Partly allowed

Amar Nath and Others v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC22 Mar 2018CRLA/475/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court upheld the conviction of appellants for voluntarily causing grievous hurt but, considering the delay of over 31 years and lack of planning, set aside the rigorous imprisonment sentence and released them on probation of good conduct for two years, directing them also to pay compensation.

What did the court decide?

Compulsion of conviction upheld. Sentence set aside; appellants released on probation of good conduct for two years and directed to deposit Rs. 5000/- each as compensation.

Amar Nath and Others Vs State of U.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 14

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 475 of 2004 Appellant :- Amar Nath & Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Appellant :- Sangam Lal Kesharwani,Bharti Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate

¶3

Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.

¶4

This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 23.01.2004 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 6, Allahabad in Session Trial No. 1011/1996 (State Vs. Sukh Lal and others) whereby appellants Amar Nath, Sukh Lal and Lalloo were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 324/34 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'I.P.C.') and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years each.

¶5

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 08.08.1986 at about 8:00 p.m. informant Phoolchand was going to attend the call of nature in the south of village. In the way, appellants Amar Nath, Sukh Lal and Lallo met him. Phoolchand flashed torch light on them. They started abusing him. Appellants Amar Nath and Lalloo exhorted to Sukh Lal to fire on his leg so that he became infirm. Upon the exhortation of Amar Nath and Lalloo, Sukh Lal fired on leg of informant Phoolchand, due to which he sustained injury in thigh. Thereafter, appellants fled away in the North side using the unparliamentary languages. On the information of informant Phoolchand, first information report was lodged against accused persons at Case Crime No. 149/1986 under Section 324 I.P.C. Injured (Phoolchand) was medically examined by Dr. Swatantra Singh on 09.08.1986 at 4:00 a.m. at Tez Bahadur Sapru Hospital, Allahabad and following injuries were found on his body.

¶6

Multiple fire arm wounds of entry on Rt. thigh at lower half and front of knee joint in an area of 10"x7" each measuring 1/6"x1/6" depth kept under observation, margins inverted, no blackening & tattooing, bleeding present.

¶7

Injuries were caused by fire arm and may caused on 08.08.1986 at 8:00 p.m.

¶8

3. After investigation police has submitted charge sheet against accusedappellants for offence punishable under Sections 307 I.P.C.

¶9

4. Trial court has framed charge against accused-appellants for offence punishable under Section 307 I.P.C. and explained to them. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

¶10

5. To substantiate charges against accused-appellants, prosecution has examined PW-1 Om Prakash, PW-2 Phoolchand (Informant & Injured) as a witnesses of facts and PW-3 Dr. K.N. Singh, PW-4 Dr. Swatantra Singh, PW-5 Senior Sub Inspector Pooran Singh Yadav (Investigating Officer) and PW-6 Constable Raj Bahadur as formal witnesses.

¶11

6. Except as above, no other evidence was adduced.

¶12

7. After closure of prosecution evidence, the statements of accused/appellants were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein they pleaded innocence and stated that prosecution witnesses deposed falsely against them due to enmity.

¶13

8. Learned trial court after considering the case on its merit passed the impugned order.

¶14

9. Aggrieved by the order of learned trial court, the appellants have preferred the instant criminal appeal.

¶15

10. Heard Shri Sangam Lal Kesharwani and Shri Ajay Pandey learned counsels for appellants and Smt. Madhu Rani Garg, Learned A.G.A. for the State of Uttar Pradesh.

¶16

11. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that occurrence has taken place in night, it was not possible for informant/injured Phoolchand to identify the appellants. PW-1 Om Prakash has not supported the prosecution version. No independent witness has been examined from the side of prosecution. Even though, learned trial court has passed the impugned order of conviction without properly appreciating the evidence on record. The prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of appellants beyond reasonable doubt.

¶17

12. Learned counsels for appellants submitted that appellant Lallo is in custody.

¶18

13. Apart from argument on the merit of the case, learned counsel for appellants further contended that occurrence has taken place 31½ years ago. Appellants were in custody for more than 2 ½ months. Therefore, their sentence should be reduced to period already undergone.

¶19

14. Learned A.G.A. contended that there is no infirmity in the judgment of the trial court. Hence, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

¶20

15. Informant/Injured Phoolchand has supported the prosecution version. His statement is corroborated by medical evidence. In his statement, there is no material contradiction so that his testimony may be discarded.

¶21

16. Upon considering the material on record and impugned judgment, I am of the considered view that there is no infirmity in the well-reasoned judgment of

¶22

conviction passed by the learned Trial Court for the offence punishable under Section 324/34 I.P.C against appellants.

¶23

17. However, occurrence has been taken place 31½ years ago. Injured/informant Phoolchand and appellants belong to same village. Incident has taken place suddenly, not in a pre-planned manner, on flashing torch light by injured/informant on appellants.

¶24

18. In view of this, end of justice would met, if appellants be released on probation, instead of sentencing them to any punishment.

¶25

19. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed . Conviction of accused-appellants Amar Nath, Sukh Lal and Lalloo under Section 324/34 I.P.C. is hereby upheld, but their sentence is set aside. Instead of sentencing them at once to any punishment, they are released on probation of good conduct for a period of two years. Appellants are directed to furnish a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of trial court, before the trial court within 30 days from receipt of certified copy of this order by the trial court with the condition that they shall appear and receive sentence when called by this Court before such period and in the meantime, to keep peace and be of good behaviour. If, appellant Lallo is in custody, he shall be released forthwith. 20. Each of the appellants is further directed to deposit compensation of Rs. 5000/- in the trial court within 30 days from receipt of certified copy of this order by the trial court. That compensation amount Rs. 15000/- shall be paid to the injured Phoolchand.

¶26

21. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to Sessions Judge, Allahabad for its compliance and further directed to remit back the lower court's record to the court concerned.

¶27

Order Date :- 22.3.2018 Sharad/-

Amar Nath and Others v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amar Nath and Others 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

Manish Singh and 3 Otehrs Vs State of Up and Another

Shital Singh Vs State of U.P.

Vipin Singh and 3OTHERS Vs State of Up and Another

Deepak and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

vasim @ Shekhu and 2 others Vs state of up and another

Jugul Kishor Vs State of U.P.