IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, GAUTAM CHOWDHARY, JJ.
Devendra Shukla @ Mantu And Anr. - Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.689 of 2019, Criminal Appeal No.299 of 2019
Decided on : 20-12-2024
JUDGMENT :
(Per: Hon’ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra, J.)
1. This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 12.12.2018, passed by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, E.C. Act, Pilibhit in Sessions Trial No.199 of 2015 (State Vs. Devendra Shukla @ Mantu & Ors.), under Sections 148, 452, 302/149, 323/149, 504, 506 IPC, arising out of Case Crime No.529 of 2015, Police Station – Sungarhi, District – Pilibhit; Sessions Trial Nos.200 of 2015 (State Vs. Rahul Shukla Alias Rinku), 201 of 2015 (State Vs. Devendra Shukla @ Mantu), 202 of 2015 (State Vs. Mahesh Shukla), under Section 4/25 Arms Act, arising out of Case Crime Nos.530 of 2015, 531 of 2015, 532 of 2015, Police Station – Sungarhi, District – Pilibhit; whereby the accused appellants Devendra Shukla @ Mantu, Rahul Shukla Alias Rinku and Mahesh Shukla have been convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 302/149 IPC alongwith fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment to undergo three months additional imprisonment; sentenced to one year rigorous imprisonment under Section 323/149 IPC; sentenced to one year rigorous imprisonment under Section 148 IPC; sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment under Section 452 IPC alongwith fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default of payment to undergo two months additional imprisonment; sentenced to one year rigorous imprisonment under Section 504 IPC; sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment under Section 506 IPC; sentenced to one year rigorous imprisonment under Section 4/25 Arms Act alongwith fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment to undergo one month additional imprisonment. All the sentences are to run concurrently.
2. At 11.45 AM on 6.3.2015, informant Neelu Rupali Pandey was at her house alongwith her parents and brother Mudit Mishra when accused Devendra Shukla @ Mantu, Rahul Shukla Alias Rinku armed with knife, Triloki Nath Shukla @ Tillu armed with gupti (a sharp edged instrument), Anuj Shukla and Mahesh Shukla armed with knife entered informant’s house at Nai Basti, near Chatri crossing within Police Station Sungarhi, District Pilibhit and in furtherance of their common intention attacked informant’s father. Accused Mahesh Shukla exhorted by saying that informant’s father had dared to lodge a report against his daughter so he be not spared. Accused persons then assaulted informant’s father with knife and gupti and when other family members tried to save them, they (family members) were also beaten and by extending threats the accused left. Out of fear of accused none from the neighbourhood came to their rescue. Informant brought his injured father to the police station. Some time before this incident accused Mahesh Shukla had allegedly extended life threat to informant’s father on phone. The incident was reported by the informant vide her written report dated 6.3.2015 which is exhibited as Ex.Ka.1 during trial. On the strength of the above written report First Information Report came to be lodged under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 452, 323, 504, 506 IPC at Police Station Sungarhi, District Pilibhit on 6.3.2015 at 12.20 PM.
3. The investigation proceeded on the basis of the FIR and the inquest was conducted on 6.3.2015 at 2.30 PM. The inquest witnesses were of the view that deceased Nirmal Mishra has been done to death apparently on account of injuries caused by knife and to ascertain the correct cause of death postmortem be conducted. The body was sealed and sent for postmortem. Postmortem was also conducted on the same day. The autopsy surgeon found existence of following ante-mortem injuries and the cause of death was reported as shock and hemorrhage due to following ante-mortem injuries caused by stabbing:-
2. Punctured wound 2 cm x 0.5 cm bone deep on left side chest 8 cm below left nipple red in color
3. Stitched wound 3 cm width on left side abdomen 16 cm below from left nipple horizontally placed on exploration it was pun
The court modified the conviction from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, emphasizing the lack of premeditated intent and the nature of the incident as a sudden altercation.
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and the testimony of injured witnesses is given significant weight in murder cases.
The court established that the act of the accused was culpable homicide not amounting to murder, as it was committed in the heat of the moment without premeditation.
The court held that the accused lacked intent to kill, resulting in conviction for culpable homicide under Section 304 IPC instead of murder under Section 302 IPC.
The court applied exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC to determine the appropriate charges and convictions based on the nature of injuries and the circumstances of the incident.
Conviction cannot stand when significant doubts arise due to contradictory testimonies and acquittal of co-accused on similar evidence, emphasizing the principle of parity in criminal proceedings.
The reliability of eyewitness testimony and oral dying declaration in criminal cases, and the reasonableness of delayed recording of police statements.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.