Dismissed

Bhupendra Singh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC21 May 2018CRLA/1078/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed criminal appeals filed against a conviction for culpable homicide/death by injuring. The court affirmed the trial court's reliance on injured witnesses' testimony and confirmed the order in a connected compensation matter by directing the District Legal Services Authority to decide the claim under the UP Victim Compensation Scheme.

What did the court decide?

Bail bonds cancelled; accused taken into custody to serve sentences. Compensation claim directed to legal authority.

Bhupendra Singh Vs State of U.P. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

Court No. - 4

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1078 of 2015

¶4

Appellant :- Bhupendra Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Appellant :- Manish Dev Singh,Babu Ram Yadav,Krishna Ji Khare,Raj Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- Govt.Advocate,Jagdish Prasad Chaurasia

¶5

Connected with

¶6

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1691 of 2015

¶7

Appellant :- Moti Lal Respondent :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Appellant :- Ashutosh Upadhyay,Swati Agrawal Counsel for Respondent :- Govt.Advocate,Babu Ram Yadav

¶8

Connected with

¶9

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1094 of 2016

¶10

Appellant :- Prahlad Respondent :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Appellant :- Hari Prakash Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶11

Hon'ble Bala Krishna Narayana,J. Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.

¶12

Per Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta, J.

¶13

Heard Smt. Swati Agarwal, learned counsel for the appellants and Smt. Manju Thakur, learned A.G.A.-I for the State.

¶14

This criminal appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 10.03.2015, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 4, Jaunpur in S.T. No. 277 of 2012 (State vs. Moti Lal & others) arising out of Case Crime No. 290 of 2012 by which the appellants have been convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each u/s 302/34 I.P.C., one year rigorous imprisonment each u/s 323/34 I.P.C., three

¶15

¶16

years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- each u/s 452 I.P.C., one year rigorous imprisonment each u/s 504 I.P.C., two years rigorous imprisonment each u/s 506 I.P.C. In case of default in payment of fine, the appellants have been directed to undergo six months additional rigorous imprisonment each. All the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.

¶17

Briefly stated the facts of this case are that P.W.1 informant Lal Bahadur @ Ramyash Maurya gave a written report at P.S.Sikrara, District- Jaunpur on 13.5.2012 at about 6:30 a.m that the measurement of the land belonging to his grand mother was to be carried out on the same day and on account of the said dispute, the appellants Bhupendra, Moti Lal, Prahlad and nonappellant Sunil reached at the house of P.W.1 informant Lal Bahadur @ Ramyash Maurya and started abusing them and on being asked not to abuse, then on the instigation of Bhupendra, all the appellants, who were armed with lathi and gandasi, started assaulting P.W.1 informant Lal Bahadur @ Ramyash Maurya. On raising an alarm, informant's father Jeet Lal, his sister in-law Amrawati and niece Priyanka rushed to rescue him but they were also assaulted by lathi, danda and gandasi. P.W.1 informant Lal Bahadur @ Ramyash Maurya with an intention to rescue himself ran inside his house but he was chased by the appellants, who entered in his house and assaulted him with lathi, danda and gandasi. On the cries raised by the victims, number of persons reached there and intervened. However, due to assault made by the assailants, he along with his father and sister in-law received severe injuries.

¶18

On the basis of said written report (Ext.Ka.1), the first information report was registered at P.S.- Sikrara, DistrictJaunpur vide Case Crime No. 290 of 2012, under Sections

¶19

¶20

452/323/324/504/506 I.P.C. at 7:30 a.m. After registration of the first information report, the police of police station Sikrara prepared the chitthi majroobi of the injured Jeet Lal, Amrawati, Lal Bahadur, Priyanka and Kalawati and thereafter they were sent for medical examination. All the victims were medically examined by P.W.3 Dr. Manoj Kumar Chaurasiya (P.W.-3) who found the following injuries on the person of the victims :-

¶21

Injuries of Jeet Lal

¶22

(i) Lacerated left Head size 5 cm x 0.7 cm Bony deep muscles near 5 cm above left eye brow.

¶23

(ii) Lacerated top Head size 2.5 cm x 0.5 cm muscles deep muscles near 11 cm above right ear.

¶24

(ii) Lacerated left leg size 4 cm x 0.6 cm muscles deep near 8 cm above left ankle.

¶25

(iv) Sharp right leg size 12 cm x 10 cm muscles deep contusion near 12 cm above right foot ankle.

¶26

(v) Lacerated leg CA left elbow size 2 cm x 0.6 cm near 5 cm above left elbow joint.

