Dismissed

Ram Lachaman and Others v. State

Allahabad HC5 Jan 2021CRLA/2569/1982

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Criminal Appeal was filed against a session court conviction under Sections 323/34 IPC for an assault arising from a village dispute. The appellant argued the trial court failed to identify the true version amidst conflicting testimony. The single judge found no illegality in the lower court's judgment which acquitted the appellants of attempted murder but convicted them of lesser assault.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed as lacking merits; the record was sent back to the concerned court.

Ram Lachaman and Others Vs State — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

Court No. - 90

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2569 of 1982

¶4

Appellant :- Ram Lachaman And Others Respondent :- State Counsel for Appellant :- V.C.Katiyar,K.K.Dwivedi,Rajesh Kr. Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- A.G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Ajit Singh,J.

¶6

Sri Sita Ram Sharma, learned Amicus Curiae is pressing this appeal on behalf appellants.

¶7

This criminal appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 7.9.1982 passed by the Xth Addl. Sessions Judge, Agra in S.T. No. 180 of 1979 (State vs. Ram Lachman and others), by which the appellants have been convicted under Section 323/34 I.P.C. with a fine of Rs. 500/- each and in default of payment of fine the accused-appellants shall undergo two months rigorous imprisonment.

¶8

The brief facts of this case are that on 20.1.1977 at about 5:30 or 6:00 a.m. PW-1 Murari Lal and his father PW-2 Lala Ram were taking the cattle out from their house and when they were in front of their house, all the accused persons, namely, Ram Lachhman, Baboo Ram who were having lathies in their hands and Dhani Ram as well as Nemi Chand who were having guns in their hands, surrounded them. Lala Ram PW-2 and his son Murari Lal PW-1 are the residents of village-

¶9

¶10

Khali Ka Baas, Police Station-Shamshabad, District-Agra and all the accused persons are also residents of the same village. Accused Ram Lachman, Baboo Lal and Dhani Ram are the real brothers. Kirat Ram, father of PW-2 Lala Ram, and Narain were real brothers. Narain had adopted one Brahm Lal who was the real brother of the accused Dhani Ram. PW-2 Lala Ram also claimed share in the property of Narayan Singh and after the death of Narayan Singh there arose some litigation between Lala Ram PW-2 and Dhani Ram. Ultimately PW-2 succeeded in getting his share against Dhani Ram. All this happened about 30 or 40 years back. Since then, both the families were having grudges against each other. A day earlier to this occurrence, i.e. in the evening of 19.1.1977 some thorny bushes were placed by the accused Dhani Ram and others on the way of family members of PW-2 and for this reason an altercation took place between both the families, and hot words were exchanged between both parties, however, the quarreling parties were pacified by the villagers. Thereafter, on the morning of 20.1.1977 at about 5:30 or 6:00 a.m. as stated by PW-1 Murari Lal and his father PW-2 Lala Ram were taking out their cattle from their house and they were surrounded and assaulted by the accused, in which both PW1 Murari Lal and PW-2 Lala Ram sustained injuries. After hearing the alarm raised by the injured, PW-4 Vidya Ram and

¶11

¶12

his nephew PW-5, Har Prasad, along with other villagers reached at the place of incident and tried to intervene. In the meantime, one Bhoori Singh, resident of the village also reached at the spot. Accused Dhani Ram and Nemi Chand who were having fir-arms, opened fire from the chabutra of their house and none was hurt with the shot fired by Nemi Chand, but allegedly Bhoori Singh was hit by the shot fired by accused Dhani Ram, and he received injury on his leg at the place of occurrence shown in front of the house of Bhagwati. It was also alleged that both the accused persons ran away from the spot.

¶13

A written report of the incident was prepared at the spot, which is marked as Ext.Ka-1. Murari Lal (PW1) along with his father Lala Ram (PW2) went to the police station and handed over the written report to the police, thereafter the case was registered. As the condition of injured Bhoori Singh was serious, immediately, he was rushed to the hospital at Shamshabad, from where he was referred to the District Hospital, Agra. The injured Murari Lal (PW1) and Lala Ram (PW2) were examined by the Dr. Dinesh Kumar (PW-5) on 20.1.1977 at about 10:00 a.m. He appeared before the Trial Court and proved the injury reports (Ext. Ka-3 & Ka-4). Injuries of PW-2 Lala Ram are reproduced below:-

¶14

contused wound 5cm x 1cm on the left side of hand.

¶15

Contused would on the tip of left little finger 3cm x

¶16

1/4cm.

¶17

Traumatic and painful swelling on the left forearm 8cm x 2cm.

¶18

Abrassion 1cm x 5cm on the left upper arm. Injuries of PW1 Murari Lal are hereunder:

¶19

Contused wound on the tip of head 2cm x 2cm.

¶20

Contused wound on the left index finger 2cm x 1/4cm.

¶21

Bleeding from under the nail of the left thumb.

¶22

Abrassion on the left shoulder 1cm x 3cm.

¶23

Two parellal burises on the right shoulder 10cm x 1.5cm.

¶24

Abrassion on the right index finger 3cm x 0.5 committee of management.

¶25

The doctor has opined that all the injuries were simple in nature caused by blunt object.

¶26

On the same day injured Bhoori singh was also examined by Dr. R.K. Sharma, who found the following injuries :-

¶27

Gun shot wound of entry (4 in number) 2/10 x 2/10 x muscle deep in an area of 1 x 1cm on the front of right middle leg 4 x 7 committee of management below knee joint margins inverted, no blackening seen.

