Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
RENU AGARWAL, J.
Phullan and Others – Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 766 of 2000
Decided On : 09-11-2023
Conviction - Assault - IPC 307, 34 - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were convicted under section 307 IPC read with section 34 IPC for assaulting the informant and his brother. The incident occurred while the informant was planting paddy in his fields, and the appellants assaulted him with lathi-danda and firearms due to old animosity. The injured witness and other witnesses corroborated the prosecution version.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court relied on the prompt FIR, medical evidence, and oral evidence to convict the appellants. The court found that the injuries sustained by the informant were corroborated by medical evidence and that the prosecution had proved the case beyond reasonable doubt.
Issues: The issues included the reliability of medical evidence, the absence of recovered weapons, and the contradictions in witness statements. The defense argued that the injured witness was a history-sheeter and must have been shot by someone else due to rivalry.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that minor contradictions and investigative lapses did not render the prosecution version unreliable. It also emphasized that errors in investigation cannot impact the case unless serious prejudice is caused to the accused. The court cited several judgments to support the principle that defective investigation does not necessarily affect the credibility of eyewitness evidence.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the surviving appellants were directed to surrender for serving the remaining sentence. The court found no illegality in convicting the appellants under section 307 read with section 34 IPC.
JUDGMENT :
RENU AGARWAL, J.
1. Heard Sri Sumit Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Ajay Kumar Srivastava, learned AGA for the State and perused the material available on record.
2. Present appeal has been preferred by the appellants against the judgment and order dated 01.08.2000, passed by Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh, in Session Trial No. 57 of 1997, whereby the appellants have been convicted under section 307 IPC read with section 34 IPC and all the appellants except appellant Mausim Ali, have been sentenced to under go rigorous imprisonment of 7 years and payment of the fine of Rs. 2,000/- each and further to under go imprisonment of 3 years in default of payment of fine and the appellant Mausim Ali is convicted under section 307 IPC read with section 37 IPC and sentenced to pay the fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further imprisonment for a period of 3 months. During the pendency of appeal the appellants Hashim Ali son of Mausim Ali and Maushim Ali (appellant nos.2 and 4) have died and appeal was abated on their behalf vide order dated 26.08.2022. Appellants Mohd. Idris and Phullan son of Mausim Ali were released on bail.
3. Wrapping the facts in brief, on 16.07.1996 at about 9.00 A.M. when the informant (Abdul Hamid) was planting the paddy in his fields the accused-appellants Mausim Ali and Hashim Ali, Phullan and Mohd. Idris sons of Maushim Ali, assaulted him with lathi-danda and fire arm due to old animosity. He tried to escape towards his house, but Hashim, Phullan and Mohd. Idrish started firing and his brother Abdul Wahid (PW-1) stuck in the fields, filled with water. The fire, shot his bother, when he raised noise the witnesses Bachai, Hatim Ali, Sabit Ali, Iddu @ Neta, reached there and challenged the accused, then all of them went to their house.
4. On the basis of a written report FIR was registered in Police Station Kotwali, Pratapgarh, as Case Crime No. 569 of 1996, under section 307 IPC. Chik report was prepared at the same time and entered into G.D. The investigation was conducted by S.I. Rajesh Kumar Singh (PW-5), got the injured medically examined in the hospital, inspected the spot and prepared site plan on the pointing out of informant Abdul Hamid. He recorded the statement of informant Abdul Hamid and witnesses. The statement of injured Abdul Wahid could not be recorded on that date, due to his injuries. He recorded the statement of injured on 18.07.1996 when he became normal to give his statement. After collecting sufficient evidence against the accused-appellants, investigating officer submitted charge sheet in the court.
5. The Magistrate took the cognisance of the case and after compliance of provisions section 207 Cr.P.C. committed the case to the court of session for trial. The charges were framed against the accused-appellants under section 307 I.P.C. and read over & explained to the accused persons, who abjured from the charges and claimed to be tried.
6. Prosecution adduced 5 witnesses to prove the case against the accused-appellants, which are as follows:
(ii) PW-2, Sabit Ali (Witness)
(iii) PW-3, Dr. P.K. Agarwal (Witness)
(iv) PW-4, Dr. V.K. Verma (Radiologist)
(v) PW-5, Investigating Officer
7. Besides oral evidence, few documentary evidences were also produced by the prosecution, which are as follows:
(ii) Medical examination report (Ex.Ka-2)
(iii) Radiological report (Ex.Ka-3)
(iii) Site plan (Ex.Ka-4)
(iv) Charge sheet (Ex.Ka-5)
(v) Chik report (Ex.Ka-6)
(vi) G.D. (Ex.Ka-7)
8. After the conclusion of evidences, the statement of appellants were recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. All the accused deposed in their statements recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. that they are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in the present case by the informant, as his father was in police department. All the accused denied the incident and stated that the case was registered on the basis of forged writ
The judgment emphasizes the importance of corroborative evidence and the need for caution in evaluating the testimony of an inimical witness. It also highlights the impact of non-examination of the I....
The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and the benefit of doubt goes in favor of the accused when the evidence is inconsistent and unreliable.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the assessment of the nature of injuries, the intention of the appellant, and the reliability of the evidence presented by the prosecution in deter....
The court emphasized that a single credible witness's testimony is sufficient for conviction, even with investigative lapses, provided it establishes the prosecution's case beyond reasonable doubt.
Attempt to murder – Intention to kill must be apparent from act of accused.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of intention and knowledge in determining the offence under Section 307 IPC, the principles of vicarious liability under Section 34 ....
Failure to properly examine delay in lodging FIR can be fatal to prosecution.
Minor discrepancies in witness testimonies do not undermine the prosecution's case if the evidence is corroborative and credible, and leniency may be granted if the defendant is terminally ill.
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