¶27

(vi) Lacerated left elbow joint size 2 cm x 0.5 cm muscles deep near just above left elbow.

¶28

(vii) Lacerated left arm size 2.5 cm x 0.5 cm muscles deep near 7 cm above left forearm.

¶29

(viii) Lacerated right forearm size 2 cm x 0.5 cm muscles deep near 10 cm above right elbow joint.

¶30

(ix) Lacerated right arm size 1.5 cm 0.5 cm muscles deep near 7 cm above right wrist joint.

¶31

(x) Lacerated right arm size 1.5 cm x 0.5 cm muscles deep near 8 cm above right writ joint.

¶32

(xi) Contusion right thigh size 15 cm x 10 cm near 8 cm below right hip joint.

¶33

Injuries of Amrawati

¶34

(i) Lacerated left thumb size 2.5 cm x 0.5 cm near origin of left thumb.

¶35

(ii) Contusion right hand size 8 cm x 7 cm near 3 cm above right wrist joint colour- Red.

¶36

(iii) Contusion right shoulder size 8 cm x 5 cm near 6 cm above right hip shoulder colour- Red.

¶37

¶38

(iv) Contusion right leg size 7 cm x 5 cm near 4 cm above right foot ankle.

¶39

Injuries of Lal Bahadur

¶40

(i) Abrasion and contusion left leg size 7 cm x 5 cm near 14 cm below left Patella. Colour- Red.

¶41

(ii) Contusion left leg size 8 cm x 2.5 cm near 5 cm distance Injury No. (1). Colour- Red.

¶42

(iii) Contusion left leg size 7 cm x 2.5 cm near 5 cm above Injury No. (2). Colour- Red.

¶43

(iv) Contusion left foot size 7 cm x 4 cm near just above origin Metatarsal. Colour- Red.

¶44

(v) Contusion right leg size 7 cm x 2.5 cm near 14 cm above right ankle. Colour- Red.

¶45

(vi) Contusion right leg size 5 cm x 3 cm near 13 cm above right medial ankle. Colour- Red.

¶46

(vii) Abrasion and contusion right index finger size 2 cm x 1 cm near mid finger. Colour- Red.

¶47

(viii) Abrasion and contusion left ring finger size 4 cm x 2 cm near origin finger. Colour- Red.

¶48

(ix) Contusion right backside size 7 cm x 2.5 cm near 8 cm below right lower scapula. Colour- Red

¶49

(x) Lacerated top head size 5 cm x 0.5 cm muscle deep near 12 cm above right ear.

¶50

(xi) c/o Vomiting and headache- Adv- Expert opinion surgeon and orthopaedic surgeon.

¶51

Injuries of Priyanka

¶52

(i) Laceration left hand size 4 cm x .6 cm muscles deep near just above origin left index.

¶53

(ii) Contusion right gluteal region 4 cm x 3 cm near 4 cm above right pelvic distance. Colour- Red.

¶54

Injuries of Kalawati

¶55

(i) Contusion left thumb size 6 cm x 7 cm near origin of left thumb. Colour- Red.

¶56

(ii) Abrasion and contusion left forearm size 1 cm x 0.5 near 3 cm above left wrist joint.

¶57

(iii) c/o right food pain

¶58

Injuries of Jeet Lal, Amrawati, Lal Bahadur, Priyanka and

¶59

¶60

Kalawati have been proved as (Ex. Ka-2 to 6).

¶61

P.W.5 Dr. D.N. Singh had x-rayed the injuries of victim Lal Bahadur and Amrawati which have been proved as (Ex.Ka-8 and Ka-9) respectively. As per the X-ray report of Lal Bahadur, upper part of left tibula bone and metadorsal bone of left foot was found fractured and as per the X-ray report of Amrawati, metacarpal bone of right finger was found fractured and further tibia bone of right leg was found fractured.

