Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Surendra Singh-I, J.
Akhilesh Shukla And Others – Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. - 638 of 1996
Decided On : 21-04-2023
Indian Penal Code,1860 - Section 147, 148, 323, 324, 307 - Offence of Rioting, armed with deadly weapons - Voluntarily causing hurt – Charged - Accused are also resident of the same village - There was enmity due to litigation between informant and co-accused - Informant is a commission agent and often remains outside his village - Tilak ceremony of informant’s nephew, was to be held - Informant had gone to his village on to participate in ceremony - Informant was taking bath at his door - Accused, , hurled abuses on informant and exhorted co-accused to kill informant - Hearing exhortation, informant ran to his verandah - Thereupon, accused, all sons of armed with lathi, pharsa and gun with the object of committing murder of complainant, entered into his verandah - He was dragged out and beaten severely by the accused - Accused, assaulted with pharsa and remaining accused with lathi - Informant made hue and cry on which witnesses and other villagers reached there, saw occurrence and saved the informant - Informant received injuries caused by lathi and pharsa - It has been argued by learned counsel for defence that the prosecution has not explained the injuries received by accused - Prosecution has not proved the genesis of the case properly and accused should be given benefit of doubt. [Para 25]
Finding of Court : Statutory provisions very emphatically lay down reformatory and correctional object of sentencing and obligates trial court as well as appellate courts to give benefit of probation in fit cases as provided under law - Unfortunately, this branch of law has not been much utilized by courts - It becomes more relevant and important in system of administration of justice where trial is often concluded after a long time and by the time decision assumes finality, very purpose of sentencing looses its efficacy as with the passage of time the penological and social priorities change and there remains no need to inflict punishment of imprisonment, particularly when offence involved is not serious and there is no criminal antecedent of the accused persons - Facts and given circumstances in each case, nature of crime, manner in which it was planned and committed, motive for commission of crime, the conduct of accused, nature of weapons used and all other attending circumstances are relevant facts which would enter into the area of consideration - It is duty of every court to award proper sentence having regard to the nature of offence and manner in which it was executed or committed.
Result : criminal appeal is accordingly, dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Heard Sri Shashi Prakash Rai, learned counsel for the appellants and learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. This criminal appeal has been instituted against the judgement and order dated 30.03.1996 passed by Sessions Judge, Siddharthnagar, in Sessions Trial No. 135 of 1991, State Vs. Ram Ashish and others, arising out of Case Crime No. 38 of 1985 u/s 147, 148, 323, 324, 307 I.P.C., P.S.-Uska Bazar, District- Siddharthnagar.
3. By the impugned judgement and order, the trial court has convicted the accused, namely, Ram Ashish, Ram Kishor, Akhilesh, Arvind, Ravindra, Satyadeo and Girjesh u/s 147, 148, 323, 324 r/w 149 I.P.C. and released on probation for two years on the condition of maintaining good conduct and peace in society on furnishing personal bonds of Rs.5,000/-and two sureties in the like amount.
4. The trial court acquitted all the accused from charge u/s 307 I.P.C. No appeal has been filed against acquittal u/s 307 I.P.C. as the order of acquittal has become final.
5. During pendency of appeal, appellant no. 6, Satyadeo and appellant no. 7, Ram Kishor, have died and criminal appeal qua these appellants was abated vide order dated 18.08.2018.
6. It is submitted in the grounds of appeal that the conviction is against the evidence on record. It is also submitted that the conviction is wrong and the sentence is too severe. It is also submitted that appellant, Ravindra Kumar Shukla is a government employee and posted as police constable at Gonda. Appellant, Arvind is in service in Delhi. It has also been submitted that appellant, Ram Ashish is studying in L.L.B. IInd year from Ram Manohar Lohia University, Faizabad, now Ayodhya.
7. The prosecution case in brief is that informant, Govind, is the resident of village, Mehaniyna Bujurg, Police Station-Uska Bazar, District-Siddharthnagar. The accused are also resident of the same village. There was enmity due to litigation between the informant and co-accused Satyadeo. The informant Govind is a commission agent and often remains outside his village. The tilak ceremony of informant’s nephew, Arun Kumar was to be held on 29.05.1985. Therefore, informant had gone to his village on 25.05.1985 to participate in the ceremony. On 25.05.1985 at 7.30 p.m., the informant was taking bath at his door. Accused, Ram Ashish, hurled abuses on informant and exhorted the co-accused to kill the informant. Hearing the exhortation, informant ran to his verandah. Thereupon, the accused, Ram Ashish, Akhilesh, Girjesh, Arvind, Ravindra all sons of Satyadeo and Ram Kishor armed with lathi, pharsa and gun with the object of committing murder of the complainant, entered into his verandah. He was dragged out and beaten severely by the accused. Accused, Ram Ashish assaulted with pharsa and remaining accused with lathi. The informant made hue and cry on which witnesses Harihar, Shiv Raj, Parsadi and other villagers reached there, saw the occurrence and saved the informant. The informant received injuries caused by lathi and pharsa.
8. On the basis of the written report of informant, Constable Moharrir, Ram Kamal Mani Tripathi, registered the first information report on 25.05.1985 at 20.05 o’clock. The chik F.I.R. was prepared by him as (Ext.Ka.2). He made entry in G.D. about the registration of criminal case on 25.05.1985 at 20.05 o’clock as G.D. No. 36. The certified carbon copy of the G.D. is (Ext.Ka.4). The investigation was done by Investigating Officer, S.I. Shyam Kishor Mishra who visited the place of occurrence and prepared fard of plain mud and blood-stained mud collected from the spot which was kept in two separate containers which were wrapped by cloth and sealed. The recovery memo of aforesaid mud is (Ext.Ka.5). The plain mud is (material Ext.1) and blood-stained mud is (material Ext.2). The Investigating Officer recorded the statement of the witnesses and after investigation, submitted charge-sheet (Ext.Ka.6) u/s 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 307 I.P.C. against the accused, namely, Akhilesh, Arvind, Rav
Point of Law : Accident took place in a fit of anger. All the parties educated and also distantly related - Incident is not such as to direct the accused to undergo sentence of imprisonment- It is a ....
Section 324 I.P.C. is as voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to provide convincing and reliable evidence to prove the charges beyond all reasonable doubts.
The credibility of witnesses and the presence of independent witnesses in late-night occurrences were considered, and the ongoing land dispute was deemed a motive for the assault.
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
