Dismissed

Kameshwar and Others v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC12 Sept 2019CRLA/5409/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the criminal appeal against conviction and sentence for murder and hurt. The court affirmed that the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt regarding the minority of the deceased's conviction of common intention and the reasonableness of the sentence.

What did the court decide?

Criminal appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence upheld; bail bonds cancelled with direction to surrender.

Kameshwar and Others Vs State of U.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

Reserved on : 22.05.2019 Delivered on: 12.09.2019

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 5409 of 2003 Appellant :- Kameshwar And Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Appellant :- S.K. Mishra,K.M. Tripathi,Sriprakash Dwivedi Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate

¶4

Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J.

¶5

1. The present criminal appeal has been preferred by appellants Kameshwar, Sunil, Gopal and Bhagwan against the judgment and order dated 21.10.2003 passed by Sessions Judge, Sonbhadra in Sessions Trial No.85 of 1997 (State Versus Kameshwar and three others) arising out of case crime no.140 of 1997 under sections 302/34 and 325/34 IPC, Police Station Duddhi, District Sonbhadra whereby all the appellants have been convicted and sentenced for the offence under section 323/34 IPC to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment; under section 325/34 IPC to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs.2000/- each and under section 304/34 IPC to undergo ten years rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs.5000/- each. In default of payment of fine, each of the appellants was directed to undergo further imprisonment of one month under section 325 IPC and six months under section 304 IPC. All sentences were directed to run concurrently.

¶6

2. In this appeal, out of four accused-appellants, accusedappellant no.3 Gopal was reported to have died pending appeal so appeal has been ordered to have abated in respect of appellant no.3 Gopal vide order dated 7.8.2018. Thus, the appeal is being decided against appellants no.1, 2 & 4 namely, Kameshwar, Sunil and Bhagwan.

¶7

3. Prosecution story in brief as unfolded in the written report moved by Suresh Prasad Gupta (P.W.1) at the police station concerned on 6.7.1997 is as follows :

¶8

4. Informant Suresh Prasad Gupta (P.W.1) son of Bandhu is the

¶9

¶10

resident of Village Duddhi, P.S. Duddhi, District Sonbhadra. As per contents of the report, on 6.7.1997 at about 12:30 P.M., the complaint P.W.1 Suresh Prasad Gupta had gone to plough his bhumidhari field situate at village Dighul with a tractor along with his brothers P.W.2 Manoj Kumar and Krishna and tractor driver Manoj Kumar Singh. As and when they reached at the field, accused Kameshwar son of Sumer, Sunil son of Kameshwar, Gopal son of Chhotey Lal and Bhagwan son of Baij Nath belong to village Dighul came over there and with common intention started abusing and beating the complainant and his brothers with lathi-danda causing injuries to them. On hearing the hue and cry, P.W.3 Mushtaq, Sitaram and other villagers reached on the spot and intervened in the matter. Thereafter accused persons fled away from the place of occurrence threatening the dire consequences. Complainant and his brothers received serious injuries in the incident. Complainant got himself and his brothers medically examined at Primary Health Centre, Duddhi. Thereafter complainant gave a written report at the police station concerned to register the case and take appropriate action against the accused persons. The written report is Ex. Ka.-1.

¶11

5. On the basis of written report lodged by the complainant Suresh Prasad Gupta (P.W.1), a case under sections 323, 504, 506 IPC was registered against the accused persons at the police station concerned.

¶12

6. Injured Krishna Prasad was medically examined by Dr. Ashok Kumar Yadav (P.W.4), posted as Medical Officer in P.H.C., Duddhi, Sonbhadra on 6.7.1997 at 1:15 P.M. and he found the following injuries on his body :

¶13

“(I) Lacerated wound 6 cm. x 0.5 cm. x scalp deep on right parietal scalp obliquely forward start 2 cm. away from mid line 10 cm. above the right pinna. There was bleeding.