¶62

Since the physical condition of victims, Jeet Lal and Amrawati was serious, as such they were referred to Sadar Hospital and on the way to the hospital, Jeet Lal expired. The information about the death of Jeet Lal was sent to P.S.- Sikrara, which was registered vide G.D. Report No. 24 at 11:45 hours and further Section 304 I.P.C. was added and the investigation was handed over to P.W.6 S.I. Vibhakar Shukla, who after collecting the necessary papers had proceeded to Sadar Hospital and conducted the inquest on the person of the deceased (Ex.Ka-10) and prepared the relevant papers i.e. photo-nash, challan-nash, letter addressed to R.I., letter addressed to C.M.O. and proved as (Ext.Ka-11 to Ka-13) and sample of seal was marked as (Ex.Ka15) and handed over the dead body of Jeet Lal to Constable Ashok Pathak and Shanker Singh Yadav for taking the same to the mortuary for the postmortem. An autopsy was conducted on the person of the deceased Jeet Lal by P.W.4 Dr. K. Vijay at 4:30 p.m. which has been proved as (Ex. Ka-7). Following ante mortem injuries have been noted on the body of the deceased Jeet Lal :-

¶63

(1) Incised wound 5 ½ c.m. x muscle deep on forehead 6 c.m. above to left eye brow.

¶64

(2) Incised wound 2 x 0.5 c.m. x muscle deep left elbow

¶65

¶66

joint exterior surface.

¶67

(3) Incised wound 3 x ½ c.m. x muscle deep on left arm exterior surface 4 c.m. above to 2^nd injury.

¶68

(4) Incised wound 3 x ½ x muscle deep on left arm exterior surface 2 ½ c.m. above to 3rd injury.

¶69

(5) Contusion with compounding fracture on left wrist joint.

¶70

(6) Incised wound 5 x 1 c.m. on left leg anteriorly 10 c.m. above to ankle joint.

¶71

(7) Incised wound ½ x ½ c.m. x muscle deep on right elbow joint at anterior surface.

¶72

(8) Incised wound 2 ½ x muscle deep on left elbow joint 7 c.m. above to 7^th injury.

¶73

(9) Compound fracture of right forearm exterior surface 4 x 4 c.m., 3 c.m. above wrist.

¶74

(10) Compound fracture with lacerating 7 x 3 c.m. on right leg anteriorly 5 c.m. above to right ankle joint.

¶75

In the opinion of the doctor, the cause of death was haemorrhage, shock and coma as a result of ante-mortem injuries.

¶76

The investigation of the case was then handed over to P.W.8 S.H.O. Samsher Bahadur Singh, who recorded the statement of witnesses and prepared and proved the site plan of the place of occurrence as (Ext.Ka-20) and thereafter the investigation was handed over to P.W.7 Sikandar Singh Yadav, who concluded the investigation and submitted the charge-sheet against the appellants, Moti Lal and Prahlad on 29.7.2012 and against the appellant- Bhupendra on 4.8.2012, which have been proved as (Ex.Ka-16 and Ka.-17) respectively.

¶77

Since the offences mentioned in the charge-sheet were triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaunpur committed the case for trial of the accused-

¶78

¶79

appellants to the Court of Sessions Judge, Jaunpur where it was registered as S.T. No. 277 of 2012 (State vs. Moti Lal & others) and made over for trial from there to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 4, Jaunpur, who on the basis of the material on record and after hearing the prosecution as well as the accused on the point of charge, framed charge against the accused-appellant u/s 302/34, 323/34, 452, 504, 506 I.P.C. The accused-appellants abjured the charges and claimed trial.

¶80

The prosecution in order to prove the guilt against the appellants examined as many as eight witnesses of whom P.W.1 informant Lal Bahadur @ Ramyash Maurya and P.W.2 Amrawati were examined as witnesses of fact while P.W.3 Dr. Manoj Kumar Chaurasiya who had examined and proved the injuries of the victims, P.W.4 Dr. K Vijay who had conducted the autopsy on the person of the deceased, proved the postmortem report, P.W.5 Dr. D.N. Singh who had x-rayed the injuries of the victims, Lal Bahadur and Amrawati, proved the same, P.W.6 S.I. Vibhakar Shukla who had conducted the inquest of the victim and had sent the dead body for postmortem, P.W.7 S.H.O. Sikandar Singh Yadav, the IInd Investigating Officer of the case who had concluded the investigation and submitted charge-sheet against the appellants and P.W.8 S.H.O. S.B. Singh, the first Investigating Officer, who after interrogating the witnesses, recorded their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and prepared the site plan, were produced as formal witnesses.

¶81

After conclusion of the prosecution evidence, the statements of the accused-appellants were recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. in which they denied the alleged incident and stated that on account of enmity over landed property, they have been falsely implicated in the present case. Appellant Bhupendra had

¶82

¶83

also submitted his written statement and has filed documentary evidence in respect of Criminal Case No. 10C/2003, State Vs. Vinod and others decided vide order dated 24.8.2007 passed by Vth A.C.J.M, Jaunpur and other documents referred in the order passed by the trial court.

