Partly allowed

Jashveer Singh Jat v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC24 Jan 2019CRLA/5715/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal appeal under Section 374(2) CrPC, the High Court distinguished between conviction and sentencing. Relying on the conviction, the Court modified the punishment from seven years to six years rigorous imprisonment, noting the delay in FIR, lack of motive, and presence of alcohol in both deceased's and appellant's viscera reports.

What did the court decide?

Sentence of rigorous imprisonment reduced to six years; fine remains Rs. 10,000/- with six months simple imprisonment in default.

Jashveer Singh Jat Vs State of U.P. — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 49

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 5715 of 2018

¶3

Appellant :- Jashveer Singh Jat Respondent :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Appellant :- Manish Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ram Krishna Gautam,J.

¶5

This appeal under Section 374 (2) of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by convict-appellant Jashveer Singh Jat against judgment of conviction and sentenced therein dated 10.08.2017 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 7, Ghaziabad in Sessions Trial No. 334 of 2014, whereby the convict-appellant Jashveer Singh Jat has been convicted for offence punishable under Section 304 (Part II) I.P.C. and had been sentenced with seven years imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 10,000/- with a condition that in default of making payment of fine, he would have to go six months imprisonment, with this contention that Trial Court failed to appreciate the facts and law placed before it and the sentence was severe in nature.

¶6

First Information Report was highly belated, deceased was left the house in the company of the appellant on 3.8.2013 and this report was lodged on 21.9.2013 i.e. after lapse of one and half months but no cogent explanation of this delay was there. No motive to commit the said offence was there nor was proved. Appellant himself got the deceased admitted at Medical Centre and this apparent in the medical paper of Jeevan Jyoti Hospital on 3.8.2018, there was no eye-witness account of this occurrence and the appellant has been falsely implicated whereas deceased committed suicide in the house of appellant due to his family dispute. Deceased and appellant were the friends. Dying declaration believed by the trial Court was said to be on 8.8.2013 and recorded by Sub Inspector of Police but during the registration of this case crime number both of them were silent. Hence, this appeal for setting aside the impugned judgment and conviction made therein.

¶7

Learned counsel for the appellant argued that he is not arguing and challenging the validity of conviction rather the argument is upon the quantum of punishment and he had been sentenced for seven years and more than five years have been under incarceration. Hence, the sentence awarded to the appellant be reduced to the period already undergone. Hence, the merit of this appeal was confined only to the quantum of sentence.

¶8

From the very perusal of judgment, it is apparent that that trial Court has held that there was no eye witness account of the occurrence except the dying declaration and the dying declaration proved by Sub Inspector of Police who has recorded it, is on record, which reveals that the deceased himself has said that he took liquor along with appellant then after he was put at ablaze by appellant, meaning thereby till then, there was no dispute amongst deceased and appellant, they jointly took liquor, subsequently he and accused-appellant become under influence of liquor, when this untowards committed. The deceased has instantly been taken to hospital for treatment by the appellant, this has been said in the dying declaration as well as mentioned in the medical paper of the hospital concerned as well as in the testimony of other witnesses of fact. It was Jashveer Singh Jat, present-appellant, who took injureddeceased for his treatment at Jeevan Jyoti Hospital from where he was referred to higher medical center and during the course of treatment he developed septicaemia and died.

¶9

The sentence and conviction has been passed on the basis of dying declaration and the presence of convict-appellant in that room, in which this occurrence has happened, under Section 106 of Evidence Act, the convict-appellant was expected to disclose as to how this happened, because he was in company of injured deceased. But since the very beginning the reason was explained at the time of admission for medical treatment that it was a fire accident owing to some cylinder blast in which the injured was burn by flame injury. This was written in the medical paper at the time of admission of injured and it was not taken to be a criminal case and rather treatment was started on the basis of accidental case. Subsequently, this development was made by the sister of deceased by filing this First Information Report after a lapse of one and half month, that too by way of presenting application before Court of Magistrate, under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C., whereas admittedly this has been brought into the record that police was in company when injured was taken to hospital and Sub Inspector was the person who had written the dying declaration but police did not find a criminal case nor the machinery was put under motion.

¶10

Under above facts and circumstances and the attempt of convict-appellant for getting the deceased saved and carrying him at hospital instantly and the occurrence under the influence of liquor of deceased, as has been found in his viscera report by Forensic Science Laboratory and of convict-appellant but no kerosine oil smell either at the medical center, at the first instance of treatment or in the Forensic Science Laboratory in the examination of viscera and hair of deceased and the incarceration of more than five and half years, as against the

¶11

award of sentence of seven years, in this case, it appears to be just for amending sentence of convict-appellant for seven years to six years along with fine imposed under Section 304, (Part II) of I.P.C., the appeal merits its allowance in part upon the point of quantum of sentence and the sentence is amended as follows:

¶12

Convict Jashveer Singh Jat is sentenced for a rigorous imprisonment of six years and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default of six months simple imprisonment in Sessions Trial No. 334 of 2014 arising out of Case Crime No 634 of 2013, under Section 304 (Part II) I.P.C., the imprisonment either during investigation, enquiry of trial and after judgment of conviction shall be counted and adjusted towards above sentence.

¶13

This appeal is being disposed of, accordingly.

¶14

Order Date :- 24.1.2019 Kamarjahan

Jashveer Singh Jat v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jashveer Singh Jat 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

Smt. Satya Prabha Devi and Another Vs Smt. Kaushilya Devi and Others

National Indurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt. Ram Devi and Others

The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs Smt.Chandrawati and Others

Indrapal @ Shreepal Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Munni Devi Vs State of U.P.

Ramesh Singh and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.