¶14

(II) Lacerated wound 2 cm. x 0.5 cm. x muscle deep on left side of forehead 5 cm. above the left eyebrow (from middle) with bleeding profusely.

¶15

(III) Contusion 3 cm. x 3 cm. on outer aspect of right forearm, 5 cm. below the back of right elbow. Reddish in colour.

¶16

(IV) Contusion swelling 6 cm. x 3 cm. on outer aspect of right forearm 2 cm. below the injury no.3. Reddish in colour.

¶17

¶18

(V) Contusion 22 cm. x 2 cm. on middle part of back extending on right as well as left. Reddish in colour.

¶19

(VI) Abraded contusion 5 cm. x 3 cm. vertically on left shoulder joint near outer end of last collar bone. Reddish in colour with oozing.”

¶20

7. Injuries no. (I), (II) and (IV) were kept under observation and advised for x-ray. Other injuries were simple in nature. All injuries were caused by hard and blunt weapon and were fresh in duration.

¶21

8. Injured Suresh Prasad Gupta was also examined by Dr. Ashok Kumar Yadav (P.W.4) on the same day at 1:30 P.M. and he found the following injuries on his body :

¶22

“(I) Lacerated wound 5 cm. x 0.7 cm. x scalp deep on left parietal side of scalp 8 cm. above the left ear. There was bleeding.

¶23

(II) Lacerated wound 5 cm. x 0.5 cm. x scalp deep on right side of scalp posteriorly 10 cm. above the right ear. Bleeding. (III) Contusion 10 cm. x 2.5 cm. on right shoulder joint. Reddish in colour.

¶24

(IV) Contused swelling 10 cm. x 5 cm. on right forearm obliquely placed 2 cm. above the right wrist joint. Reddish in colour.

¶25

(V) Contused swelling 7 cm. x 5 cm. on outer side of left shoulder joint. Reddish in colour.

¶26

(VI) Contused swelling 4 cm. x 3 cm. on left palm near base of thumb. Reddish in colour. (VII) Contusion 9 cm. x 2 cm. horizontally in middle part of right side of back. Reddish in colour.

¶27

(VIII) Contusion 25 cm. x 1.5 cm. extending from left side of back forward right side of back 7.5 cm. below injury no.7. Reddish in colour.

¶28

Complaint of pain on right side of buttock.”

¶29

9. Injuries nos. (I), (II), (III), (IV) and (VI) were kept under observation and advised for x-ray. Other injuries were simple in nature. All were caused by hard and blunt weapon and were fresh in duration.

¶30

10. Dr. Ashok Kumar Yadav (P.W.4) also examined injured Manoj Kumar on the same day i.e. 6.7.1997 at 1:45 P.M. and the following injuries were found on his person :

¶31

(I) Abraded contusion 1 cm. x 1.5 cm. nose extending right and left 2.5 cm. below the root of nose (nasion). Reddish in colour with oozing with laceration of nasal mucosal of both nostrils 0.5 cm. x 0.5 cm. x mucosa deep with bleeding.

¶32

(II) Contused swelling 8 cm. x 4 cm. on right forearm on outer

¶33

¶34

side 7 cm. below the right elbow back. Reddish in colour with tenderness.

¶35

(III) Contused swelling 7 cm. x 3.5 cm. on right forearm extending towards right hand dorsally. Reddish in colour. (IV) Abrasion 3 cm. x 2 cm. On left side of back below scapula and 6 cm. away from midline, oozing.

¶36

11. Injuries no.(I) and (III) were kept under observation and advised for x-ray. Other injuries were simple. All were caused by hard and blunt weapon and were fresh in duration.

¶37

12. The injured persons of the incident were subsequently X-rayed on the very same day of incident i.e. 6.7.1997. Dr. P.L. Singh (P.W.5), Incharge Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Duddhi, Sonbhadra conducted x-ray of injured Suresh Prasad and found fracture in the middle proximal phalanx of left thumb and lower end of right ulna bone of forearm. X-ray report is Ex.Ka.-7. He also conducted x-ray of injured Krishna Prasad and his shaft of right ulna bone was found fractured in the right forearm. His x-ray report is Ex.Ka.-8.

