Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Umesh Chandra Sharma, J.
Dharmesh Pasi – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
Jail Appeal No. -35 of 2019
Decided On : 17-06-2022
Jail Appeal - Conviction and Sentence - Section 304, 506 IPC - [Section 304 IPC, Section 506 IPC] - The court discussed the evidence presented, including oral and documentary evidence, and found that the accused and an unknown person caused fatal injuries to the deceased, leading to his death. The court analyzed the conduct and credibility of the witnesses, and concluded that the accused was guilty under Part-II of Section 304 IPC. The court also acquitted the accused under Section 506 IPC due to lack of evidence of life threats. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the lower court's order of conviction and sentence.
Fact of the Case:
The appeal was filed against the order of conviction and sentence under Section 304, 506 IPC for causing fatal injuries to the deceased, leading to his death. The evidence presented included oral and documentary evidence, and the accused alleged false implication due to village pradhan election.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the accused and an unknown person caused fatal injuries to the deceased, leading to his death. The accused was convicted under Part-II of Section 304 IPC, and acquitted under Section 506 IPC due to lack of evidence of life threats. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the lower court's order of conviction and sentence.
Issues: The issues included the credibility of witnesses, conduct of the accused, and the applicability of Section 304 and 506 IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court analyzed the conduct and credibility of the witnesses, and concluded that the accused was guilty under Part-II of Section 304 IPC. The court also acquitted the accused under Section 506 IPC due to lack of evidence of life threats.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, affirming the lower court's order of conviction and sentence.
JUDGMENT :
1. This jail appeal has been preferred against the order of conviction and sentence dated 06.10.2018 by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.9, Hardoi in Sessions Trial No.260 of 2016 in case crime no.43/2016, under Section – 304, 506 IPC, Police Station – Behata Gokul, District – Hardoi.
2. In brief, facts of the case are that Lalu alias Akhilesh lodged an FIR on 02.02.2015 that on 01.02.2015 at around 04:00 PM he was sitting in the western side of the plot of Jagpal Rathore. Suddenly Dharmesh came with unknown person and started going from his plot. When his father opposed, Dharmesh attacked from the wooden patra an unknown person attacked with lathi. When his father cried he saw and ran towards them then they ran away giving death threats. His father received injury at his head and stomach. With the help of villagers he moved him to the hospital where he died during the treatment. He requested to lodge FIR and take appropriate action. According to him Mahipal has also seen the occurrence.
3. The grounds of the appeal are that when the accused was in jail he forwarded jail appeal with the allegation that he has been punished with seven years rigorous imprisonment and Rs.10,000/-fine in case crime no.43/2016 in Sessions Trial Case No.260/2016, under Section 304 Part – II IPC by the Court of ASJ-IX th, Hardoi on 06.10.2018. He belongs to a poor family. There is no other person to do 'pairavi' on his behalf, therefore, a jail appeal be preferred.
4. This application was forwarded by Jail Superintendent, Lucknow which was treated as jail appeal.
5. From the perusal of the above jail appeal it is apparent that no proper grounds have been taken by the accused-appellant.
6. During the course of trial following evidence were recorded :
| ORAL EVIDENCE | |
| PW-1 | Lalu alias Akhilesh |
| PW-2 | S.M. Mohd. Ujair |
| PW-3 | Mahipal |
| PW-4 | Dr. Sanjay Kumar Saini |
| PW-5 | I.O. Inspector Brijesh Kumar Tripathi |
| PW-6 | IO/SO Amar Pal Sharma |
| Documentary Evidence |
|
| Tahrir Exhibit | Ka-1 |
| Chic FIR Exhibit | ka-2 |
| GD Exhibit | Ka-3 |
| Police Proforma No.127 | exhibit ka-3 |
| Postmortem report | exhibit Ka-4, |
| Map exhibit ka-5, | |
| Recovery memo | Exhibit Ka-6, |
| Map recovery | Exhibit ka-7, |
| Charge sheet | Exhibit ka-8, |
| Inquest | Exhibit ka-9, |
| Police Form 33 | Exhibit ka-10, |
| Police Form 379 | Exhibit ka-11, |
| letter to RI | Exhibit ka-12, |
| Letter to CMO | Exhibit ka-13 |
| specimen seal | Exhibit ka – 14 |
| Letter to CMO – Exhibit ka-13 and specimen seal – Exhibit ka – 14 | |
7. After recording of evidence statement of the accused was recorded under Section – 313 CrPC in which he said that he was falsely implicated on the pretext of village pradhan election. According to him the case was lodged on account of 'ranjish' and said to produce evidence in defence but no evidence was produced by him.
8. PW-1 Lalu alias Akhilesh is the informant and son of the deceased and also eyewitness who deposed that on 01.02.2016 at about 04:00 PM he was giving water in his wheat crop. His father was also there. who was sitting on the boundary of his nearby plot. At the same time accused Dharmesh with wooden patra and other person with lathi crossed his plot. His father forbade them then both the accused person started abusing his father. When his father prevented them then accused Dharmesh beat him with his wooden patra and the unknown person also beat him. When his father cried he saw the occurrence and ran towards him to save his life but both the accused persons threatened him to life. At the same time his relative Mahipal who was going from Hardoi to village Jagdishpur saw the occurrence. On his cry accused ran away after giving threatening to life. He transported his father to district hospital Hardoi where during the treatment his father died. Next day he lodged the FIR. This witness has proved the tahrir exhibit ka-1.
9. PW-2 Head Moharrir Mohd. Ujair is the for
The central legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 304 IPC to determine the guilt of the accused for causing fatal injuries leading to the death of the deceased.
The court considered the absence of premeditation or previous motive, the nature of the weapon used, and the amount of force employed to determine the accused's guilt.
The court determined that the accused's actions constituted culpable homicide not amounting to murder due to the absence of premeditation and the nature of the altercation, altering the conviction fr....
The court modified the conviction from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, emphasizing the lack of intent to kill and the nature of injuries inflicted.
Point of Law : Conviction Confirmed - Murder - Relevancy off acts forming part of same transaction - As per testimony, complainant has made a statement that her husband has killed her mother, a state....
Testimony of an injured witness is highly reliable due to the built-in guarantee of presence. The sudden fight exception applies to culpable homicide when committed without premeditation in the heat ....
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
