Sudarshan @ Shambha VS State of U. P.

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SURESH KUMAR GUPTA, J.
Sudarshan @ Shambha - Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 106 of 1999
Decided On : 01-02-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Prem Shanker, Mohd. Abid Ali, Neeraj Kumar Mishra.

Headnote:
Criminal Appeal - Conviction under Section 307 IPC - [CRIMINAL APPEAL] - [CONVICTION UNDER SECTION 307 IPC] - [Section 147, Section 148, Section 149, Section 307 IPC] - The court discussed the evidence presented by the prosecution witnesses and the medical report to conclude that the punishment under Section 307 IPC was too harsh and converted the conviction to Section 324 IPC. The court also considered the appellant's lack of criminal antecedents and the mitigating circumstances, granting the benefit of probation to the appellant.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted under Section 307 IPC for opening fire on the first informant's grandson, causing injury. The prosecution witnesses and medical report supported the prosecution's version. The appellant claimed to be falsely implicated and argued that the injury was simple in nature.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the punishment under Section 307 IPC was too harsh and converted the conviction to Section 324 IPC. The court granted the benefit of probation to the appellant considering his lack of criminal antecedents and the mitigating circumstances.
Issues: The issues revolved around the nature of the injury, the appellant's alleged false implication, and the appropriate punishment under the circumstances.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the nature of the injury, lack of criminal antecedents, and mitigating circumstances to decide on the appropriate punishment and grant the benefit of probation to the appellant.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed on the point of conviction under Section 324 IPC and partly allowed on the point of sentence. The court granted the benefit of probation to the appellant and directed the appellant to pay a fine, enhancing it for compensation to the injured.

JUDGMENT :

1. This criminal appeal has been filed under Section 374 (2) Cr.P.C. against the judgment and order dated 16.3.1999 passed by 8th Additional Sessions Judge Sitapur in Sessions Trial No. 1337 of 1997 arising out of Case Crime No. 189 of 1996, U/s 147,148,149,307 IPC relating to Police Station-Kotwali, District-Sitapur, whereby convicted and sentenced the appellant under section-307 I.P.C. for five years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, six months additional rigorous imprisonment.

2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that the FIR of the alleged incident was lodged by the first informant Mukhtar Khan with the allegations that on 7.3.1996 at 7 pm, the appellant opened fire by country made pistol on the grand son of the first informant Ikrar Ahmad @ Guddu due to which, he got injury on the thigh and waist. At the time of incident, the appellant and his other associates Shiv Kumar, Rakesh, Dipu, Sushil, Bablu, Rajesh and Munna were also with the appellant they surrounded the injured and his associates instigated the appellant to kill the injured Ikrar Ahmad @ Guddu. This incident was witnessed by Arif Khan @ Suhel and Khursid. On this allegation, the written report was scribed by Wasir Ahmad and lodged by Mukhtar Khan before the police station Kotwali, Sitapur and the FIR was lodged against the appellant and other co-accused as Case Crime No. 186/1996.

3. The investigation of this case was entrusted to the Sub Inspector, Shyam Narayan. During course of investigation, the investigating officer recorded the statement of the first informant, Mukhtar Khan and other witnesses and prepared the site plan on pointing out of the first informant. During course of investigation, the investigating officer collected the medical report and also collected bloodstained cloth of the injured and prepared the recovery memo. Thereafter the statement of other witnesses was recorded U/s 161 CrPC and after collecting sufficient evidence, the charge sheet was submitted by the investigating officer against the appellant and other co-accused U/s 147,148,307/149 IPC on 19.3.1996. The charge-sheet was submitted before the CJM, Sitapur and CJM, Sitapur took cognizance and the case was committed to the court of sessions on 13.8.1997 where it was registered as S.T. No. 1337/1997 and it was transferred to the court of ASJ, court no. 18 for trial.

4. Charges were framed against the appellant and other co-accused on 7.2.1998 U/s 147,148,307/149 IPC. Charges were read over to the appellant and they denied the charges levelled against him and claimed to be tried.

5. In order to prove its case, following witnesses were examined by the prosecution :

(i) PW-1, Mukhtar Khan who is first informant and he fully supported the prosecution version. It is further stated that after this incident, the witness proved recovery memo of the recovered cloth of the injured as Ex-ka-2. In his cross examination, this witness stated that the place of incident is 15-20 meters away from police chowki but no police person rushed to the spot. Thus he fully established the prosecution version.

(ii) PW-2, Ikrar Ahmad, the injured witness who stated that on instigation of other co-accused persons, the appellant Sudarshan opened fire by country-made pistol and due to this he has got injury on waist and abdomen area. His medical examination was done in Sitapur hospital. Thereafter he was referred to Lucknow Medical College for better treatment but he was not admitted in that hospital. Consequently, he returned on next day. It is further stated that when he returned from Lucknow his pant, shirt and red color vest on which marks of pellets and blood were present. At the place of incident, tubelight was closed. Thus, this witnesses fully supported the version of the prosecution. There are no contradictions in cross examination. The recovered clothes were proved as Exb. 1 to Exb. 3.

(iii) PW-3, Suhail who is the eye witness of the incident. He also fu