.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Sri Pankaj Kumar Asthana, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
2. The present appeal is filed challenging the judgement dated 18th February, 1983 passed by the Special and Additional Sessions Judge, Ghazipur in Sessions Trial No. 143 of 1982 (State Vs. Kanta and others), whereby the Appellant – Kanta has been convicted under Section 304 of the IPC and has been sentenced for three years rigorous imprisonment under Section 304 (II) of the IPC.
3. As per the prosecution case, on 27th October, 1981, at about 11:00 a.m., complainant – Chandrajeet lodged a First Information Report at Police Station Qasimabad, District Ghazipur being Case Crime No. 161 under Section 304 of the IPC against Kanta Yadav (Appellant), Rama Shankar Yadav and Sudarshan. The prosecution case as per the First Information Report is to the effect that the complainant was resident of Village Bhatpura under Police Station Qasimabad. On 26th October, 1981, at about 12 noon, there was heated argument between the complainant and his nephew Sudarshan with regard to selling of agricultural land jointly belonging to the complainant and his nephew Sudarshan. The nephew of the complainant was selling the agricultural land and the complainant was asking him not to sell the land and there was heated argument between them and even abusive language was used. In the meantime, the Appellant – Kanta Yadav and Rama Shankar Yadav who are sympathisers of Sudarshan came and started abusing the complainant in favour of Sudarshan and when the complainant asked them not to use abusive language then the mother of Laxmi Shankar came to defuse the situation. Sudarshan caught the mother of Laxmi Shankar and Rama Shankar caught the complainant. Thereafter, Appellant – Kanta Yadav took ‘Faruhi’ in his hand to assault the complainant, however, Laxmi Shankar came in between to save the complainant and as such ‘Faruhi’ hit Lakshmi Shankar on his head. Laxmi Shankar on being hit on the head fell down and was taken to Dr. Shreekant who gave him first aid and thereafter Laxmi Shankar was talking normally and as such the complainant thought that he was out of danger and did not take him to hospital. At about 11:00 p.m. Laxmi Shankar died on account of injury. As the death occurred in the late night as such the police could not be informed and the First Information Report was lodged on 27th October, 1981.
4. The First Information Report was scribed by Ram Chandra, son of Sri Kishun and the same was lodged as Case Crime No. 161 under section 304 IPC. The Panchayatnama of the deceased (Laxmi Shankar) was held on 27th October, 1981 and according to the Panchayatnama the death of the deceased has occurred on account of head injuries.
5. The post-mortem examination of the deceased was held on 28th October, 1981 at 1:45 p.m. The post-mortem examination was conducted by Dr. K.K. Srivastava. As per the post-mortem report, the deceased died due to head injury caused by anti-mortem injury no 1. The deceased sustained the following external injuries as per the post-mortem report :-
“1. Horizontal incised wound 5cm x 1cm x brain deep on the left side of skull, 8 cm above the root of left ear. Blood clot and a little brain substance present. The wounds painted yellow and is unstitiched.”
6. After investigation, the Investigating Officer has submitted a chargesheet against the accused person under Section 304 IPC. The trial court on 3rd December, 1982 framed charge against the appellant under Section 304 IPC. It is to be noted that the charge against co-accused Ramashankar and Sudarshan was also framed under Section 304 read with section 34 IPC. However in the impugned judgment, the aforesaid two accused person namely Ramashankar and Sudarshan have been acquitted of the charge under Section 304 read with Section 34 IPC. The Appellant denied the charges and claimed to be tried.
7. The prosecution produced five witnesses in support of the prosec
