Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(All) 2699

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
UMESH CHANDRA SHARMA, J.
Kaptan (deceased) and Others - Revisionist
Versus
State - Opposite Party
CRIMINAL REVISION NO. - 1240 OF 1989.
Decided On : 26-09-2023

Advocates appeared:
For the Revisionist : Tej Pal, Amrendu Pal, Rahul Saxena, S.P. Singh, V.K. Rastogi.
For the Opposite Party : A.G.A.

The court emphasized that mere injuries do not equal grievous hurt unless permanence is established, and the prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt despite the non-examination of independent witnesses.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 161 and 313; Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 323, 324, and 326 - Conviction under Sections 323 and 326 IPC affirmed; appeal allowed in part - Accused acquitted under Section 326 read with Section 34, convicted under Section 324 with probation due to the long pendency of the case and changed circumstances. (Paras 47, 48)

(B) Criminal Law - Burden of proof lies on prosecution to establish the guilt beyond reasonable doubt; withholding of independent witnesses does not automatically invalidate prosecution's case if there is sufficient corroborative evidence. (Paras 31, 35)

(C) Legal Principles - Injury classification under IPC must consider the permanence and severity of the injury; mere presence of injuries does not suffice for grievous assessment. (Paras 38, 43)

Facts of the case:
The incident occurred on 27.08.1984, resulting from a dispute over a window. The victim and his family were attacked by the accused, leading to multiple injuries. Kaptan, one of the accused, had injuries that were not substantiated. Court considered the motives, medical evidence, and witness testimonies in its decision.

Findings of Court:
Revisionists were convicted under Section 324 IPC and Section 323 IPC, with emphasis on their potential for rehabilitation based on age and delay in proceedings.

Issues: The main issues included evaluating the nature of injuries and the implications of witness non-examination.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court ruled that the absence of independent witnesses is not fatal to the prosecution if substantive evidence supports the case. Probation was warranted given the age of the accused and the time elapsed since the incident.

Result: Criminal revision allowed in part; accused were convicted under lesser charges and released on probation.

Table of Content
1. revision appeal initiated after conviction (Para 1 , 2)
2. defensive arguments regarding prosecution evidence (Para 3 , 4 , 5)
3. facts of the incident leading to injuries (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 10 , 12 , 14)
4. revisionists survived only in respect of nos.2, 3 and 4. (Para 21)
5. timeliness of fir and motive assessment (Para 28)
6. evaluation of injuries and role of witnesses (Para 29 , 30)
7. implications of witness testimony on conviction (Para 32 , 34)
8. determined whether injuries constituted grievous hurt. (Para 36)
9. interpretation of grievous injury under ipc (Para 38 , 39 , 42)
10. final decisions affecting sentencing and probation (Para 43 , 44)
11. ordered release on probation given the circumstances and time elapsed. (Para 49)

JUDGMENT

Umesh Chandra Sharma, J.

The present criminal revision has been preferred by the revisionists against the judgment and order dated 25.07.1989 passed by IV-Additional Sessions Judge, Pilibhit in Criminal Appeal No.6 of 1988 (Kaptan and others v. State) and also against the judgment and order of conviction and sentencing dated 04.02.1988 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pilibhit in Criminal Case No.2408 of 1984 (State v. Kaptan and others), Police Station Bisalpur, District Pilibhit.

2. At this stage, it is mentioned that revisionist no.1, Kaptan has died and this criminal revision survives only in respect of revisionist nos.2, 3 and 4 namely Ram Din, Ram Ratan and Ram Bir.

3. The revisionists have taken ground that the convict Kaptan had also received injuries and the same are not explained either in FIR or in the statement under Section 161 CrPC. The origin of fight is not clear. Thus, the defence version is to be accepted in view of the judgment in Laxmi Singh v. State of Bihar , 1976 Cr LJ SC 1736 .

4. The prosecution has examined PW-1, Lala Ram; PW- 2, Ram Sahay and PW-3, Ram Kumar, the independent witnesses have been withheld by the prosecution. Hence, the adverse inference should be drawn against the prosecution.

5. PW-3, Ram Kumar has stated that the revisionist no.1, Kaptan was armed with lathi and there is conflict between the medical and the oral evidence. Hence, accused are liable to be acquitted in view of the judgment of Awadhesh and another v. State of MP, 1988 CriLJ 1158 (SC). The material evidence has not been put to the accused which has resulted into miscarriage of justice. The revisionists are entitled for probation in view of the judgment passed in Hari Kishan and another v. Sukhbir Singh and others, 1989 CriLJ 116 (SC), since no offence is made out against the revisionists, hence, the revision be allowed and the order of conviction be set aside.

6. In brief, facts of the case are that on 27.08.1984 at about 07:00 a.m. when Lala Ram resident of Village Daulatpur Khera, Police Station Bisalpur, District Pilibhit was going from his house for school, accused Kaptan with kanta, Ram Din, Ram Bir and Ram Ratan with sticks met to him and asked the informant that he would not shut the window and started beating him. Hearing the commotion, when his wife Ramwati, daughter Jamyant Kumari and his brother Ram Sahay came to rescue him, they were also beaten by the accused persons. After hearing the hue and cry, two villagers namely, Ram Kumar and Jhankar Singh also reached there and accused persons ran away from there. According to the informant, he had opened a window about which accused persons had objection that by this window privacy of their house is infringed, he was asked to shut the window, but the informant had refused to do the same, therefore, accused persons had enmity with him.

7. On the basis of above written complaint (Ex.Ka-1), Chik FIR (Ex.Ka-10) was registered and entered in General Diary (Ex.Ka-11). The injured were medically examined by Dr. S.S Sharma.

8. The medical examination of Jamyant Kumari is Ex.Ka- 2, according to which, she had received injuries on her person which are; (i) contusion of 15cm x 2.5cm on pesterolatral aspect of left hand starti