In criminal appeal against conviction for Section 324 IPC assault, the High Court upheld the trial court's judgment convicting the appellant and releasing him on probation of good conduct, dismissing the appeal and directing lower court compliance.
Appeal dismissed; conviction upheld; appellant not to be taken into custody as probation period expired.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Reserved On 21.02.2018 Delivered On 15.03.2018
Court No. - 14
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 5220 of 2003
Appellant :- Suneel Kumar Seth Respondent :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Appellant :- V.P. Srivastava,K.N. Raha Counsel for Respondent :- A.G.A.
Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 23.09.2003 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/ Special Judge [Essential Commodity Act] Moradabad, in Sessions Trial No. 349/1994 (State Vs. Sunil and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 866/1993, Police Station Civil Lines, District Moradabad, whereby appellant/accused Sunil s/o Kapil Dev was convicted for offence punishable under Section 324 Indian Penal Code (here-in-after referred to as “I.P.C.”) but instead of sentencing him to any punishment, he was released on probation of good conduct for a period of one year. He was further directed to pay Rs. 2000/- for the compensation which shall be payable to the injured. By the impugned judgment, accused Sunil s/o Om Prakash, Sanjeev and Kapil, were acquited from the charge of offence punishable under Section 323/34 I.P.C.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 04.07.1993 at about 10:30 a.m. Ramphool Bataidar of informant Smt. Archana Gupta came to her husband Dr. Raj Kamal Gupta and informed that appellant Sunil s/o Kapil Dev, Sanjeev Kumar, Kapil Dev and another Sunil s/o Om Prakash dismentaled the wall situated in her plot at village Mora. On this information, informant along with her husband Dr. Raj Kamal Gupta and his brother Sarvesh proceeded to plot at about 12:00 noon. In way to plot all four persons were seen by them. Dr. Raj Kamal Gupta asked them why they demolished the wall? Hearing it appellant Sunil s/o Kapil Dev caused knife blow on the chest of Dr. Raj Kamal Gupta with intention to kill him. Accused Sanjeev, Kapil Dev and Sunil s/o Om Prakash assaulted Dr. Gupta with fits and kicks. In the meantime, Sarvesh Kumar, Sanjay and Afsar saved Dr. Gupta. On the information of informant Smt. Archana Gupta, first information report at Crime No. 866/1993 under Section 324 and 323 I.P.C. has been lodged at P.S. Civil Lines on 04.07.1993 at 12:40 p.m. Dr. Raj Kamal Gupta was medically examined on the same day at 1:10 p.m. at district hospital Moradabad by Dr. Rakesh Kumar Dhal and following injuries were found on his person.
2
3. After investigation police has submitted charge sheet against appellant Sunil s/o Kapil Dev and co-accused Sanjeev Kumar, Kapil Dev, Sunil s/o Om Prakash under Sections 323, 324, 427 and 307 I.P.C.
4. Learned trial court has framed charge under Section 307 I.P.C. against appellant and under Section 323/34 I.P.C. against co-accused Sanjeev Kumar, Kapil Dev and Sunil s/o Om Prakash and explained charge to them. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. To substantiate charges against the accused, prosecution has examined PW-1 Smt. Archana (Inormant), PW-2 Sarvesh Kumar and PW-3 Dr. Raj Kamal (Injured) as witnesses of facts and PW-4 Dr. Rakesh Kumar Dhal and PW-5 Sub Inspector Ram Pal Singh (Investigating Officer) as formal witnesses.
6. After closure of prosecution evidence, statements of accused under Section
313 Cr.P.C. were recorded wherein they have claimed their false implication. Appellant Suneel s/o Kapil Dev stated in his statement that witnesses of fact are deposing against him due to land dispute.
7. In defence DW-1 Mahajeet Sharma, Advocate has been examined.
8. Upon detailed consideration of evidence on record, learned trial court passed the impugned judgment.
9. Aggrieved by the order of learned trial Judge, the appellant has preferred the instant criminal appeal.
10. Heard Shri K. N. Raha, learned counsel for appellants and Shri L.D. Rajbhar, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.
11. Learned counsel for appellants contended that on the same evidence coaccused Sanjeev Kumar, Kapil Dev and Suneel s/o Om Prakash have been acquitted under Section 323/34 I.P.C. by the trial court. There are major and material contradictions in statements of witnesses of facts. Even though learned trial court has passed the impugned order of conviction without properly appreciating the evidence on record, which is not sustainable.
12 . Per contra, learned A.G.A. Contended that there is no error or infirmity in the impugned order passed by trial court and as such, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
3
13. Learned trial court has acquitted the accused Sanjeev, Kapil Dev, Sunil s/o Om Prakash for the offence punishable under Section 323/34 I.P.C. on the ground that there is no any injury to injured to Dr. Raj Kamal Gupta with hard and blunt object. Learned trial court held that these accused have caused injury to injured Dr. Raj Kamal Gupta with kicks and fists, is not corroborated by medical evidence. There is single injury to Dr. Gupta on his chest caused by sharp edged weapon. F.I.R. has been lodged without any delay injured Dr. Raj Kam Gupta and other witnesses of facts specifically stated before the court that appellant had caused this injury by knife to injured Dr. Raj Kamal Gupta. There is no any contradiction in their statement about this fact so that their testimony may be discarded.
14. After going through the record of the case and judgment passed by learned trial court, I am of the considered view that there is no infirmity in the well reason judgment of the conviction passed by trial court for the offence punishable under Section 324 I.P.C. against appellant.
15. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed.
16. Appellant has been released on probation. Probation period has already been expired, therefore, appellant shall not be taken into custody.
17. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to Sessions Judge, Moradabad for its compliance. Let the lower court's record be remitted back to the court concerned.
Date:- 15.03.2018 Sharad/(Umesh Chandra Tripathi, J.)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the trial court's conviction and probation order under Section 324 IPC against the appellant is legally sustainable.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sunil Kumar Seth
State Of U.P.
Umesh Chandra Tripathi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
