Dismissed

Shyam Deo and Another v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC21 Feb 2018CRLA/939/1987

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the criminal appeal against a conviction and probationary sentence. The court held that the trial court's finding of fact regarding the landlords and tenants dispute was supported by evidence. Crucially, it affirmed that the statutory two-year probation period had already expired in February 1989, rendering further interference unnecessary.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed and the impugned judgment and order dated 10.2.1987 were affirmed.

Shyam Deo and Another Vs State of U.P. — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

AFR

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 939 of 1987

¶4

Appellant :- Shyam Deo & Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Appellant :- Mahendra Pratap Counsel for Respondent :- A.G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Anurag Yadav, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri B.D. Nishad, learned AGA for the State and perused the record of this appeal.

¶7

This appeal has been preferred by the appellants against the judgement and order of conviction dated 10.2.1987 passed by the IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Azamgarh in S.T. No.77 of 1980, whereby all the appellants have been convicted under Sections 147, 447 IPC and instead of sentencing them under aforesaid sections, they have been given benefit of Section 4 of U.P. First Offenders Act and with condition that they shall keep peace and maintain good behaviour for a period of 2 years and were directed to furnish personal bond with sureties for Rs.2000/-.

¶8

Learned counsel for the appellants has admitted that this judgement was delivered on 10.02.1987 and since then no adverse report, whatsoever, has been received from any corner about any misbehaviour or involvement of any of the appellants in any illegal or criminal activity, therefore, the period of bond so stipulated and mandated by the judgement and order impugned dated 10.2.1987 stood suffered and exhausted. However, he claims that on

¶9

meritorial count, no case for conviction is made out.

¶10

In view of the particular nature and the fact that the period of probation for two years starting from 10.2.1987 came to an end on 10.2.1989. It is obvious that the probation period so stipulated stood terminated and exhausted by elapse of time without any contrary report as stipulated by the trial court.

¶11

However, for proper understanding of the nature of the case, it would be feasible to have glance over the relevant facts of this case.

¶12

Prosecution case as reflected from the certified copy of the judgement appears to be that the informant Smt. Kalawati d/o Subba Singh r/o village- Gujarpar, police stationMubarkpur, district- Azamgarh lodged a report against the appellants to the effect that on 5.7.1979 around 4 p.m. the aforesaid accused possessing gun, lathi and ballam tried to take forcible possession of her land and tried to construct 18-20 huts thereon. At that point of time, some crop was sown in the field, when the informant and her relatives asked the accused not to indulge in such activity, then the accused with intention to kill fired on the informant side and destroyed and uprooted the crop, which create stampede on the spot, somehow the informant and her relatives saved themselves after securing their escape from the spot. The accused with a view to create false impression of committing arson by the informant put their hut on fire, which act of

¶13

the accused was seen by a number of villagers. The informant lodged the report on 6.7.1979 at police stationMubarakpur, districtAzamgarh.

¶14

The injured- Shiv Mangal Singh, Sheshnath Singh, Ram Singh and Lotu Singh were medically examined at PHC- Sathiyav and their injury report were prepared, which are Exhibits Ka-5 to Ka-8. X-ray of the injured was done on 26.7.1979.

¶15

The investigation progressed and the same was entrusted to S.H.O. Rangnath Pandey, who inspected the spot and prepared the spot map, Exhibit ka-12 and also collected various material and particularly burnt material and made a memo of the same, Exhibit Ka-2 and Ka3. He also prepared simple clay soil from the field and prepared a memo of the same, Exhibit Ka-3 and prepared other relevant memos, Exhibit Ka-4 and recorded statement of various prosecution witnesses. After completing the investigation, he filed the charge- sheet, Exhibit Ka-13.

¶16

The case was committed to the court of Sessions where charges were framed against the accused on 4.12.1980. Charges were read over and explained to the accused, who abjured the charges and opted for trial.

¶17

In furtherance of the proceedings the prosecution produced in all ten witnesses, namely, Shiv Mangal Singh P.W.1, Sooraj Prasad Singh P.W.2, Ram Singh P.W.3, Kalawanti P.W.4, Uday Pratap Singh P.W.5, Sadhu Singh P.W.6, Subaydar P.W.7, Srikant Pathak P.W.8, Dr.

¶18

S.D.P. Gupta P.W.9 and Lallan Singh P.W.10.

¶19

No other testimony was adduced, therefore, evidence for the prosecution was closed and the statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein, various causes were shown as the reason behind their false implication, whereas the fact was that the informant Kalawati P.W.4 herself was inimical towards the accused because the accused had purchased some land, which was objected to and disliked by the informant.

¶20

The defence produced Ratooli D.W.1 as the only witness on their behalf. Except as above no other evidence adduced by the defence, therefore, this case was posted for argument and after considering the submission so raised and the merit of the case, the trial court returned aforesaid finding of conviction under Sections 147, 447 IPC and instead of passing sentence gave benefit of Section 4 of U.P. First Offenders Act and the accused were directed to keep peace and be of good behaviour for over two years period and they were also directed to furnish personal bond for Rs.2000/- with two sureties in the like amount before the Probation Officer.

¶21

Bare perusal of the record led by the prosecution is indicative of fact that the land/ field, which was tried to be grabbed by constructing huts by the appellants infact belonged to the informant- Kalawati- and the same was in possession of Kalawati on the day of occurrence and the accused tried to take forcible possession of her field by forming large group of armed persons and tried to

¶22

raise construction on the spot. The incident has been proved by the prosecution witnesses by their cogent testimony and nothing adverse has emerged in their cross- examination. It has also emerged from in testimony of prosecution witness P.W.4 Kalawati that the accused tried to raise forcible construction on the land of the informant, which belonged to her. The injury report of Shiv Mangal Singh, Sheshnath Singh, Ram Singh and Lotu Singh has also been proved by Dr. S.D.P. Gupta P.W.9 and has certified fact that he medically examined the aforesaid injured on 6.7.1979.

¶23

In view of aforesaid injury report and the innocuous testimony of the prosecution witnesses of fact particularly on the point of occurrence that it was caused by the appellants on 5.7.1979 around 4 p.m. in village- Gujarpar, police station- Mubarkpur, district- Azamgarh, it cannot be said that the finding of conviction so recorded by the trial court against the appellants under aforesaid sections 147 and 447 IPC is either erroneous or illegal or against the material on record. No perversity appears in the entire judgement. No case for acquittal is made out.

¶24

Upon careful scrutiny of the entirety of this case as well as perusal of the facts and circumstances, vis a vis, evaluation of the evidence on record, obviously, the order impugned dated 10.2.1987 is hereby affirmed. It has already been observed that in this case the period of probation was confined to two years and the same stood suffered and exhausted in the month of February, 1989, as

¶25

such, the sentence so awarded in the shape of probation period for keeping peace and be of good behaviour for two years stood exhausted. Consequently, no interference is required in the judgement and order impugned dated 10.2.1987 passed by the IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Azamgarh in S.T. No.77 of 1980. Consequently, this appeal lacks merit and the same is dismissed.

¶26

Let a copy of this order be sent to the trial court for necessary compliance.

¶27

Order Date :- 21.2.2018 Raj

Shyam Deo and Another v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shyam Deo and Another 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

Ram Lakhan Vs State

Ram Naresh and Another Vs State of U.P.

Ram Prakash and 3 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Thakur Pd. Vs Aga

Karmveer Singh and Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Shiv Poojan and Others Vs State