Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Nand Prabha Shukla, J.
Dharampal - Appellant
Vs.
State of U.P. - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. - 4785 of 2010
Decided On : 08-04-2024
Criminal Appeal - Conviction under Sections 452, 304/34 IPC - Summary of Acts and Sections: Sections 452, 304/34 IPC - The court upheld the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Sections 452, 304/34 IPC, awarding ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.10,000 under Section 304/34 IPC, and three years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.3,000 under Section 452 IPC. The court also considered the confessional statement of the accused and the recovery of the weapon used in the incident, which corroborated with his statement.
Fact of the Case:
The prosecution's case was based on the incident where the accused, along with others, entered the premises of the first informant and assaulted the deceased with weapons, resulting in his death. The delay in lodging the FIR was explained by the first informant due to the critical condition of his son, and the eyewitness accounts corroborated with the medical evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The Trial Court found the accused guilty based on the consistent eyewitness accounts, corroborative medical evidence, and the recovery of the weapon used in the incident. The court also considered the confessional statement of the accused and upheld the conviction and sentence.
Issues: The issues revolved around the delay in lodging the FIR, the presence of eyewitnesses, and the recovery of the weapon used in the incident. The defense raised concerns about the credibility of the eyewitnesses and the recovery process.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the consistent eyewitness accounts, corroborative medical evidence, and the recovery of the weapon to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The court also considered the confessional statement of the accused and upheld the conviction and sentence.
Final Decision: The court affirmed the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Sections 452, 304/34 IPC, and allowed the appeal partly, directing the release of the accused from jail if not wanted in any other case.
JUDGMENT :
Nand Prabha Shukla, J.
1. Heard Ms. Mayuri Mehrotra, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant and Sri Ratnesh Nandan Singh, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.
2. Perused the record.
3. This Criminal Appeal has been filed against the Judgment and Order dated 03.07.2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court No.2, Bijnor in Sessions Trial No.140 of 2009 (State vs. Dharampal) arising out of Case Crime No.179 of 2008, under Sections 452, 304/34, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Kotwali Dehat, District Bijnor, whereby the appellant Dharampal has been convicted under Sections 304/34 and 452 IPC and sentenced as follows:
(ii) Under Section 452 IPC: 3 years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.3000/-.
In case of default of fine, further imprisonment of 3 months simple imprisonment shall be awarded. All sentences to run concurrently.
INTRODUCTORY FACTS
4. The prosecution version in brief, is that, on 26.02.2008, the first informant Ram Singh lodged the First Information Report (for short ‘FIR’) at Police Station Kotwali Dehat, District Bijnor, based on a written Tehrir (Exhibit-Ka1) dated 25.02.2008 scribed by Dumpi stating that on 21.02.2008 at around 6:00 pm when his son Harvansha was at home, the accused Dharampal armed with tabbal, his wife Somo and son Kapil armed with lathi and danda respectively entered into his house and hurled abuses and challenged them for dire consequences for not allowing them to wash the clothes at the tap. His son objected but all the three accused armed with tabbal, lathi and danda gave severe beatings to his son in order to kill him. Hearing the noise, the first informant and the villagers Raju and Abid rushed to the spot and tried to save Harvansha from the accused. The accused extended life threats and fled away. In the said incident of marpeet, his son Harvansha received severe injuries on his head and the body. He was given medical treatment at Government Hospital, Bijnor. As the condition of his son was critical, so he remained busy with the medical treatment and approached late to lodge an FIR.
5. Initially, the aforementioned FIR was registered under Sections 452, 323, 504, 506 and 308 IPC, subsequently, vide G.D. Rapat No. 29 dated 27.2.2008, the case was amended and section 304 IPC was added as Harvansha died on 26.2.2008. The inquest proceedings and the post mortem of the deceased were conducted on the same day. The investigation was entrusted to S.I. Ghanshyam Tyagi who reached the spot and recorded the statement of the witnesses and prepared the site plan. A recovery memo of Tabbal at the pointing of Dharampal was also prepared. After the completion of investigation, the charge-sheet dated 09.03.2008 was submitted against Dharampal and his wife Smt. Somo alias Somvati under Sections 452, 504, 506, 304 IPC. The co-accused Kapil being a juvenile, was also charge sheeted and was referred to the Juvenile Justice Board for further course of action.
6. After the committal proceedings, the Sessions Court framed the charges against the accused Dharampal and Smt. Somo alias Somvati under Sections 452, 304/34, 504, 506 IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. During trial, the co-accused Smt. Somo alias Somvati died and the trial against her was abated on 24.02.2010.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
7. During the trial proceedings, the prosecution examined as many as ten witnesses. Their testimony, in brief, are as follows:
The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on consistent eyewitness accounts, corroborative medical evidence, and the recovery of the weapon to establish the guilt of the accuse....
Conviction for murder under Section 302 established through credible eyewitness testimony and medical evidence, despite minor inconsistencies and investigation delays.
Point of law: Every person who witnesses a murder reacts in his own way. Some are stunned, become speechless and stand rooted to the spot. Some become hysteric and start wailing. Some start shouting ....
Mere failure of the prosecution in producing reports from the Forensic Science Laboratory relating to the weapon of offence and the blood-stained earth and clothes would not derogate from the veracit....
Assault and Murder – Conviction confirmed - Sketch-map would be admissible so far as it indicates all that Sub-Inspector saw himself at the spot; but any mark put on sketch-map based on statements ma....
The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt; inconsistencies and lack of independent witnesses can lead to quashing of conviction.
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