¶38

13. After the medical examination of the injured persons, case against the accused persons was converted into sections 323, 325, 308, 504, 506 IPC.

¶39

14. Since the condition of Krishna Prasad was serious, he was admitted in the hospital and subsequently referred to B.H.U., Varanasi where he succumbed to his injuries.

¶40

15. S.I. Ram Kripal Singh (P.W.8), who was posted as Sub Inspector, Police Station Lanka, Varanasi had prepared the inquest of the dead body of the deceased Krishna Prasad as well as other documents relating to it. He had proved the inquest report Ex.Ka.-12 and other police papers and sent the dead body through constable for postmortem examination. Offence of section 308 IPC was converted into the offence of section 304 IPC.

¶41

16. Dr. S.J. Singh (P.W.6), posted as Senior Radiologist, Shiv Prasad Gupta Hospital, Varanasi conducted the postmortem examination on the body of deceased Krishna Prasad on 8.7.1997 at about 2:30 P.M. and found the following ante-mortem injuries :

¶42

¶43

(I) Stitched wound over left side of forehead 3 cm. x 4 cm. above the left eyebrow 3 cm. lateral to the midline.

¶44

(II) Stitched wound over right side of the top of head 4 cm. x 10 cm. above the right eyebrow and 32 cm. above the root of nose. (III) Contusion 9 cm. x 4 cm. on back of upper part of left forearm and below left elbow joint.

¶45

(IV) Fracture of left ulna bone.

¶46

17. P.W.6 Dr. S.J. Singh opined that cause of death of deceased Krishna Prasad was coma as a result of head injuries. He further stated that injuries found on the body of the deceased were sufficient to cause death. Postmortem examination report is Ex.Ka.-8A.

¶47

18. The investigating officer, after fulfilling the entire formalities and after completing the investigation, submitted the charge sheet under sections 304, 323, 325, 504, 506 IPC against the accused persons.

¶48

19. Cognizance was taken by the Magistrate concerned and case was committed to the Court of Session being exclusively triable by it.

¶49

20. Accused persons appeared before the court and charges for the offence under sections 302 read with 34 IPC and sections 325 read with 34 IPC were framed against all the accused persons. Accused persons pleaded not guilty to the charges framed against them and claimed their trial.

¶50

21. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined as many as nine witnesses. P.W.1 Suresh Prasad Gupta is the complainant and injured of the case. P.W.2 Manoj Kumar is the brother of the complainant and is also one of the injured persons. P.W.3 Mustaq Ahmad is an eyewitness of the incident. P.W.4 Dr. A.K. Yadav had examined the injured persons and proved the injury reports. P.W.5 Dr. P.N. Singh conducted x-ray of the injured persons and proved the x-ray reports. P.W.6 Dr. S.J. Singh had performed postmortem on the body of the deceased Krishna Prasad. PW.7 S.I. R.P. Singh is the investigating officer of the case who has proved site plan of the place of incident, G.D. Entry regarding alteration of the case and also charge-sheet Ex.Ka.11 filed by him against accused persons. P.W. 8

¶51

¶52

S.I. Ram Kripal had prepared inquest report of the deceased as well as other police papers. P.W.9 Constable Bharat Sharma, who was posted as constable clerk at P.S. Duddhi on the day of incident, has proved chik F.I.R. and entiries of G.D. No.27 regarding registration of the case by the then Head Moharrir Dindayal Pandey as Ex.Ka.-17 and Ex.Ka.-18. He also proved the carbon copy of the entires of G.D. No.6 dated 8.7.1997 made by constable clerk Mahendra Sharma regarding alteration of the case from section 308 IPC to section 304 IPC as Ex.Ka.-19.

