State of U.P v. Jagannath and
Case Details
Court No. - 86 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 5141 of 2024 Appellant :- Smt Simirati Devi And 4 Others Respondent :- State of U.P. Counsel for Appellant :- Bipin Kumar Tripathi,Shubham Counsel for Respondent :- Ashish Kumar,G.A.
Legal Reasoning
Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J. Order on Appeal 1. Admit. 2. Trial court record is awaited. 3. List this appeal in its due course. Order on Criminal Misc. Bail Application / Suspension of Sentence Application 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants-appellants, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as learned counsel for the informant and perused the record. 2. This bail application has been moved on behalf of the appellants-applicants Smt. Simirati Devi, Jagannath, Hriday Lal, Ram Jatan and Purnwasi, who have been convicted and sentenced vide judgment and order dated 9.5.2024 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Maharajganj in Session Trial No.143 of 2003 (State of U.P. Vs. Jagannath and 4 Others) arising out of case crime no.330 of 2001 under Sections 304 (2)/149, 323/149, 325/149, 147 IPC, Police Station Purandarpur, District Maharajganj. 3. By means of this bail application, the appellants-applicants seeks suspension of sentence / grant of bail. 4. The appellants have been convicted under Sections 304(2)/149, 323/149, 325/149, 147 IPC and sentenced to 7 years imprisonment along with fine and default clause under section 304(2)/149 IPC, 1 year imprisonment along with fine and default clause under section 323/149 IPC, 2 years imprisonment along with fine and default clause under section 325/149 IPC and 1 year imprisonment along with fine and default clause under section 147 IPC. 5. The prosecution story, as unfolded in the F.I.R., is that the present accused-appellants, five in numbers, with the common object of all, made an assault upon the informant Sukhari, his brother Shanker and wife Parma Devi with the aid of lathi and kudal bat. They sustained serious injuries and the matter was reported to the police and F.I.R. was lodged under sections 147, 148, 323, 325, 308 IPC but subsequently injured Shanker died on the same day and the matter was converted into section 304 IPC. 6. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the appellants- applicants that the appellants is innocent and has falsely been implicated. It has been further submitted that the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned trial Judge is against the weight of evidence on record. The trial court has misread the evidence on record and convicted the appellant / applicant. The prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The impugned judgement and order passed by the learned trial court is illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable in the eyes of law. It has been further submitted that the maximum sentence awarded to the appellant is of 7 years. It is further submitted that the present case is a cross case and a cross F.I.R. was lodged on behalf of the appellants'-applicants' side as Case Crime No.330-A of 2001 under sections 323, 325, 504 IPC wherein on the basis of wrong interpretation of facts and evidence on record the trial court recorded the acquittal of the accused persons. It is also submitted that the incident took place out of partition dispute between the parties, who actually belong to the same family. It is also submitted that five accused persons have been implicated in this matter with the allegation of having made assault upon the informant side with lathi and kudal bat and only general role has been assigned to all the appellants and no specific role has been assigned to anyone. It is also submitted that the deceased Shanker has sustained only one fatal injury i.e. injury no.1 whereas two other injured namely, Sukhari, the informant and his wife Parma Devi sustained only simple injuries. Although, the x-ray report pertaining to injured Parma Devi and Sukhari indicates fracture in the right forearm of Parma Devi and in the right scapula of injured Sukhari, but the fracture was caused on the non-vital part of the body. It is also submitted that although injured Shanker died two months after the incident, but the death of Shanker has no concern with the said incident and the trial court also does not make any observation that the death of Shanker was a result of the injuries sustained by him in the incident under reference. It is also submitted that during the course of trial, the appellants were on bail and they never misused the liberty granted to them. It is further submitted that since there is no likelihood of early hearing of the appeal in near future, the applicants-appellants may be released on bail pending appeal. Besides the above submissions, learned counsel for the appellants-applicants has also tried to touch upon at length the circumstances which led to the false implication of appellants. 7. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the informant vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that on the basis of cogent and ample evidence on record against the appellant, the conviction has been recorded by the learned trial court. It is also submitted that three persons sustained serious injuries in this matter and have been medically examined. The medical evidence supports the prosecution version. Injured Shanker, who was the brother of the informant of this case, died after two months of the incident and his death was a result of the injuries caused to him during the incident. It is also submitted that the alleged cross case lodged by the accused side ended into acquittal of the accused persons in that case. On these grounds, prayer has been made to reject the bail application of the applicants-appellants. 8. I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record including the impugned judgment. 9. In the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view that there is a cross case arising out of the same incident which ended into acquittal and also in the present case initially the F.I.R. was lodged under section 308 IPC and there is no observation of the trial court on record that the death of injured Shanker was a result of injuries sustained by him in the said incident, complicity of the accused persons, having no specific role of any of the appellants, sentence awarded to them, the evidence available on record and the findings recorded by the trial court thereon and the fact that the appeal may take some time for its final disposal, without further commenting on the merits of the case, I am inclined to release the appellants-applicants on bail. 10. Let the appellants-applicants - Smt. Simirati Devi, Jagannath, Hriday Lal, Ram Jatan and Purnwasi be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Court concerned. 11. On acceptance of bail bond and personal bonds, the lower court shall transmit photostat copies thereof to this Court for being kept on record. 12. However, during pendency of the appeal, half of the fine amount, as imposed by the trial Court, shall be deposited by the appellants-applicants within a period of one month from the date of their release and remaining half fine amount shall remain stayed. Order Date :- 1.8.2024 ss