Allahabad High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:135943 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD (Sl. No. 29) Court No. - 78 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2473 of 1983 Appellant :- Phool Chand And Ors. Respondent :- State of U.P. Counsel for Appellant :- Archana Singh,K.K. Misra Counsel for Respondent :- A.G.A. Hon'ble Anish Kumar Gupta,J.
Legal Reasoning
1. Heard Ms. Archana Singh, learned Amicus Curiae appointed by this Court on behalf of appellants no. 2 and 3 and Sri S.K. Ojha, learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. The instant criminal appeal has been filed by the appellants aggrieved by judgement and order dated 6.10.1983 passed by III Additional Sessions Judge, Azamgarh in Session Trial No. 246 of 1982 convicting the appellants herein for the offence under Section 324 and 323 read with Section 34 IPC sentencing them one year rigorous imprisonment under Section 324 IPC and six months rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC. 3. During the pendency of the instant criminal appeal, the appellant no. 1.-Phool Chand and appellant no. 3-Jhinku have expired, which fact has been confirmed by the report of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Azamgarh dated 25.11.2021. Accordingly, the appeal on behalf of appellant no. 1 and 3 was abated vide order dated 1.8.2022 and Ms. Archana Singh, Advocate was appointed as Amicus Curiae on behalf of the remaining appellants no. 2 and 4, namely, Lalchand and Shri Ram. 4. Briefly stated prosecution case is that few days prior to the occurrence there has been an altercation and exchange of words between the appellant no.1-Phool Chand and the injured-Ram Chandra. Due to the aforesaid exchange of words, all the appellants including two other accused persons, namely, Deep Chand and Bal Chand came to the house of informant-Mohan on 3.7.1980 at about 5:00 pm and started beating Ram Chandra. When the informant-Mohan also came out, he was also beaten. It is further alleged that appellant no. 1-Phoolchand was armed with country made pistol, accused Bora @ Deepchand and Balchand were armed with gadasa and rest of the accused were armed with lathis. Accused Phoolchand made a gunshot fire on Ram Chandra. Rohit and some other people of the village gathered there and saw the incident. The injured Ram Chandra was taken to hospital and the informant submitted a written report at the police station on the basis of which the FIR being Case Crime No. 605 of 1980 was registered for the offence under Section 148, 323/149 & 307/149 IPC. 5. It is submitted by learned Amicus Curiae that the accused Deepchand has also lodged an FIR being Case Crime No. 605/A of 1980 being a cross case for the same incident. The medical examination of the injured Ram Chandra was conducted by Dr. M.M.C. Chaturvedi on the date of incident itself at 6:00 PM and the following injuries were found:- (1) Lacerated wound in area of 5cmx0.5cm on the left side head 10cm above left ear. bone deep. bleeding present. (2) Lacerated wound in area of 4.5 cmx0.5cm on the middle of head. bone deep 5cm medial to injury no. 1. bleeding present. (3) Traumatic swelling in area of 4cm x 2cm on the back of left palm just below the left little finger. tenderness present. Advised X-Ray. (4) Lacerated punctured wound oval in area of 1cm x 0.5cm x depth 4.0 exposure bone on the anterior of left leg 14cm below the patella bone (knee joint) of tibia bone, no sinking of hair, no blackening, no tattooing of skin. Advised X-Ray. (5) Contusion multiple in area of 9 cm x 8 cm on the outer aspect of right thigh 14cm above right knee joint. (6) V shaped contusion in area of 9cm x 2.5 cm, 11cm below the interior angle of left scapula. 7cm x 2.5cm on the left side back. 4cm lateral to mid line. (7) C/o pain on the back of right palm no mark of external injury seen. According to the doctor, the injuries number 1 to 3 and 5 to 7 were caused by hard and blunt object and injury no. 4 was caused by fire arm. 6. Similarly, the other injured-Mohan was also examined by Dr. U.C. Sinha at 11:45 PM and the following injuries were found on his body:- (1) Contusion 12cm x 15cm on right side back of chest just below the lower angle of scapula. (2) Contusion 5cm x 1.5cm on outer aspect of right side deltoid region of upper arm. (3) Abraided traumatic swelling in area of 4cm x 2cm on back of left hand. Advised X-Ray. (4) C/o pain at back of right side head, and left leg but no mark of any external injury seen. 7. According to Dr. U.C. Sinha, the injury no. 1, 2 and 4 were simple in nature and injury no. 3 was kept under observation. All the injuries were caused by blunt object and the duration was fresh and the doctor has also opined that it is possible that the injuries were caused on 3.7.1980 at about 5:00 PM. 8. On the basis of aforesaid medical examination and after recording the statement of witnesses, investigation was completed and charge sheet was filed against all the six accused persons. Since the offence involved charges under Section 307 IPC the case was committed to the Sessions Court for trial, thereupon the charges were framed against the accused persons and they denied the charges and claimed trial. 9. In support of its case the prosecution examined P.W.-1 informant Mohan; P.W.-2 the eye witness of the incident-Rohit; P.W.-3-the injured witness-Ram Chandra; P.W.-4 Dr. M.M.C. Chaturvedi; P.W.-5-Dr. U.C. Sinha; P.W.-6 Dr. S.P. Gupta who proved the X-ray plates of Ram Chandra; P.W.-7-Sub Inspector Laxmi Narayan Pathak, the Investigating Officer of the instant case. In defence, the accused examined Dr. D.K. Sinha-D.W.-1 who medically examined the injuries of Deep Chand on 4.7.1980 at 12:10 PM. 10. After completing the trial, the trial court has acquitted two accused persons, namely, Deep Chand and Bal Chand having found no injuries caused by the weapons assigned to them and all the accused persons were acquitted for the offence under Section 148, 323 read with Section 149 and 307/149 IPC; however, the appellant no. 1 was convicted for the offence under Section 324 IPC and 323/34 IPC and the appellants Lalchand, Sri Ram and Jhinkoo were convicted for the offence under Section 323, 324 read with Section 34 IPC and were sentenced as aforesaid. 