Om Prakash vs State - 2023 Supreme(All) 2853

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(All) 2853

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
RAJ BEER SINGH, SURENDRA SINGH-I, JJ.
Om Prakash and Others - Appellants
Versus
State - Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2371 OF 1982.
Decided On : 04-08-2023

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant : S.P.Kumar,Pulak Ganguly.
For the Respondent: A.G.A.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302, 147, 148, 323/149 - Criminal conviction and sentencing of appellants for involvement in a murderous assault - Convicted under Sections 147, 323/149 IPC for injuries caused to informant's brother, and Section 302 IPC for co-accused - Trial court's conviction and sentencing upheld, though sentence modified to period already undergone with fines imposed. (Paras 2, 21, 24)

(B) Consideration of testimony from injured witnesses - Court held that injured witnesses' testimonies should be primarily relied upon unless major contradictions are demonstrated, reinforcing credibility in light of their presence during the incident. (Paras 19-20)

(C) Sentencing principles - The court emphasized the importance of proportionality and just punishment, stressing that undue harshness should be avoided without reasonable justification in light of the circumstances of the crime and passage of time since the incident. (Paras 21-22)

Facts of the case:
The appeal arises from a conviction related to a violent confrontation in which the informant's brother was killed and others wounded, stemming from a dispute over grazing cattle. The accused-appellants were convicted based on witness testimonies, and one co-accused was sentenced for murder.

Findings of Court:
The conviction of the appellants was upheld, but their sentences were adjusted for time served, considering their advanced ages and lack of prior convictions.

Issues: The court addressed credibility of witness testimonies, the adequacy of the evidence against the appellants, and whether the sentences were appropriate given the time elapsed since the incident.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that testimonies from wounded witnesses must be taken seriously unless significant contradictions arise. It also noted the necessity of adjusting sentences in light of the elapsed time and circumstances surrounding the case.

Result: The appeal was partially allowed.

Table of Content
1. factual background of the criminal appeal. (Para 1 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. sentencing considerations and appeal conditions. (Para 8 , 10 , 21)
3. defense arguments regarding evidence reliability and sentencing. (Para 9 , 11 , 15)
4. court's rationale on sentencing and evidence evaluation. (Para 12 , 22)
5. final judgment and sentencing decision. (Para 24 , 25 , 26)

JUDGMENT

Raj Beer Singh, J.

This criminal appeal has been preferred against judgement and order dated 20.09.1982, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-V, Bareilly in S.T. No. 353 of 1980, under Sections 302 , 147, 148, 323/149 IPC, police station Shahi, district Bareilly, whereby, accused-appellant Nos. 1 to 3, namely, Om Prakash, Ram Chandra and Bholey have been convicted under Sections 147 , 323/149 IPC and sentenced to three months rigours imprisonment under Section 147 IPC and three months rigorous imprisonment under Section 323 /149 IPC. Accused-appellant no. 4 Summeri has been convicted under Section 302 , 148, 323/149 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life under Section 302 IPC, six months rigorous imprisonment under Section 148 IPC and two months rigorous imprisonment under Section 323 /149 IPC.

2. We have heard learned counsel for the accused-appellants and learned AGA for the State.

3. During pendency of this appeal, the accused-appellant No. 4 Summeri has passed away and in respect of appellant No. 4 Summeri, the appeal has already been abated vide order dated 05.06.2023. Now this appeal is confined only in respect of accused-appellant nos. 1 to 3, namely, Om Prakash, Ram Chandra and Bholey.

4. According to prosecution version, on 30.05.1980 the accused-appellant No. 1 Om Prakash was grazing his cattle in the sugar-cane field of informant. The brother of informant asked appellant No. 1 to take away his cattle from his land and on that issue some hot talking has taken place between them. In back ground of that issue, on the same day at 06:00 PM, accused-appellant Bholey, Om Prakash, Ram Chandra, Makhan Lal(since dead), armed with sticks, and accused Summeri (since died) armed with licenced gun, surrounded informant's brother Dharamveer Singh and started assaulting him. Hearing noise, some other persons including informant' brother Surajpal Singh also reached there. Accused-appellant No. 4 Summeri fired a bullet at Surajpal Singh and as a result thereof, Surajpal Singh sustained gunshot injuries and fell down and succumbed to injuries at the spot. Informant and his companion have also caused injuires to the accused persons in their defence. After incident, the accused persons ran away from the spot. In the same incident, one Dhakan Singh, Dharamveer Singh and Nanhu Singh have also sustained injuries.

5. Informant reported the matter to police by submitting tahreer exhibit ka-1 and consequently the first information report was registered on 30.05.1980 at 11:30 PM vide Exhibit Ka-6. Inquest report exhibit ka-9 was prepared and dead body of deceased was sent for postmortem. Injured were medically examined. The postmortem of deceased was conducted on 31.05.1980 vide exhibit ka-5. Statements of witnesses were recorded. After completion of investigation, police submitted charge-sheet against five accused persons including accused-appellants under Section 302 IPC. The court of Magistrate took cognizance and committed the case to court of session.

6. The trial court framed charges under Sections 148 , 302, 323 read with 149 IPC against accused Summeri. Remaining four accused namely Makhan Lal, Ram Chandar were charged under Sections 147 , 302, 323/149 IPC. Subsequently, a simplicitor charge under Section 302 IPC was framed against accused Summeri. All the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

7. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined four witnesses. PW-2 Chandra Pal Singh is informant of the case and PW-1 Khayali Ram and PW-3 Dhakan Singh are eye witness. PW-4 S.S. Tomar, Station House Officer has conducted investigati