¶53

22. After closing of the prosecution evidence, statement of the accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded in which they denied the prosecution allegations levelled against them and stated that they were falsely implicated in this case. Accused also denied their presence in the village at the time and place of incident.

¶54

23. The accused persons have also examined Constable Bharat Sharma as D.W.1 in their defence. 24. Trial court after hearing the parties, vide impugned judgment and order, convicted and sentenced the accused appellants as has already been mentioned above, hence, this appeal challenging the aforesaid judgment and order.

¶55

25. I have heard Shri Sriprakash Dwivedi, learned counsel for the appellants and Shri R.K. Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶56

26. Assailing the findings of learned Trial Court, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that appellants are innocent and have not committed present offence. They have been falsely implicated in this case. Trial court, misinterpreting the prosecution evidence, illegally convicted and sentenced the appellants for the aforesaid offence. It was further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that prosecution was not able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Disputed property was belonging to the appellants. They have sown paddy crop in the field. Informant's side were unearthing the same. When appellant Kameshwar objected, they caused injury to him. Referring to role of other accused appellants, it

¶57

¶58

was also submitted that they were not involved in the present matter as they are the resident of other village and have no concern with the present matter. There are major contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses on material points. Informant's side were aggressor. Referring to medical evidence, it is submitted that offence under Section 304 IPC is not attracted in the present matter. Essential ingredients to attract the provisions of Section 34 IPC are also not proved by the prosecution. Role of each and every appellants has not been specified by the prosecution. Findings recorded by Trial Court in the impugned judgment and order are perverse and also against the facts and evidence. Impugned judgment and order suffers from infirmity, illegality and perversity warranting interference by this Court.

¶59

27. On the other hand, learned AGA appearing for the State submitted that the impugned judgment and order does not suffers from any infirmity or illegality. Date, time and place of occurrence have been admitted to the appellants. Disputed property was belonging to informant's side. At this juncture, learned AGA placing reliance on the extract filed during trial submitted that during survey name of ancestors of the informant was recorded over the disputed property. When informant's side were sowing crop in the field, appellants reached there and committed the present offence. Contradictions said to have been occurred in prosecution evidence are minor in nature and are not fatal to prosecution case on material points. Medical evidence fully supports oral version. There is no illegality or perversity in the findings recorded by the Trial Court in the impugned judgment and order warranting interference by this Court.

¶60

28. I have considered the rival contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record carefully.

¶61

29. In this matter, as is evident from the record that FIR was lodged on the basis of written report Ext. Ka-1 dated 06.07.1997

¶62

¶63

submitted by PW-1 Suresh Kumar Gupta before the police Station at 15:35 hours. Prosecution case is also that after the incident, injured had gone at first to the Hospital concerned for their treatment on the Tractor in question. Written report was prepared in the hospital concerned itself, thereafter, same was presented to the police concerned. Initially FIR was lodged only for the offence under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC at Case Crime No. 140 of 1997. It appears that during treatment, deceased Krishna died in Sir Sunder Lal Hospital, BHU, Varanasi, thereafter, case was converted into the offence under Section 302 IPC but after investigation, charge-sheet was submitted for the offence under Sections 323, 504, 506, 325, 304 IPC. Prosecution case is that informant, deceased (Krishna) and PW-2 Manoj Kumar alongwith driver Manoj Kumar Singh had gone on the day of incident at the place of occurrence to plough the field and they were ploughing the field at 12:30 hours. Accused persons armed with Lathi & Danda came there and started beating to them and thereby prosecution side received injuries in the said incident, as has been mentioned above. Injured were firstly medically examined at local hospital, thereafter, one of the injured namely Krishna (deceased) was referred to Varanasi Hospital where he died during treatment on 08.07.1997. Informant claimed that they are the owner in possession of the disputed property whereas accused Kameshwar claimed himself the owner in possession of the disputed property. Accused also claimed that they had sown the paddy crop in the field, which was being unearthed by the informant side. When accusedappellant Kameshwar objected, informant side started beating him and during the incident, he snatched one Lathi of the informant side and caused injury to the informant side also. Accused has also claimed that informant side were aggressor. Since date, time and place of the incident have not been disputed by the defence, even presence of Kameshwar Singh the accused-appellant is also not disputed, thus, sole issue, which has to be decided in the matter is that whether the manner of incident stated by the informant side is

