IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SURENDRA SINGH-I, J.
Kamal Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.1496 of 1995
Decided on : 09-05-2023
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 313, 428 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 307, 506, 34 - Offence of criminal intimidation – Appeal against conviction - Informant Police Station written report Police Station Farah, Mathura to the effect that he is a witness in case relating to murder - On account of which residents of his village accused - They have threatened him that if he gives evidence against them, he will be killed - In intervening night terrace his village, informant was having conversation with Rohan Singh – Held, Appellant-accused had asked injured P.W.-1 Shiv Singh not to give evidence in a case in which appellant-accused was undergoing trial for murder of informant's (P.W.1) son and when informant refused to do so, accused-appellant with co-accused fired by a country-made pistol causing injuries to them on their vital parts - appellant-accused, period of sentence awarded to appellant-accused is reduced from three years to two years rigorous imprisonment without modifying fine imposed on him - Criminal appeal is partly allowed.
JUDGMENT :
1. This criminal appeal has been instituted against the judgment and order dated 02.09.1995 passed by the VI Additional Sessions Judge, Mathura in Sessions Trial No. 94 of 1992 (State vs. Ratan Singh & others) arising out of Case Crime No.138 of 1990, under Sections 307 & 506 IPC Police station Farah, District Mathura. By the impugned judgment and order the trial court convicted appellant Kamal Singh under Section 307 IPC and sentenced him to three years rigorous imprisonment. He was acquitted of the charge under section 506 IPC.
2. The prosecution story in brief is that informant Shiv Singh s/o Than Singh r/o Mahuan, Police Station Farah submitted a written report dated 21.07.1990 in Police Station Farah, Mathura to the effect that he is a witness in the case relating to murder of Sohan Singh. On account of which residents of his village accused Ratan singh s/o Pyare, Kamal Singh and Bharat Singh both sons of Ratan Singh have enmity with him. They have threatened him that if he gives evidence against them, he will be killed. In the intervening night of 20/21.07.1990 at about 12:00 pm, on the terrace of Rohan Singh s/o Jyoti of his village, informant Shiv Singh was having conversation with Rohan Singh. The above-mentioned accused came on the terrace and threatened him that he should desist from giving evidence against them otherwise he will repent later on. Informant Shiv Singh told them that he will give evidence of the facts which he has seen. Hearing this, accused Ratan Singh exhorted his sons Kamal Singh and Bharat Singh to kill the informant by firing. On his exhortation, appellant Kamal Singh and Bharat Singh with the intention of causing death, fired two gun shots on the informant. The pellets from the bullet hit near the eyes of the informant Shiv Singh and on the chest of Rohan Singh. On alarm being raised by the informant and Rohan Singh, villagers Ram Hans s/o Netram, Soran s/o Nathiya, Man Singh s/o Ram Khiladi and Balram s/o Khachera reached at the place of occurrence. Accused ran away from the spot threating the informant that today his life has been spared but on some-other day they will kill him.
3. Informant, Shiv Singh submitted his written report (Exhibit Ka1) on 21.07.1990 at 06:15 am at Police Station Farah by which Case Crime No.138 of 1990 was registered under Section 307 and 506 IPC. The chick FIR is Exhibit Ka-4.
4. Injured Rohan Singh and Shiv Singh were medically examined on 21.07.1990 at 8:00 am and 08:30 am respectively by Dr. G.S. Awasthi in Primary Health Centre, Farah, Mathura. According to the injury report (Exhibit Ka-6), the following injuries were found on the person of Shiv Singh :
“1. Multiple abrasions of firearm on right side of face scattered, oval in shape size, 0.5 cm X 0.5 cm red in colour. Blackening is present, 3.5 cms above, from right angle of mouth.
2. Firearm abrasion on right side of forehead 0.5 cm X 0.5 cm, red in colour, oval in shape. Blackening is present, 1.5 cm above from right eyebrow.”
In the opinion of the doctor, injury nos. 1 and 2 were caused by friction. Injury was simple in nature, duration about half day old. Injuries could be caused by firearm.
5. According to the injury report (Exhibit ka-7), the following injuries were found on the person of Rohan Singh :
“ 1. Gun shot lacerated wound on right side, upper part of chest, oval in shape, size 0.5 cm X 0.5 cm X muscle deep. Blackening is present. Clotted blood around the injury, 3 cm away from medial end of collar bone, red in colour, present.”
In the opinion of the medical officer, the injury has been caused by blunt object and is simple in nature, duration about half day old. Injuries could be caused by fire arm.
6. The investigation of the case was done by S.I. Kishan Singh, who visited the place of occurrence and prepared site plan (Exhibit Ka-2), recorded statements of witnesses and after investigation submitted charge-sheet under Sections 307 and 506 IPC (Exhibit Ka3) against accused Ratan Singh, Bharat
C. Muniappan v. State of Tamil Nadu
Chimanbhai Jagabhai Patel vs. State of Gujarat
Dayal Singh and another vs. State of Uttaranchal
Prakash Chandra Yadav vs. State of Bihar
SupremeToday
The contested evidence and intent are sufficient to establish guilt under Section 307 IPC, notwithstanding deficiencies in investigation.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the prosecution successfully proved the case under Section 307 I.P.C against the convict appellant beyond reasonable doubt, based on the natur....
The prosecution failed to establish the identity of the assailant beyond reasonable doubt, leading to the appellant's acquittal.
The intention to cause death and the sufficiency of the acts to cause death in the ordinary course of nature are essential elements of the offense of attempt to murder under Section 307 of the IPC. C....
The prosecution failed to substantiate charges beyond reasonable doubt, leading to the acquittal of the appellant.
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....
Eyewitness testimony can decisively establish guilt even in the absence of motive and despite minor discrepancies.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.