Partly allowed

Santosh Kumar and Another v. State of U.P. and Others

Allahabad HC6 Aug 2018CRLR/1188/1999

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In criminal revision filed against conviction and sentence for offenses under Sections 323, 324, and 325 IPC, the High Court upheld the conviction based on evidence of injured witnesses. However, considering the 23-year lapse and appellants' age, it modified the sentences to time already undergone plus a fine of Rs. 2000 each.

What did the court decide?

Sentences modified to the period of imprisonment already undergone plus a fine of Rs. 2000/- each.

Santosh Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P. and… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Reserved on 24.7.2018 Delivered on 06.08.2018

¶2

Court No. 41

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION N0. -1188 of 1999

¶4

Revisionist :- Santosh Kumar & Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. & Others Counsel for Revisionist :- P.C. Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate

¶5

Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh, J.

¶6

1- This criminal revision has been filed by Santosh Kumar and Radhey Krishna against the order passed by Judicial Magistrate, Karivi dated 27.2.1998 in Complaint Case No. 343 of 1995, under Sections 323, 324, 325, 504 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station-Raipura, District-Kshatrapati Sahuji Maharajnagar (presently Chitrakoot) whereby both the revisionists were convicted under Sections 323, 324, 325 for three months simple imprisonment and one year simple imprisonment and acquitted under Sections 504 and 506 I.P.C. Against which both the revisionists filed Criminal Appeal No. 2 of 1998 before the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chitrakoot which was dismissed vide order dated 26.5.1999 which is challenged in this revision.

¶7

2- According to prosecution case one Complaint Case No. 343 of 1995 was filed by the complainant alleging that on 18.7.1995 at 7- 30 a.m. Santosh assaulted at Harikrishna with axe and Radhey Krishna assaulted at Ramjashi with lathi.

¶8

3- Harikrishna and Ramjashi received following injuries:-

¶9

Injuries of Harikrishna:-

¶10

“1-Incised wound on the surface of right lateral part of frontal bone, measuring 6 cm. X 0.5 cm X scalp deep. It is 7 cm. above to Glabella. Marginal – regular bleeding present on probing. Direction- Medial to lateral.

¶11

2- Diffused traumatic swelling on the left side of the back. It is 9 cm. X 4 cm. in measurement. The swelling is 10 cm. intero medial at inferior angle at left scapula.”

¶12

Dr. has opined that injuries are simple in nature. Injury no. 1 caused by sharp cutting weapon and no. 2 caused by blunt object.

¶13

Injuries of Ramjashi :-

¶14

“1- A diffused traumatic swelling measuring 10 cm. X 5 cm. at dorsal aspect of left forearm. It is 9 cm. above to left wrist point.”

¶15

Dr. opined that injuries caused by blunt object and the same was kept under observation.

¶16

4- Accused were summoned under Sections 323, 324, 325, 504 and 506 I.P.C. and after recording evidence of P.W.1 Ramjashi charges were framed against the revisionists under Sections 323, 324. 325, 504 and 506 I.P.C. to which they pleaded not guilty.

¶17

5- In order to prove the charges on behalf of the prosecution besides documentary evidence, Court examined P.W.1 Harikrishna, P.W.2 Smt Ramjashi, P.W.3 Dr. V.K. Gupta, P.W.4 Constable Chanshyam and P.W.5 Dr. G.K. Mishra.

¶18

5- After closer of prosecution evidence, statements of accusedpersons under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded. They specifically stated in their statements that they are innocent, they have not committed any offence and have been falsely implicated.

¶19

6- Trial Court after hearing the parties, vide impugned judgment and order, convicted and sentenced accused revisionists for the offences under Sections 323, 324 and 325 I.P.C. and appeal filed by the revisionists was also dismissed. Hence this revision.

¶20

7-Heard Sri P.C. Shukla, learned counsel for the revisionists, Sri Vinay Kumar Pal, learned counsel for the complainant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶21

8- Learned counsel for the revisionists submitted that there is no motive to cause injuries to the injured. There is no independent witnesses to support the prosecution version. There is no evidence against the revisionists. No offence is made out against the revisionists.