¶84

Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 4, Jaunpur after considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties before him and scrutinizing the evidence on record, both oral as well as documentary, convicted the appellants u/s 302/34, 323/34, 452, 504, 506 I.P.C. and awarded aforesaid sentences to them.

¶85

Hence, this appeal.

¶86

Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the statement of P.W.1 informant Lal Bahadur @ Ramyash Maurya does not inspire confidence and there are material contradictions in his statement particularly in respect of the weapon used by the accused-appellant Bhupendra, who in the first information report is assigned general role of assault by wielding blows of lathi and gadansi whereas in his statement recorded before the trial court, he has been assigned the role of assaulting the deceased Jeet Lal by a ballam. She next submitted that from the careful perusal of the injury reports of Jeet Lal and Lal Bahadur, it transpires that there is no typical injury of ballam on his person, which creates a serious doubt about the eye witness account of the said witness and in these circumstances, he cannot be said to be a truthful witness. She next submitted that prosecution has miserably failed to prove the genesis of the prosecution story as there is no cogent evidence to show that on the date of incident any public authority had come to measure the land of Dhanja Devi which is

¶87

¶88

said to be the bone of contention between the accused and the victims, the absence of which further creates doubt about the veracity of the prosecution story. She further submitted that as per the injury report of the deceased Jeet Lal, only a single injury caused by a sharp-edged weapon was found on his person in the medical examination conducted by P.W.3 Dr. Manoj Kumar Chaurasiya whereas in the postmortem report, most of the injuries are found to be incised wounds, which do not find corroboration from the testimony of the injured witnesses and therefore, the eye witness account cannot be relied upon and is liable to be discredited. She further submitted that during the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer has not made any recovery of weapon which has been alleged to be used in the crime nor any clothes have been recovered by the Investigating Officer in order to corroborate the prosecution story.

¶89

Thus, in the backdrop of aforesaid circumstances, testimony of P.W.1 Lal Bahadur @ Ramyash Maurya and P.W.2 Amrawati does not inspire confidence and the view taken by trial court in holding the conviction of the appellants by placing reliance upon their testimony, cannot be upheld and is liable to be set aside.

¶90

Per contra Smt. Manju Thakur, learned A.G.A.-I submitted that the testimony tendered by two injured witnesses P.W.1 Lal Bahadur @ Ramyash Maurya and P.W.2 Amrawati clinchingly establishes the prosecution case against the appellants. She next submitted that in the present case, as many as four persons have received injuries, out of whom two of them have been examined before the Court and from their testimony the prosecution case is clearly established against the appellants. She further submitted that the presence of the witnesses at the time of incident and the

¶91

¶92

injuries found on the persons of the victims have not been seriously challenged and except minor discrepancies in the statements of the witnesses which do not go to the root of the case, they have cogently and unerringly established the case of the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt. In view of the above, the view taken by the trial court cannot be interfered with and therefore, the appeal which lacks merit, is liable to be dismissed.

¶93

For the sake of appreciation of evidence of P.W.1 Lal Bahadur @ Ramyash Maurya and P.W.2 Amrawati, it would be useful to reproduce their testimony in brief :-

¶94

P.W.1 Lal Bahadur, who is an injured witness and the first informant of the case has clearly stated in his testimony that on 13.5.2012 on account of some dispute over the measurement of his land at about 6:30 a.m, the accused-appellants Bhupendra, Moti Lal and Prahlad reached at their doorstep armed with lathi, danda and gadansi and started abusing them. Appellant Bhupendra, who was armed with a gadansi instigated to assault them, on which all the four accused persons started wielding blows from lathi, danda and gadansi due to which Jeet Lal, his sister in-law Amrawati, niece Priyanka and cousin sister Kalawati received injuries. It is further stated that he, in order to rescue him, entered in his house where the accused persons also came and assaulted him by lathi, danda and gadansi. He has further stated that Bhupendra assaulted the victims by gadansi whereas Moti Lal and Prahlad assaulted the injured by lathi and on account of injuries, his father Jeet Lal died at the hospital and he along with his sister in-law received fracture injuries. The injuries were examined at the Primary Health Centre, Sikrara and considering the gravity of the injuries received by his father and

¶95

¶96

sister in-law, they were referred to Sadar Hospital where his father succumbed to his injuries. The said witness has been subjected to extensive cross-examination. However, the defence has not been able to elicit any material contradictions in his statement except the fact that at the fag end of his examination at one point of time, he had substituted the weapon gadansi with that of ballam.

