Dismissed

Ram Chandra v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC10 Dec 2018CRLA/2017/1987

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal appeal, a single-judge court rejected submissions questioning the conviction and sentence for murder. Upholding the trial court's finding, the appellate bench affirmed liability under Section 302 and 34 of the IPC based on trustworthy eyewitness testimony and postmortem evidence.

What did the court decide?

The appellant's bail bond was cancelled and he was ordered to be taken into custody for serving the remaining sentence.

Ram Chandra Vs State of U.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. 3

¶2

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2017 of 1987

¶3

Ram Chandra and Anr. ----- Appellants Vs. State of U.P. ----- Respondent _____________________________________________________________ For Appellant : Sri Arun Kumar Singh and Sri Ram Nath For Respondent/State : AGA Sri Amit Sinha _____________________________________________________________

¶4

Hon'ble Pritinker Diwaker, J. Hon'ble Umesh Kumar, J.

¶5

Per : Pritinker Diwaker, J.

¶6

This appeal arises out of the impugned judgment and order dated 04.08.1987 passed by III Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kanpur Dehat in Sessions Trial No. 7 of 1985 (State Vs. Ram Chandra and Another) convicting the appellants under Section 302 read with 34 of I.P.C and sentencing them to undergo imprisonment for life.

¶7

As per prosecution case, there exists an old enmity between the family of the accused and that of the family of the deceased. Further undispued fact is that number of litigations between them are pending in the courts. On 22.09.1984, after attending the court proceedings when PW-2 Ram Autar was returning to his house, near Jangleshwar Temple he saw his nephew Karuna Shankar, a student of Class-XII, returning to his village along with Anil Kumar on his bicycle. The bicycle of said Karuna Shankar was stopped by the three accused persons. The accused-appellant Raj Naraian and the deceased-accused Ram Chandra exhorted that the deceased may not survive and then another deceased accused Aslam caused gun shot injury to Karuna Shankar by a country made pistol, which he was carrying. Karuna Shankar ran for his life, however, he fell down near the road and it is said that accused Aslam further fired him and then the accused-appellant Raj Naraian and deceased-accused Ram Chandra also fired aiming him.

¶8

¶9

Apart from PW-2 Ram Autar, incident has been witnessed by Anil and other witnesses.

¶10

F.I.R. exhibit Ka-3 was lodged by PW-2 Ram Autar on 22.09.1984 at 06.15 P.M. at P.S. Bilhaur, District Kanpur Dehat, which is about 12 km away from the place of occurrence against three accused persons, namely, Raj Narain (appellant), Ram Chandra and Aslam under Section 302 of I.P.C.

¶11

Inquest on the dead body of the deceased was conducted vide exhibit Ka-6 on 22.09.1984 and the body was sent for postmortem, which was conducted vide exhibit Ka-1 on 23.09.1984 by PW-1 Dr. R.K. Gupta. As per Autopsy Surgeon following injuries were noticed on the body of the deceased.

¶12

“(i) One gun shot wound entry on the back of the abdomen. Right side 7 cm above (RT) iliac crest and 6 cm away from the mid line, 3 cm x 2 cm x cavity deep with blackening and tatooing present around the wound of entry in the area of 16 cm x 10 cm.

¶13

(ii) One gun shot wound of entry 1 cm x 1 cm x deep to cavity; below 6 cm inferior angle of left scapula lateral side of the chest left side with tatooing on the back of the left upper arm.

¶14

(iii) One gun shot wound of exit present on the right chest 1 cm x 1 cm - 4 cms below the right nipple and eaterally.

¶15

(iv) One gun shot wound 2nd entry corresponding wound of bullet injury no. 3 on the inner side and middle of right upper arm 1 cm x 1 cm x deep to muscle.

¶16

(v) One abrasion on the left side of knee joint outer 3 cm x 2 cm

¶17

The Autopsy Surgeon has opined that the cause of death is due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of fire arm injuries.

¶18

¶19

While framing charge, the trial Judge has framed charge against all the three accused persons under Sections 302/34 of IPC.

¶20

During the pendency of the trial, accused Aslam expired and the trial court proceeded with the case of accused Ram Chandra and Raj Narain.