11. Learned amicus curiae appearing on behalf of appellants submits that witnesses have wrongly deposed about the entire incident and their deposition is not trustworthy. Informant as well as Ram Chandra have alleged that the accused Deep Chand and Bal Chand were armed with gadasa; however, no injury of gadasa was found on any of the witnesses. It is further alleged that the so called eye witness Rohit has alleged that the assault was made by farsa; however, no such injury was found and the medical examination of the injured do not support the averment made by witness Rohit. In view thereof, learned amicus curie submits that the deposition of these witnesses is not reliable; therefore the conviction of the appellant on the basis of deposition of these witnesses, which are unreliable cannot be sustained. 12. Per contra, learned AGA submits that out of all the fact witnesses, two are the injured witnesses and there can be no better witness than the injured witness and they will not falsely implicate any other person leaving behind the actual assailant. The informant has categorically detailed the incident and assigned the weapons used by each assailant. The accused Deep Chand and Bal Chand were assigned gadasa; however since there was no injury of gadasa, nor the same was alleged by these witnesses; therefore, the accused Deep Chand and Bal Chand were acquitted by the trial court. 13. So far as the appellant Phool Chand is concerned, a country made pistol was assigned to him and there is a firearm injury on the injured Ram Chandra which is duly supported by the medical report. So far as the other injuries sustained by P. W. 1 Mohan and P. W. 3 Ram Chandra, those were caused by hard and blunt weapon which was duly attributed to the remaining appellants namely Lalchand, Jhinku and Sri Ram which are also duly supported by medical examination report. Thus, the testimony of these witnesses is highly reliable and on the basis of which rightful conclusions have been drawn by the trial court concerned which convicting the appellant for the offence under Section 323 IPC and 324/34 IPC. Therefore, no interference is called for in the instant case and the appeal filed by the appellant is liable to be dismissed. 14. Having heard the rival submission made by the learned counsel for the parties, this court has carefully gone through the records of the case. 15. From the record of the case, it is apparent that as per the prosecution case, there was previous enmity between the appellants and injured persons, due to which all the accused persons have come to house of informant and assaulted Ram Chandra. The accused Phool Chand was armed with country made pistol and caused a firearm injury on Ram Chandra, the other accused persons namely Lalchand and Sri Ram had assaulted Ram Chandra with lathis and when the informant came to save him, he was also assaulted by these persons with lathis. Therefore, the aforesaid prosecution story is duly supported by all the fact witnesses namely P. W.1 Mohan, P. W. 2 Rohit and P. W. 3 Ram Chandra. The injuries sustained by the injured are duly supported by the medical examination of the injured witnesses and P. W. 4 Dr. M.M.C. Chaturvedi as well as P. W. 5 Dr. U. C. Sinha have proved the medical examination reports. The injured Ram Chandra was immediately sent to the hospital where he was examined on the same date at 6 p.m. whereas the injured Mohan was also examined on the same date at 11:45 p.m. by Dr. U. C. Sinha and both the doctors have supported their medical examination report and stated that the injuries were caused to the injured persons at around 5 p.m. P. W. 6 Dr. S. P. Gupta has also proved the x-ray plate and x-ray report and x-ray also supports the fracture of right hand of Ram Chandra. P. W. 7 Sub. Inspector Laxmi Narayan Pathak is the investigating officer of the instant case who has conducted the examination and is a formal witness. So far as the incident is concerned that has been duly proved by the prosecution. It is categorically supported by the medical examination reports which are duly proved by the medical witnesses. 16. Thus, in the considered opinion of this court, there is no illegality in the conviction of appellants Lalchand and Sri Ram for the offence under Section 323 IPC as well as Section 324/34 IPC along with conviction of other accused persons whose appeal has already been abated. 17. Since the trial court concerned has already taken very liberal view while awarding the sentence of one year and six months, respectively for the offence under Section 324/34 IPC and 323 IPC; therefore, this court does not find any good reason to interfere with the sentence awarded by the trial court. In view thereof the judgment of the trial court is hereby affirmed. The conviction and sentence awarded to the appellants is also affirmed. 18. The instant criminal appeal is dismissed. 19. The appellants no. 2 and 4 are on bail. Their bail bond is cancelled. 20. The Cheif Judicial Magistrate, Azamgarh is directed to take them into custody in the aforesaid case and send them to jail to serve out the remaining sentence as was awarded by the trial court and is being affirmed by this Court. 21. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the court concerned within two weeks for compliance along with the Lower Court Record. The compliance report shall be sent by the court concerned to this court within a further period of fifteen days. 22. This Court appreciate the assistance provided by Ms. Archana Singh, learned Amicus Curiae. She shall be paid an honorarium of Rs. 10,000/- for services rendered by her as per rules. Order Date :- 11.8.2025 Kirti (Anish Kumar Gupta, J.) Digitally signed by :- SMT KIRTI MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad