Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SURESH KUMAR GUPTA, J.
Ramjan and Others - Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 481 Of 1996, Criminal Appeal No. 543 Of 1996
Decided On : 24-01-2023

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : B.D. Misra, Arti Ganguly, Hemant Kumar Mishra, L.C. Tyagi, Om Chandra Sahu, Pawan Kumar Yadav, Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, Praveen Singh, R.K. Singh, Vijai Vikram, Narendra Gupta.

The main legal point established in the judgment is the consideration of the nature of the injury and the circumstances of the case in altering the conviction under Section 307 I.P.C. to Section 324/149 I.P.C. and the application of Section 4 of the U.P. Probation of Offenders Act for releasing the appellants on probation.

Headnote:
Conviction - Criminal Law - Section 147, 148, 149, 324 I.P.C. - The court found that the injury caused to the injured was simple in nature and not life-threatening, therefore, the conviction under Section 307 I.P.C. was altered under Section 324/149 I.P.C. The appellants were directed to be released on probation under Section 4 of the U.P. Probation of Offenders Act with stipulated conditions.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved an incident where the appellants were convicted for causing injuries to the complainant and attempting to murder him. The prosecution relied on the oral evidence of the injured-complainant and documentary evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the injury caused to the complainant was simple in nature and not life-threatening, leading to the alteration of the conviction under Section 307 I.P.C. to Section 324/149 I.P.C. The court also directed the release of the appellants on probation under Section 4 of the U.P. Probation of Offenders Act.
Issues: The issues involved the conviction of the appellants under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and the consideration of probation for the appellants due to the age and circumstances of the case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the nature of the injury and the circumstances of the case to alter the conviction under Section 307 I.P.C. to Section 324/149 I.P.C. The court also applied Section 4 of the U.P. Probation of Offenders Act to release the appellants on probation.
Final Decision: The appeals were dismissed on the point of conviction and partly allowed on the point of sentence. The appellants were directed to be released on probation under Section 4 of the U.P. Probation of Offenders Act with stipulated conditions. The court also directed the appellants to pay compensation to the injured complainant.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Hemant Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant no. 1-Ramjan, Sri Om Chandra Sahu, learned counsel for the appellant no. 2-Sultan, learned counsel for the appellant for appellant-Chhota and Thakuri and Sri Arvind Kumar Tripathi, learned A.G.A. as well as perused the record.

2. Since appellants of the both the appeals have been convicted by a common judgment, therefore, both the appeals are being decided by a common judgment.

3. The present appeals have been preferred against the judgment and order dated 24.10.1996 passed by the IVth Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hardoi in S.T. No. 401 of 1992 arising out of crime no. 188 of 1990, Police Station-Atrauli, District-Hardoi by which the appellants-Ramjan, Chhota, Sultan, Ghishu and Thakuri were convicted. Appellants Ramjan and Sultan were convicted and sentenced under Section 148 I.P.C. for two years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500/-each and in default of payment of fine one month additional imprisonment and under Section 307 I.P.C. for four years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1,000/-each and in default of payment of fine two months additional imprisonment. Appellants-Chhota, Ghishu and Thakuri were conviction under Section 147 I.P.C. for one year rigorous imprisonment and under Section 307/149 I.P.C. for four years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1,000/-each and in default of payment of fine two months additional imprisonment.

4. The brief facts of the present case emerges as such F.I.R. of the alleged incident has been lodged by Krishna Kumar Singh with allegation that on 20.9.1990 at 8:00 p.m. after seeing the agricultural form, the first informant along with Udaibhan Singh, Shiv Shankar Tiwari and Putanna Singh were returning and when they reached near tube-well and lit the torch, then they saw appellants-Ramjan, Chota, Sultan, Ghishu and Thakuri on the way. Due to previous enmity the appellant-Ramjan inflicted injuries by 'kanta' upon the complainant and due to this the complainant got deep muscle injury on his left cheek. Appellant-Sultan opened fire by the country made pistol but no one got any gun shot injury. Thus, the appellants only attempted to murder of the first informant. F.I.R. of the alleged incident was lodged by means of the written report (Ext. Ka-1). The scriber of the written report was Udaibhan Singh. On the basis of the written report, the F.I.R. was lodged in Police Station-Atrauli, District-Hardoi against the appellants under Section 147, 148, 149, 307, 324 I.P.C. on 21.9.1990 at 11:15.

5. Due to misconception that the place of incident is Police Station-Mall, Luknow, therefore, initially the case was registered as Nil/1990 but later it was registered as case crime no. 188/1990 P.S.-Atrauli, Lucknow on 28.9.1990 by G.D. report no. 7 at 7:20 as Ext. Ka-4 and the investigation was entrusted to S.I. Parmanand during the course of investigation.

6. The Investigating Officer recorded the statement of the complainant and other witnesses and prepared the site plan. After collecting the injury report, other papers and also completing all the formalities of the investigation, the Investigating Officer filed charge sheet under Section 147, 148, 149, 307, 324 I.P.C. against the appellants. The charge-sheet was filed before the Magistrate court and from the court of Magistrate court the case was committed to the court of sessions where, it was transferred to Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 4 for trial. The charges were framed against the appellants-Ramjan, Chhota, Sultan, Ghishu and Thakuri under Section Section 147, 148, 149, 307, 324 I.P.C. on 21.9.1993. The charges were read over to the appellants to which they denied all the allegations levelled against them. The appellants claimed to be tried.

7. In this case only P.W.-1 injured-Krishna Kumar Singh was examined by the trial court. All the relevant papers and other papers of prosecution were admitted under Section 294 Cr.P.C. In this case, the i