¶97

Learned counsel for the appellants has highlighted the said discrepancy by drawing the attention of the Court that from the careful perusal of the injury reports of the victims, there is no ballam injury and therefore, the said witness cannot be said to be a reliable and truthful witness.

¶98

We are not impressed with the said argument of learned counsel for the appellants in view of the fact that P.W.1 informant Lal Bahadur @ Ramyash Maurya is an injured witness of the incident. His presence on the date, time and place of incident has been cogently and unerringly established by the prosecution. Even his injuries have not been seriously challenged by the prosecution and he in a natural and truthful manner has narrated the entire incident and has assigned specific role to each of the accused persons of wielding blows by lathi and danda and assaulting the deceased by gadansi. Merely because in the later part of his testimony instead of assigning the role of assault by gadansi, the weapon 'ballam' has been used, will not discredit his entire testimony. Moreover from a meticulous scrutiny of his entire evidence as a whole, in our opinion, he is a truthful and reliable witness and except minor contradictions which do not go to the root of the case, his testimony inspires confidence and cannot be discredited. Furthermore, his testimony finds complete corroboration from the statement of P.W.2 Amrawati, who in her

¶99

¶100

statement has clearly stated that she has not witnessed any accused-appellant holding a ballam and stated that her father inlaw Jeet Lal and Lal Bahadur received injuries by gadansi.

¶101

Now coming to the testimony of P.W.2 Amrawati, who in her statement has clearly stated that on account of dispute over the measurement of land on the date of incident at 6:30 a.m, appellants Bhupendra, Moti Lal and Prahlad along with non-appellant Sunil had on instigation of Bhupendra, assaulted them and at the time of incident, Bhupendra was holding a gadansi whereas Moti Lal, Sunil and Prahlad were armed with lathi. She has further stated that on account of alarm raised by her father in-law and brother in-law, she, her daughter Priyanka and sister-in-law Kalawati (nanad) rushed to rescue them and intervened in the matter and they were also assaulted by the assailants and when his brother in-law P.W.1 Lal Bahadur @ Ramyash Maurya with an intention to rescue them, entered in the house followed by the assailants who also assaulted his dewar with gadansi and lathi because of which they received serious injuries and when the assailants had left the scene of incident, she along with her father-in-law, brother-in-law, daughter and sister-inlaw (nanad) were brought at the police station and after registration of the case, they were sent for medical examination and on account of serious injuries received by her and her father-in-law, they were referred to Sadar Hospital where his father-in-law succumbed to his injuries. The said witness has also been subjected to rigorous crossexamination. However, the defence has not been able to elicit any material contradictions in her statement and she has corroborated the prosecution story on material particulars and nothing could be elicited by the defence to doubt his credibility. The defence has not challenged her presence at the time of incident and the injuries on her person completely establishes the complicity of the appellants in the present case.

¶102

¶103

As such we are of the opinion that she is a reliable witness and has completely corroborated the prosecution story and the trial court has rightly relied upon her evidence. The defence has not been able to point out any inconsistency or material contradictions in her statement and finds corroboration from the medical evidence as well as the testimony of P.W.1 informant Lal Bahadur @ Ramyash Maurya. In the backdrop of said circumstances, the argument of learned counsel for the appellants that the testimony of P.W.2 Amrawati does not inspire confidence, is not tenable and is liable to be discarded.

¶104

Now coming to the next argument of learned counsel for the appellants that the injuries found on the person of the deceased Jeet Lal do not reconcile with his injuries mentioned in the medical examination report prepared by P.W.3 Dr. Manoj Kumar Chaurasia and is in direct conflict with the ocular testimony of the witnesses. As such the witnesses cannot be said to be reliable.

¶105

In this regard, it is germane to point out here that the evidence of a medical man or an expert is merely an opinion which lends corroboration to the direct evidence in the case. Where there is a glaring inconsistency between direct evidence and the medical evidence in respect of the entire prosecution story would undoubtedly be a manifest defect in the prosecution case but in the present case two experts have deferred in their opinion regarding the nature of injury. However, we are of the view that where the opinion of medical evidence is contradicted by another medical evidence, both of whom are equally competent to form an opinion, the opinion of that expert should be accepted which supports the direct evidence in the case.