¶21

So as to hold the accused persons guilty, prosecution has examined eight witnesses namely, PW-1 Dr. R.K. Gupta, PW-2 Ram Autar, PW-3 Nand Kishore, PW-4 Ram Ratan, PW-5 Laxmi Narayan, PW-6 Suresh Kumar Mishra, PW-7 Virendra Pratap Singh & PW-8 Ved Pal Singh. The statement of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which they pleaded their innocence and false implication.

¶22

By the impugned judgment, the trial Judge has convicted both the accused persons i.e. Ram Chandra and Raj Narain under Section 302/34 of I.P.C. However, during pendency of this appeal, accused No.1, Ram Chandra expired on 24.02.2011, hence, the present appeal confines only in respect of accused-appellant Raj Narain.

¶23

Learned counsel for the appellant submits as under:

¶24

(i) that there is only one eye witness to the incident i.e. PW-2 Ram Autar, who not only is an interested witness but also appears to be a planted witness.

¶25

(ii) that the main injuries to the deceased have been caused by Aslam, who has now expired and, therefore, there remains nothing against the appellant.

¶26

(iii) that considering the nature of injuries sustained by the deceased, it is apparent that the appellant has not caused any injury to the deceased.

¶27

(iv) that there is no evidence of common intention and thus conviction of the appellant with the aid of Section 34 of I.P.C. is not in accordance with law.

¶28

(v) that there are material contradictions in the statement of PW-2

¶29

¶30

Ram Autar

¶31

(vi) that from the spot map, it appears that PW-2 Ram Autar had not seen any occurrence and the appellant has been falsely implicated.

¶32

(vii) that the appellant had no dispute with Karuna Shankar and, therefore, question of committing his murder does not arise.

¶33

(viii) that no incriminating article has been seized from the possession of the accused-appellant.

¶34

On the other hand, supporting the impugned judgment, it has been argued by the State counsel:

¶35

(i) that the incident occurred on 22.09.1984 at about 04.30 P.M. and very prompt report was lodged at 06.15 P.M. He submits that the distance between the place of occurrence and the police station is about 12 km and thus, it is apparent that the FIR was prompt.

¶36

(ii) that the role of firing has been assigned to the appellant also and considering the nature of injuries, i.e. gun shot injury sustained by the deceased, role of appellant has been duly proved.

¶37

(iii) that the testimony of sole eye witness PW-2 Ram Autar appears to be trustworthy and there is no reason for this Court to disbelieve the statement of PW-2.

¶38

(iv) that the testimony of PW-2 Ram Autar has been duly supported by the postmortem report of the deceased where number of gun shot injuries have been found on the body of the deceased.

¶39

(v) that all the accused persons were carrying fire arms in their hands, all of them together apprehended the deceased and then caused gun shot injuries, thus the conviction of the accused-appellant with the aid of Section 34 of I.P.C. is in accordance with law and there is no infirmity in the same.

¶40

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶41

¶42

PW-2 Ram Autar is sole eye witness to the incident. While supporting the prosecution case, he has stated that on the fateful day at about 04.30 P.M., when he was returning along with other villagers on their bicycles, deceased Karuna Shankar, his nephew was going ahead on his bicycle, whereas his friend Anil Kumar was sitting as a pillion rider. At the relevant time, the deceased was a student of Class-XII and was returning from his school. Near the Jangleshwar temple, just before a ' furlang ' to the east, the three accused persons, namely Aslam, Ram Chandra and appellant-Raj Naraian stopped the deceased, compelled him to get down from his bicycle and at that time all were carrying country made pistols in their hands. Accused-appellant Ram Chandra exhorted "lkys dks xksyh ekjks vkt cpus u ik," and then accused Aslam fired aiming the deceased Karuna Shankar, as a result of which he sustained gun shot injury. He could hardly run for about 10-15 yards and then fell down on the road. Thereafter, accused Aslam fired another gun shot injury and likewise accused-appellant Raj Narayan and Ram Chandra also fired aiming him and then all the three accused persons fled away from the scene. He states that he and other villagers made an attempt to catch the accused persons but they failed. He has further clarified that the accused Ram Chandra and Raj Narayan are cousin brothers, whereas accused Aslam is very close to him. He has further stated that before this incident, on the eve of Holi also, there was quarrel between the two groups and both the parties have lodged criminal cases, which are pending and civil litigations are also pending between the parties. He has clarified that on account of these litigations, the present incident occurred. He has further stated that on the date of incident also, he was returning from the court of S.D.M. after attending the case under Section 107 of Cr.P.C. This witness was examined at length by the defence and an effort has been made to discredit him, but the witness remained firm and reiterated as to the manner in which, the incident occurred.

¶43

PW-1 Dr. R.K. Gupta conducted the postmortem on the body of the deceased. He has clarified that the injuries sustained by the deceased could

¶44

¶45

have been caused either by one weapon or could be by two different weapons.

¶46

PW-3 Nand Kishore and PW-4 Ram Ratan are eye witnesses to the incident and have been declared hostile.

¶47

PW-5 Laxmi Narayan registered the FIR.

¶48

PW-6 Suresh Kumar Mishra and PW-7 Virendra Pratap Singh assisted during investigation.

¶49

PW-8 Ved Pal Singh is the Investigating Officer of the case, who has duly supported the prosecution case.

¶50

Close scrutiny of the evidence makes it clear that on 22.09.1984, on account of previous enmity between the two families, when the deceased was returning to his house from his school on his bicycle, he was apprehended by the accused-appellant and two other accused persons. They exhorted "lkys dks xksyh ekjks vkt cpus u ik," and then caused gun shot injuries to him. When the deceased tried to escape from the clutches of the accused persons, he was further chased by them and then number of other gun shot injuries have been caused to him. All the three accused persons were carrying country made pistols in their hands and they fired aiming the deceased as a result of which he sustained number of injuries. The incident has been witnessed by PW-2 Ram Autar and other witnesses. In the court, it is only PW-2, who has supported the prosecution case. It is a settled proposition of law that it is not the quantity of evidence, which is required to be seen, but it is quality of evidence, which is required to be considered by the courts. PW-2 Ram Autar in his deposition stood firm and has reiterated again and again as to the manner in which the incident occurred and the deceased was done to death by the accused persons. His statement has been duly supported by the postmortem report of the deceased and the Autopsy Surgeon PW-1 Dr. R.K. Gupta, in his deposition, has duly supported the prosecution case. The most important aspect of the case is the prompt report lodged by PW-2 Ram Autar naming the accused persons. The incident

¶51

¶52

occurred at 04.30 P.M. The distance between the place of occurrence and police station is about 12 km and the report was lodged within less than two hours, meaning thereby there was hardly any occasion for Ram Autar or his other family members to concoct or cook any story and to falsely implicate the accused persons.

¶53

There is no evidence on record to suggest that the prosecution has concocted the story and a false report has been lodged against the accusedappellant.

¶54

The motive part has also been duly proved by the prosecution where, it has come that number of litigations were pending between the two families and even on the date of occurrence Ram Autar was returning from attending the court proceedings.

¶55

Present is an unfortunate case where a young boy, who was a student of Class-XII has been made victim by the accused persons just to take vengeance against the other party.

¶56

We find no force in the argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellant that the gun shot injuries sustained by the deceased have only been caused by the deceased-accused Aslam. As per PW-2, Ram Autar all the three accused persons have caused gun shot injuries aiming the deceased and the deceased died after sustaining number of such injuries. Even otherwise, the appellant has been charged for commission of offence with the aid of Section 34 of I.P.C. and once all the accused persons, duly armed, took active part in the commission of offence, the conviction of the accused persons cannot be faulted with.

¶57

Furthermore, as per PW-2 Ram Autar, after apprehending the deceased, the accused-appellant Raj Narayan and the deceased accused Ram Chandra exhorted "lkys dks xksyh ekjks vkt cpus u ik,". Thus, here also Section 34 of I.P.C. comes in play and the conviction of the appellant appears to be justified.

¶58

Considering all the aspects of the case, we are of the view that the trial

¶59

¶60

court was justified in convicting the appellant under Section 302/34 of I.P.C.

¶61

The appeal has no substance and the same is accordingly dismissed.

¶62

The appellant Raj Narain is on bail. His bail bond stands cancelled and he be taken into custody forthwith for serving the remaining sentence.

¶63

Order Date :- 10.12.2018 nethra/s.k.

¶64

(Umesh Kumar, J.) (Pritinker Diwaker, J.)

Ram Chandra v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Chandra 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajoo Vs State

Tika Ram Vs State

Durg Singh Vs State

Rajesh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Neelam Bhushan Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Shaukin and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others