Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(All) 2178

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Vivek Kumar Birla, Jitendra Kumar Sinha, JJ.
Siaram And Others - Appellant
Vs.
State of U.P. - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 16 of 1986
Decided On : 23-05-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : P.N. Mishra
For the Respondent: A.G.A

The court determined that the accused's actions constituted culpable homicide not amounting to murder, as the prosecution failed to prove premeditation or undue advantage during a sudden fight.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302, 304 Part II, 325, 323, and 149 - Conviction and sentencing of appellants under Section 302 IPC set aside; convicted under Section 304 Part II IPC instead - The prosecution failed to prove that the act was premeditated and that undue advantage was taken by the accused during a sudden fight. (Paras 35, 39, 43)

(B) Evidence - Testimony of injured witnesses - The court emphasized the significance of injured witnesses' testimonies, which hold substantial evidentiary weight unless significant discrepancies are present. (Paras 12, 16)

Facts of the case:
The appeal arose from a conviction related to a violent incident where the deceased was killed, and several injuries were inflicted on others. The incident stemmed from a dispute over cattle damaging crops. (Paras 4, 5, 6)

Findings of Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to establish that the accused intended to kill the deceased, leading to a conviction under a lesser charge. (Paras 39, 43)

Issues: The primary issues concerned the nature of the injuries, the intentions of the accused, and the adequacy of the evidence to support the original conviction under Section 302 IPC. (Paras 35, 39)

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the prosecution did not prove that the act was premeditated or that the accused took undue advantage, thus falling under Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC. (Paras 35, 39)

Result: Appeal partly allowed; conviction under Section 302 IPC set aside; convicted under Section 304 Part II IPC with sentences adjusted accordingly. (Paras 43, 44)

Table of Content
1. appellants convicted under ipc sections. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. prosecution's case based on eyewitness accounts. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
3. charges framed against accused after investigation. (Para 7 , 8 , 9)
4. arguments regarding delay and credibility of witnesses. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)
5. court's analysis of witness credibility and evidence. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21)
6. evaluation of testimonies and their reliability. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30)
7. legal principles regarding intent and culpability. (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37)
8. court's conclusion on the nature of the offense. (Para 38 , 39)
9. sentencing of appellants based on findings. (Para 40 , 41 , 42 , 43)
10. administrative directives for compliance. (Para 44 , 45 , 46 , 47)

JUDGMENT :

Jitendra Kumar Sinha, J.

1. Heard Sri Javed Alam, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellants, Sri O.P. Dwivedi, learned AGA-Ist for the State and perused the record.

2. Present Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the judgement and order dated 21.12.1985 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Budaun in Sessions Trial No. 455 of 1983 convicting and sentencing the appellant nos. 1 to 15 under section 302 read with section 149 IPC with life imprisonment and 3 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1000/- each of them under section 325 read with 149 I.P.C. and in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months rigorous imprisonment, further convicting all the accused under section 323 read with section 149 I.P.C. and sentencing each of them to 6 months rigorous imprisonment.

3. Vide order dated 16.7.2024, the appeal stood abated in respect of appellant no. 1- Sia Ram S/O Durgt, appellant No. 3 Dori S/O Kesho, appellant no. 4 Ragghu S/O Rohan, appellant no. 5- Dharam Pal S/O Rohan, appellant no. 6 Toti S/O Khyali, appellant no. 8- Rameshwar S/O Bhoji, appellant no. 9- Mool Chand S/O Bhoji, appellant no.- 10- Man Singh S/O Bhoji, appellant no. 11- Janki S/O Kewal, appellant no. 12 Munshi S/O Kewal, appellant no. 13- Baboo S/O Hari, appellant No. 14 Ram Singh S/O Neksoo and appellant No. 15 Moti S/O Behari. Now the appeal is surviving only in respect of appellant no. 2 Sukh Ram S/O Sia Ram and appellant no. 7- Bhupal S/O Khyali.

4. The prosecution story, in brief, is that informant Chet Ram gave a report to the police station on 22.3.1982 stating therein that in the evening of 21.3.1982 at about 5 P.M. his brother Shyam Lal saw the bullocks of the accused Rameshwar grazing his field of wheat. Seeing damage to his crop, Shyam Lal caught the bullocks and was taking them to cattle pound and when he came near the land of Gram Samaj, accused Rameshwar objected to him for taking away bullocks but Shyam Lal said that bullocks had destroyed his crops, therefore, he would not let the bullocks free. On this, Rameshwar called his family members and soon Sukh Ram armed with Kanta, Siya Ram, Dori, Ragghu, Dharam Pal, Toti, Bhupal, Rameswar, Mool Chand, Maan Singh, Janki, Munshi, Anar, Babu, Ram Singh and Moti, all armed with lathi reached there. The accused Siya Ram exhorted his colleagues to settle the matter with the informant's brother on which informant's brother Shyam Lal raised noise. Hearing his noise the witnesses Mahaveer, Punni, Chet Ram (informant), Natthu, Shiv Dayal, Natthu Lal, Daal Singh, Lal Singh came there and saw the accused were beating Shyam Lal with their lathies. When the informant and witnesses tried to defend Shyam Lal, accused persons had also beaten them as a result of which Mahaveer, Chet Ram, Punni, Shiv Dayal, Nathu sustained injuries. The informant's brother Shyam Lal, after telling about the incident died on the spot.

5. On the basis of above information, first information report was lodged and inquest of the dead body was conducted and same was sent for post mortem.

5.1. It is also mentioned in the FIR that one case under section 307 I.P.C. was lodged by accused side against the prosec