¶106

From the ocular testimony, it is clinchingly established that the victim was assaulted by lathi, danda and gadansi and even from careful perusal of the postmortem report, the injuries of the said weapons find corroboration. Therefore, in view of inconsistency in the

¶107

¶108

nature of injuries found in the medical examination and postmortem report, the otherwise consistent testimony of the injured witnesses cannot be thrown over board. As such, we are of the opinion that the said argument of the learned counsel for the appellants also does not shake the credibility of the witnesses.

¶109

The next argument of learned counsel for the appellants is that since the weapon of assault could not be recovered by the police and even the blood-stained clothes have not been handed over to the police, therefore, the prosecution story becomes doubtful. The said argument of learned counsel for the appellants also does not appeal to us in view of the fact that ocular testimony of the witnesses clearly establishes the prosecution story beyond any reasonable doubt and, therefore, in view of the lapses on the part of the Investigating Officer in making the recovery of the weapon and producing the clothes, whole of the prosecution story supported by the witnesses cannot be thrown over board. The two injured witnesses whose injuries and presence has been clearly established by the prosecution and when the defence has not been able to elicit any material contradictions in their statements pointing towards the guilt of the accused, the prosecution story cannot be discarded.

¶110

In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the opinion that the prosecution has successfully proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt against the appellants and their conviction is liable to be affirmed.

¶111

This appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed .

¶112

Bhupendra Singh, appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 1078 of 2015 is in jail. He shall serve out the remaining part of his sentence.

¶113

Moti Lal, appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 1691 of 2015 and Prahlad, appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 1094 of 2016 are on bail. Their bail bonds are cancelled and their sureties discharged. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaunpur is forthwith directed to take them into

¶114

¶115

custody and send them to jail for serving out the remaining part of their sentences.

¶116

There shall however be no order as to costs.

¶117

Order Date :- 21.5.2018 KS

¶118

¶119

Court No. - 4

¶120

In Re : Criminal Misc. Compensation Application No. 328449 of 2017

¶121

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1078 of 2015

¶122

¶123

Hon'ble Bala Krishna Narayana,J. Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.

¶124

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶125

This application has been moved on behalf of Lal Bahadur alias Ramyash and Ram Janak alias Ramyash, both sons of late Jeetlal, residents of village- Sakaradelha (Gohada), P.S.- Sikrara, DistrictJaunpur, who had received injuries in the occurrence, with a prayer that they may be awarded a compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/- each pursuant to the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Suresh and another Versus State of Haryana reported in 2015 Cr.L.J. 661.

¶126

Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the applicants are the sons of Jeet Lal who had died as a result of the injuries inflicted on him by the accused-appellants in the incident which had taken place on 13.05.2012 at about 6:30 a.m. which is the subject matter of the criminal appeal in hand. He next submitted that in view of the above and the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Suresh (supra), the applicants being the family members of the deceased who had received injuries in the occurrence are entitled to be compensated and hence, the concerned authority be directed to award just and fair compensation to the applicants.

¶127

¶128

Per contra Smt. Manju Thakur, learned A.G.A.-I submitted that paragraph 5 (1) of The Uttar Pradesh Victim Compensation Scheme, 2014 prescribes the procedure for grant of compensation and confers power on the District Legal Services Authority to examine a recommendation made by the Court or an application moved by any victim or his dependent under sub-section (2) of Section 357-A of the Act and verify the contents of the claim with regard to the loss or injury caused to the victim arising out of the reported criminal activity and call for any other relevant information necessary for the purpose of determining the genuineness of the claim of the claimant and after due enquiry, award compensation within two months from the date of receipt of the recommendation of the court or the receipt of the application under sub-section (4) of Section 357-A of the Act in accordance with the provisions of this Scheme. He further submitted that the Schedule-1 to the Scheme as amended from time to time prescribes the maximum limit of amount of compensation which may be awarded in a particular case of loss or injury. The Schedule-1 of the Scheme was amended by the State Government by a G.O. on 14.06.2016 prescribing the maximum amount of compensation to be granted in different cases of injury. There is no dispute about the fact that in this case, the trial court has not made any recommendation for awarding compensation to the applicants.

¶129

After having heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State, we dispose of this application with a direction to the District Legal Services Authority to consider, examine and decide the applicants' claim for grant of compensation strictly in accordance with the provisions of The Uttar Pradesh Victim Compensation Scheme, 2014 within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

¶130

Order Date :- 21.5.2018 KS

Bhupendra Singh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhupendra Singh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahabir Vs State of U.P.

Anoop Kumar Trivedi Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Nisha Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Arvind @ Pappu Vs State of U.P.

State of U.P. Vs Naresh

State of U.P. Vs Smt. Snehlata Tyagi