¶22

9- Learned A.G.A. submitted that there is sufficient evidence against the accused revisionists to convict them under Sections 323, 324 and 325 I.P.C.

¶23

10- We have considered rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the revisionists and learned A.G.A. for the State and gone through the record.

¶24

11- This Court after scanning the evidence on record, has to

¶25

adjudicate whether the prosecution has proved charges levelled against the accused revisionists beyond reasonable doubt or not. Word 'proved' is defined under Section 3 of Evidence Act as under:

¶26

“Proved”.- A fact is said to be proved when, after considering the matters before it, the Court either believes it to exist, or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it exists.”

¶27

12- The question is whether a prudent man under these circumstances can believe that the facts deposed by the witnesses do exist beyond reasonable doubt.

¶28

13- From perusal of the record, it appears that both the courts have given concurrent findings on the point of conviction. P.W.1 Harikrishna and P.W. 2 Smt. Ramjashi are injured witnesses. They supported the prosecution case clearly and statement of P.W.2 Smt. Ramjashi cannot be discorded about the injured witnesses in the case.

¶29

14- In the case of Jarnail Sing vs. State of Punjab, 2009 (6) Supreme 526 , the Court has held that deposition of an injured witness should be relied upon unless there are strong grounds for rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies for the reason that his presence on the scene of stands established in the case and it is proved that he suffered the injuries during the said incident.

¶30

15- In the case of Maqsoodan vs. State of U.P., (1983) 1 SCC 218 , the Apex Court has held that presence of the injured witnesses at the time and place of the occurrence cannot be doubted as they had received injuries during the course of incident and they should normally be not disbelieved.

¶31

16- P.W.3 Dr. V.K. Gupta and P.W.5 Dr. G.K. Mishra have clearly proved the X-ray report of Smt. Ramjashi and injuries of Harikrishna. Finger of Smt. Ramjashi was found fractured and hence on the point of conviction findings of both the courts have no illegality or infirmity, hence on the point of conviction, this revision has no force and is liable to be dismissed.

¶32

17- Learned counsel for the revisionists submitted that there is no motive and there is no independent witness and the revisionists have been falsely implicated, but this Court finds no force on these

¶33

arguments.

¶34

18- Learned counsel for the revisionists also submitted that on the point of sentence both the revisionists belong to village society and rural area, the incident is of the year 1995 and 23 years has been elapsed, injuries of Smt. Ramjashi were found on finger and not on vital part of and injuries of Harikrishna were also not dangerous to life, hence considering the status of the revisionists and their family, social economic status and they are suffering from 23 years, on the point of sentence a lenient view may be taken and no useful purpose would be served to send the jail and if they punished for imprisonment already undergone end of justice will be served.

¶35

19- Considering the facts and submission made by learned counsel for the revisionists, this Court finds that due to lapse of 23 years period and old age of the revisionists, a lenient view should be taken in favour of the revisionists. The ends of justice would be met to modify this sentence to the period of imprisonment already undergone plus fine of Rs.2000/- each.

¶36

20- Accordingly, the revision is partly allowed and modified their sentences to the period of imprisonment already undergone under Sections 323/34 324/34 and 325/34 I.P.C plus fine of Rs.2000/- each. The fine shall be deposited by the revisionists by 31.8.2018. In default of payment of fine, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for three months.

¶37

21- Office is directed to send the lower court record along with the copy of this order to the court concerned within a week. Compliance report shall be submitted to this Court by 15.9.2018.

¶38

Order Date :-06.08.2018 OP

Santosh Kumar and Another v. State of U.P. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh Kumar and Another v. State of U.P. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sagar Vs State of U.P.

Radhey and Ors. Vs State

Chuhi Alias Uma Alias Huma Vs State of U.P.

Taharuddin and Another Vs State of U.P.

Ram Veer Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sahid @ Shahid Vs State of U.P. and Anr.