✦ Uttarakhand High Court

Laxmi Prasad v. State of U.P (Now State of Uttarakhand)

Criminal Appeal No. 370 of 2001PRAFULLA C PANT4 min read

Case at a glance

Outcome

Dismissed

the appeal is dismissed

Judgment

and learned counsel for the State, and perused the lower court record. (3) Prosecution story, in brief, is that on

14.05.1995, at about 8.30 p.m. at Khundeli in Village Bonga, Police Station Kotwali, Uttarkashi, accused/appellants Laxmi Prasad and Kirti Singh assaulted Ganga Ram with such intention and under such circumstances that if by that act they had caused the death of said Ganga Ram they would have been guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The First Information Report (Ex-A1) was lodged by Ganga Ram (PW1), on the basis of which crime no. 47 of 1995, was registered at Police Station Kotwali Uttarkashi, against the two accused. 3 Investigation was taken up by Sub Inspector Deepak Malik (PW6). After investigation, charge filed against accused/appellants namely Laxmi Prasad and Kirti Singh, for their trial in respect of offence punishable under section 308 of I.P.C. (4) After the case was committed, the then Sessions Judge, Uttarkashi, on 16.08.1996, after hearing the parties framed charge of offence punishable under section 308 of I.P.C., against the two aforesaid accused/appellants namely Laxmi Prasad and Kirti Singh, who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

On this prosecution got examined PW1 Ganga Ram, PW2 Shanti Prasad, PW3 Prem Singh Bhandari, PW4 Constable Jauhari Lal, PW5 Dr. Anil Chandra Sah and PW6 Sub Inspector Deepak Malik. (5) The oral and documentary evidence was put to the accused to which they pleaded that the same was false. In defence DW1 Vijay Singh, DW2 Kedar Singh and DW3 Kirti Singh (after 4 seeking permission under section 315 of Cr.P.C). were examined. The trial court after hearing the parties, found that the prosecution has successfully proved charge of offence punishable under section 308 of I.P.C., and sentenced each one of them to fine of ` 1,500/-. Against the said judgment and order dated 30.09.1999, passed by Learned Sessions Judge, Uttarkashi, in Sessions Trial No. 21 of 1996, this appeal was filed by the convicts before Allahabad High Court, from where it is received by transfer under section 35 of U.P. Reorganization Act 2000 (central Act 29 of 2000), for its disposal.

(6) Before further discussion this Court thinks it just and proper to mention the injury suffered by injured Ganga Ram which are recorded in Ex- A5 by the medical officer (PW5) Dr. Anil Chandra Sah. The same are being reproduced below:- (i) Lacerated wound 1cm X ½ cm X muscle scalp deep with swelling around 4cm X 4cm on the right side head, fresh 5 bleeding present on cleaning wound. The wound was 4cm above right ear. (ii) Traumatic swelling 3cm X 2cm on the right side face. (iii) Traumatic swelling 3 X 3cm on the left side face over left side mendibular angel. (iv) Multiple abrasion 1cm X .5cm to .5cm X .5cm with complaint of severe pain on the back of right elbow joint. (v) Complaint of pain on right side of back and lower right lateral position of back but no apparent injury mark seen. (vi) Abraded contusion 1cm X 1cm on the right knee joint colour of contusion is reddish. (7) This Court has gone through the entire evidence on record, recorded by the trial court.

Operative part

The statements of the eye witnesses are corroborated by the medical evidence (Ex-A5) on record. The testimony of injured eyewitness Ganga Ram is natural and trust worthy. Having re-appreciated the evidence on record, this Court finds no illegality in the order passed by the trial 6 court holding that the two accused Laxmi Singh and Kirti Singh had caused injury on person of injured Ganga Ram, and the nature of injuries was such that it could have caused the death of the injured. From the evidence on record, it is established that the present accused/appellants are guilty of charge of offence punishable under section 308 of I.P.C., as they attempted to commit culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The sentence is passed also very lenient. (8) For the reasons as discussed above, this Court finds no force in this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Lower court record be sent back. Dt.09.10.2012 N.P (Prafulla C. Pant, J.)

Questions this judgment answers

What did the Court decide in this case?

The Court recorded the following disposition: the appeal is dismissed

Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — ss. 315, 374; Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 308; U.P. Reorganization Act, 2000 — s. 35.

Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case

No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.

This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Uttarakhand High Court or eCourts case status (search case no. Criminal Appeal No. 370 of 2001). ← Search more judgments