¶28

Gun shot wound of exit (4 in number) x/10 x 2/10 x muscle deep and back of right middle leg 7.1/2 and 9cm below knee joint.

¶29

¶30

Doctor has opined that the injuries were caused in the evening of 20.1.1977 at about 5 or 6 a.m. However, in his cross examination, the doctor admitted that the injuries could have been caused at about 2:00 a.m. in the night of 19/20.1.1977.

¶31

The investigation of the case was entrusted to PW-9 Ram Niwas Mishra, the Investigating Officer, who prepared the site plan and recorded the statements of the witnesses as well as injured. After completion of investigation the Investigating Officer has submitted charge sheet against the accused persons and the cognizance was taken by the Magistrate and considering that the case was triable by the court of Session, it was committed to the court of session and the session court charged the accused persons under Sections 307/34 I.P.C.

¶32

The charge was framed against the accused-appellants who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

¶33

The prosecution in order to prove its case examined as many as eight witnesses: PW1 Murari Lal, PW2 Lala Ram, PW3 S.I. Rajendra Singh, PW4 Vidya Ram, PW5 Dr. Dinesh Kumar, PW6 Har Prasad, PW7 Dr. R.K. Sharma, PW8 S.I. Rajendra Singh Verma and PW9 S.I. Sri Ram Niws Mishra.

¶34

After taking the prosecution evidence, the statements of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded and the accused had not led any evidence in their defence. The accused in their statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. alleged

¶35

¶36

that they have been falsely implicated in the present case due to village partibandi.

¶37

In their defence, accused persons examined K.D. Udai and Kamal Singh, Pharmacists, District Hospital, Agra and Kamal Singh.

¶38

After hearing the argument of the rival parties, the accused were convicted as aforesaid by the trial court and this appeal was filed.

¶39

Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the charges were framed under Section 307 I.P.C. Although the Court has acquitted the accused persons under Section 307 I.P.C., they were convicted under Section 323 I.P.C. and sentenced to with a fine of Rs. 500/- only as the person who had allegedly received the gun shot injuries, has not supported the prosecution case.

¶40

The report was lodged by Murari Lal, who had also sustained simple injuries. From the side of prosecution, namely, Lala Ram also sustained simple injuries and the learned lower court has convicted the accused on the basis of simple injuries sustained by the complainant side. Both the parties are close relatives.

¶41

Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that not only complainant side but defence side has also sustained the injuries and the offence under Section 323 I.P.C. is not made

¶42

¶43

out against the appellants. He next submits that the incident had taken place on 20.1.1977 and all the accused are senior citizens. Both the parties are close relative. The appeal pertains to the year 1982.

¶44

I have heard the argument advanced by learned Amicus Curiae and gone through the entire evidence on record. There are two variations of the occurrence set up by the prosecution and the defence. In fact, there are rival variations. The defence has set up the case of right of self defence. In a case in which there are cross versions. It was obligatory on the part of the court to make an endeavour to find out as to which of the two versions, was correct. The court has not applied its judicial mind to ascertain whether the place of occurrence, the time of occurrence, the manner of assault, the injuries and motive for the occurrence were proved or not as were being alleged by both the parties. In the instant case before this Court there is absolutely no doubt about the place of occurrence.

¶45

According to the oral evidence, the place of occurrence was the open space lying between the house of Nemi Chand, Dhani Ram and Lala Ram. The Investigating Officer found bloodstained earth at the place of occurrence. The place of occurrence is admitted to both the parties. Even Bhoori Singh, whose presence at the spot at the time of occurrence has

¶46

¶47

neither been denied by the prosecution nor by the defence. As regards the time of occurrence, the prosecution has been able to establish by oral as well as documentary evidence that the time of occurrence was just before sun rise at about 6 O' clock in the morning. In the FIR the time of occurrence has been mentioned as 5:30 A.M. The oral evidence is to the effect that the occurrence had taken place in day break time. The witness has stated that it was around 7:00 a.m. The medical evidence giving the duration of injuries is quite in compatible with the time of occurrence alleged by the prosecution. As such, I have no hesitation in holding that the occurrence had taken place between 5:30 and 7:00 a.m. as alleged by the prosecution. Coming to the injuries and the manner of occurrence, this court finds that there were as many as 10 injuries received by three injured of the complainant side and eight persons were injured of the defence sude. The injuries of PW-1 and PW-2 from the side of prosecution have been proved by the medical evidence which also suggested that these injuries were caused in the morning of 20.1.1977 but there is no such proof of the injuries sustained by the accused Baboo Lal and Dhani Ram.

¶48

After considering the rival submissions, facts and circumstances of the case, scrutinizing the material available on record and after considering the judgment and order, this

¶49

¶50

Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned

¶51

judgment and order requiring any interference by this Court.

¶52

The appeal lacks merits and is accordingly dismissed. Office is directed to send back the record of this appeal to

¶53

the concerned court.

¶54

Copy of this order be transmitted to the concerned lower court.

¶55

Sri Sita Ram Sharma, learned Amicus Cuarie has argued this appeal on behalf of appellants and he shall be paid a sum of Rs. 5000/- as his remuneration.

¶56

Order Date : 5.1.2021 Faridul.

Ram Lachaman and Others v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Lachaman and Others v. State

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

Shailesh Kumar Shukla Vs State of U.P.

Wasim and 2 Ors. Vs State of U.P.

Vakeel Ahmad Vs State of U.P.

Mohd. Shakib Khan Vs State of U.P.

Mohammad Faheem Vs State of U.P.

Ravi Vs State of U.P.