Partly allowed

Ram Harakh and Others v. State

Allahabad HC17 Dec 2018CRLA/1204/1988

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal appeal arising from a conviction under Sections 323 and 34 of IPC, the High Court affirmed the conviction but reduced the sentence to the period already served. The court observed that the prosecution evidence sufficiently proved the appellant's involvement in the assault and that the appellant had already undergone over a month of imprisonment.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is partly allowed; the sentence is commuted to the period already undergone by the appellant.

Ram Harakh and Others Vs State — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

Court No.3

¶3

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1204 of 1988

¶4

Ram Harakh and Others ..….. Appellants

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of U.P. .….. Respondent For Appellants : Sri Ram Pyare Lal Srivastava, Advocate For Respondent/State : Sri J.K. Upadhyaya, AGA Hon'ble Pritinker Diwaker, J. Hon'ble Umesh Kumar, J.

¶7

Per: Pritinker Diwaker, J.

¶8

This appeal arises out of the impugned judgment and order dated 23.04.1988 passed by the Special Judge, Deoria in Sessions Trial No.93 of 1986 (State v. Saloo & Others), convicting accused appellant no.1-Ram Harakh and accused no.2-Bhulli under Section 323/34 of IPC and sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months, and convicting accused no.3-Saloo under Section 302 of IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life.

¶9

As per prosecution case, on 19.11.1985, Domai was assaulted by the accused persons and when his wife Tasia and one Chandra Jyotia intervened, they were also beaten. It is said that the accused-Saloo gave injury of spear on the stomach of the deceased (Domai), as a result of which he died.

¶10

Three accused persons, namely Ram Harakh, Bhulli and Saloo were tried under Sections 302 and 323 read with Section 34 of IPC.

¶11

After recording statements of as many as nine witnesses, the trial Court has convicted accused Saloo under Section 302 of IPC and

¶12

¶13

sentenced him for life imprisonment, whereas accused-appellant Ram Harakh and accused Bhulli have been convicted under section 323 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced them for two months rigorous imprisonment.

¶14

Against their convictions, all three accused persons have preferred the appeal in this Court. However, during pendency of the appeal, accused Bhulli and Saloo have expired and the present appeal confines only in respect of accused-appellant Ram Harakh who has been convicted under Section 323/34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months.

¶15

Counsel for accused-appellant Ram Harakh submits that during trial, Ram Harakh remained in jail for more than one month and thus, he has almost served the entire sentence imposed upon him. He further submits that accused-appellant Ram Harakh is no more interested to prosecute this appeal on merit and the appeal may be disposed of.

¶16

Counsel for the State has no objection to the proposition put forth by the counsel for accused appellant-Ram Harakh. 8. (PW-1) Jhulli, injured eye witness, has not supported the prosecution case and has been declared hostile. 9. (PW-2) Tasia, who is the wife of deceased Domai, while supporting the prosecution case has stated as to the manner in which, her husband was done to death and she was subjected to injury. She has proved the role of the appellant-Ram Harakh in assaulting her by a club.

¶17

(PW-3) Durgawati has also supported the prosecution case and has proved the involvement of the accused-appellant Ram Harakh in assaulting (PW-2) Tasia.

¶18

(PW-6) Ram Lagan Dubey is the Investigating Officer, who has duly supported the prosecution case.

¶19

(PW-7) Dr Narendra Kumar Agarwal did MLC of the deceased Domai before his death and had also examined injured Jhulli, Tasia and Chandra Jyotia and has duly supported the prosecution case.

¶20

(PW-9) Dr S N Pandey conducted the postmortem examination of the deceased.

¶21

¶22

Close scrutiny of the evidence makes it clear that the accused appellant-Ram Harakh caused injuries to Chandra Jyotia and Tasia. The conviction of the appellant under Sections 323/34 of IPC has been duly proved by the prosecution and the trial Court was justified in convicting the appellant-Ram Harakh under Sections 323/34 of IPC.

¶23

So far as sentence part of the appellant-Ram Harakh is concerned, what reflects from the record is that appellant-Ram Harakh has already served more than one month sentence. We are of the view that ends of justice would be served, if the appellant is sentenced to the period already undergone by him.

¶24

The appeal is partly allowed.

¶25

Dated :17.12.2018 RKK/-AKK

¶26

(Pritinker Diwaker, J)

¶27

(Umesh Kumar, J)

Ram Harakh and Others v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Harakh and Others v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajoo and Anothers Vs State of U.P.

Ram Niwas and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ram Krishna Alias Ram Kishun Vs State of U.P.

Yaqut Vs State of U.P.

Mehkar Singh Vs State

Kamlesh Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others