¶64

¶65

correct or the manner of incident stated by the defence side is correct.

¶66

30. It is clarified here that accused-appellants, except the N.C.R. Ext. Kha-1 lodged subsequently to the FIR of the present matter, have not adduced any other evidence to substantiate the plea taken by them. Beside this, informant side had filed an extract of Khatauni, showing the mutation order passed in their favour over the disputed property.

¶67

31. Trial court finding is that delay in lodging the FIR has been properly and sufficiently explained by the prosecution. N.C.R. was lodged by the defence side subsequently to the FIR of the informant side only to save themselves from the consequences of the FIR. Trial court was also of the view that PW-1 & PW-2 both received injuries in the same incident. PW-3 was also present near the place of incident and his statement fully finds support with the medical evidence. Informant side was the owner in possession of the disputed property. They were ploughing their field, accused were aggressor. Deceased died during treatment due to injuries sustained by him in the said incident and prosecution was able to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. Prosecution was also able to prove charge for the offence under Sections 323, 325, 304 IPC taking recourse to the provisions of Section 34 IPC. Accused persons have committed present offence in furtherance of their common intention.

¶68

32. As is clear from the record, incident is said to have taken place at 12:30 hours on the day of incident. Place of occurrence is the field of informant situate in Village Dighul, Police Station Duddhi, District Sonbhadra. Three persons including deceased belonging to informant side had sustained injuries. They firstly went to the P.H.C. Duddhi, Sonbhadra. Injury reports Ext. Ka-2, Ka-3 and Ka-4 prepared in respect of the injured clearly reveal that medical examination started at 01:15 PM, which was completed at 01:45 PM on the day of incident itself. It is the case of the prosecution that

¶69

¶70

written report was prepared in the hospital concerned, thereafter, same was presented before the police concerned. The same fact has also been mentioned in the written report Ext. Ka-1. Injury reports were annexed alongwith written report Ext. Ka-1. If such is the position, FIR lodged at 15:35 hours on the same day cannot be said to be delayed document. There is delay of only about 3 hours in lodging the FIR and the same has been properly and sufficiently explained by the prosecution at initial stage itself. Thus, findings recorded by the trial court that delay occurred in lodging the FIR has been properly and sufficiently explained, in the opinion of Court, are in accordance with law and no interference is required in the findings of the Court.

¶71

33. As far as motive is concerned, informant side claimed their possession over the disputed property and they have also filed an extract of Khatauni relating to the disputed plot. They have also consistently and clearly stated during examination before the court on oath regarding ownership of disputed land, a lengthy cross examination has been done from PW-1 and PW-2 by the accused side, suggestion about litigation pending between the parties during survey period has also been put-forth to the witnesses to which PW-1 & PW-2 have clearly denied. In support of plea taken by the accused side, neither the oral nor the documentary evidence were adduced. Plea of defence is that they had sown the paddy crop in the field four days ago to the incident, which was being on unearthed by the informant side. When accused-appellant Kameshwar objected them, then informant side started beating him and during the course of the incident, he snatched the lathi from the informant side and also caused injuries to them. If the plea/suggestion taken by the accused side in their defence is taken into consideration, it is clear that informant side were ploughing the field. Accused side had also gone to the place of occurrence at that time. If the statements of PW-1 and PW-2 as well as statement of PW-3, who is an independent witness in regard to the motive of the occurrence are compared with the

¶72

¶73

plea / suggestion taken by the accused side, the finding of the Trial court that informant side was ploughing the field and accused side reached there and caused the incident is in accordance with fact and evidence. In the present matter, in the opinion of Court, motive taken by the prosecution side was proved beyond reasonable doubt. Plea taken by the accused side does not fit in the facts and circumstance of the case and is also not acceptable. Since, in the present matter, there are injured witnesses also, therefore, other evidence adduced in the matter has to be analyzed.

¶74

34. Now coming to the medical evidence, I have also scrutinized the entire evidence. Three persons belonging to informant side had received injuries, out of them, injured Krishna Prasad died during treatment on 08.07.1997. As per his medical report, first injury was lacerated wound on the skull of right parietal. Second injury was also on left side of forehead. There are four other injuries found on the body of deceased Krishna Prasad. In the post mortem report also, stitched wounds on the head were found. Cause of death was shown as a result of head injury. Injury report in respect of Krishna Prasad Ext. Ka-2 was prepared on 06.07.1997 at 01:10 PM on the same day of incident which took place at 12:30 hours. Duration of injuries shown in the X-ray report Ext. Ka-2 was fresh. X-ray of the injured (deceased Krishna Prasad) was also done. Injured Suresh Prasad was also medically examined on the same day and his X-ray report Ext. Ka-7 shows fracture of middle proxymal phalanx of left thumb and lower end of right ulna bone of forearm. No specific cross examination was made on part of the accused regarding the injuries sustained by the deceased and other injured rather accused have taken plea that injuries were caused by accused Kameshwar during the incident in his right of private defence snatching the lathi from the informant side. If such is the position then keeping in view the medical evidence available on record and proved by the prosecution, in the present matter, findings recorded by the trial court on medical evidence need no interference and same are based on evidence

¶75

¶76

available on record. On close scrutiny of entire evidence, it is also established that deceased Krishna Prasad sustained injuries in the same incident caused by accused side and during treatment on 08.07.1997, he died. Thus, in the opinion of court, medical evidence fully supports the oral version. There is no contradiction in medical and oral version.

¶77

35. As far as plea of the accused that informant side were aggressor is concerned, no evidence has been adduced to substantiate the plea except balled suggestion put to the prosecution witnesses. Mere lodging of N.C.R. subsequently to the FIR lodged on part of the informant side is not sufficient to hold that informant side were aggressor. No evidence regarding the title and ownership in possession over the disputed plot has been adduced by the accused side, PW-3 Mustak examined in the matter is independent witness. He was ploughing the field situate near the place of occurrence. No suggestion was put to PW-3 as has been put to PW-1 and PW-2 regarding the defence taken by the accused side. PW-3 has clearly stated that informant side were ploughing their field. Accused armed with lathi danda reached there and started beating to them. If the plea taken by the accused side is taken into consideration for a moment then also it appears improbable and unbelievable that accused Kameshwar had gone all alone without any weapon at the place of occurrence to oppose the informant side. It also appears improbable that informant side (three persons) beat the accused Kameshwar but he did not receive any serious injuries. Snatching of the lathi of the informant side and causing grievous injuries to three persons by accused Kameshwar all alone in his right of self defence is also appears improbable and unbelievable. If the findings recorded by the trial court on point of aggressor is minutely analysed in consonance with the facts and evidence of the present matter, no illegality or perversity is found. Certainly informant side were ploughing their field, accused-appellants armed with lathi danda reached there and started beating them. It is also clear from the record that informant

¶78

¶79

side were the owner in possession of the disputed property on the day of incident. They had every right to plough their field. The accused side, who were aggressor, had caused injuries to the informant side. Plea taken by the accused side is not sufficient to disbelieve the statement of PW-1, PW-2 & PW-3 examined in the matter. PW-1 & PW-2 both are injured persons and their injuries were examined within few hours of the incident and have been proved by the doctor concerned. PW-3 is an independent witness. A lengthy cross examination has been made from him but nothing has come out to substantiate the defence. Thus, on the basis of aforesaid discussions, I am of the view that finding of the trial court regarding the guilt of the accused-appellants, namely, Kameshwar, Sunil and Bhagwan for the charges framed against them under Sections 323/34, 325/34, 304/34 IPC are based on correct appreciation of facts and evidence and same need no interference by this Court.

¶80

36. So far as sentence is concerned, it is always a difficult task requiring balancing of various considerations. The question of awarding sentence is a matter of discretion to be exercised on consideration of circumstances aggravating and mitigating in the individual cases.

¶81

37. It is settled legal position that appropriate sentence should be awarded after giving due consideration to the facts and circumstances of each case, nature of offence and the manner in which it was executed or committed. It is obligation of court to constantly remind itself that right of victim, and be it said, on certain occasions person aggrieved as well as society at large can be victims, never be marginalized. The measure of punishment should be proportionate to gravity of offence. Object of sentencing should be to protect society and to deter the criminal in achieving avowed object of law. Further, it is expected that courts would operate the sentencing system so as to impose such sentence which reflects conscience of society and sentencing process has to be stern where it

¶82

¶83

should be. The court will be failing in its duty if appropriate punishment is not awarded for a crime which has been committed not only against individual victim but also against society to which criminal and victim belong. Punishment to be awarded for a crime must not be irrelevant but it should conform to and be consistent with the atrocity and brutality which the crime has been perpetrated, enormity of crime warranting public abhorrence and it should 'respond to the society's cry for justice against the criminal'. [ Vide : (Sumer Singh vs. Surajbhan Singh and others, (2014) 7 SCC 323, Sham Sunder vs. Puran, (1990) 4 SCC 731 , M.P. v. Saleem, (2005) 5 SCC 554 , Ravji v. State of Rajasthan, (1996) 2 SCC 175].

¶84

38. In view of above propositions of law, the paramount principle that should be the guiding laser beam is that punishment should be proportionate to gravity of offence.

¶85

39. Hence, applying the principles laid down by Apex Court in the aforesaid judgments and having regard to the totality of facts and circumstances of case, nature of offence and the manner in which it was executed or committed, I find that punishment imposed upon accused-appellants, namely, Kameshwar, Sunil and Bhagwan by trial court in the impugned judgment and order is not excessive or exorbitant and no question arises to interfere in the matter on point of punishment imposed upon the appellants.

¶86

40. In light of foregoing discussions, this criminal appeal is liable to be dismissed and conviction and sentence imposed upon accusedappellants, namely, Kameshwar, Sunil and Bhagwan for the offence under Sections 302/34, 323/34 & 325/34 IPC is liable to be upheld and impugned judgment and order dated 21.10.2003 is liable to be affirmed.

¶87

41. Accordingly, criminal appeal is dismissed . Conviction and sentence of accused-appellants Kameshwar, Sunil and Bhagwan under Sections 302/34, 323/34 & 325/34 IPC is upheld and impugned judgment and order dated 21.10.2003 is affirmed.

¶88

¶89

42. If the appellants, namely, Kameshwar, Sunil and Bhagwan are on bail, their bail bonds are cancelled. They are directed to surrender before the court concerned immediately, who shall take them into custody and send them to jail for serving out remaining sentence imposed upon them by the trial court.

¶90

43. Let a copy of this judgment along with lower court record be sent to Sessions Judge, Sonbhadra for compliance. A compliance report be also sent to this Court.

¶91

Order Date:-12.09.2019

¶92

Sanjeet/ss

Kameshwar and Others v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kameshwar 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Geeta Vs State of U.P. and Another

Nazim and 7 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Devi Singh and 2 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kaushal Kishore and 2 Others Vs State of Up and Another

Umesh Alias Dulley and 4 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Another

Indra Pal Singh and 3 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Another