Shiv Kumar State of U.P v. …

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the

1. State and perused the record.

2. The instant Criminal Appeal under Section 374 (2) Cr.P.C. has been filed by the appellant namely Shiv Kumar S/o Onkar Shukla, impeaching the judgment and order 16.11.2010, passed by the Additional Session Judge, Court No.3, Sitapur (in short "Trial Court") in Session Trial No.769 of 2003, arising out of Case Crime No.191 of 1997, Police Station - Kotwali, District - Sitapur thereby convicting the appellant for the offence under Section 307, 498-A IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and sentencing him to undergo Seven Years' Rigorous Imprisonment with a fine of Rs.5,000/-, One Year's Rigorous Imprisonment with a fine of Rs.3,000/- and Six Months' Rigorous Imprisonment, with default stipulation.

3. The case of the prosecution, in nutshell is to the effect that on 18.02.1997, Shiv Kumar, Pavan Kumar, both sons of Onkar Shukla, Smt. Monisha wife of Shri Ram and Smt. Neeru wife of Ayodhya Prasad assaulted the injured-Geeta (PW-2), wife of the present appellant-Shiv Kumar and also tried to hang the injured-Geeta (PW-2) and caused burn injuries after pouring kerosene oil over the body of the injured-Geeta 2 CRLA No. - 65 of 2011 (PW-2), which according to the Doctor Sharad Chandra (PW-3), who proved the injury report before the trial court, were superficial injuries.

4. The incident was reported through Written Report (Ext Ka-1), at Police Station - Kotwali, District - Sitapur on 02.04.1997 after delay of one and half month.

5. In the Written Report, other relevant facts were also indicated, according to which the marriage of the injured - Geeta (PW-2) and the present appellant- Shiv Kumar was solemnized 08 years prior to the incident and out of the wedlock of the appellant and injured Geeta (PW- 2) 02 children were born. Girl child was aged about 04 years at that point of time and the male child was aged about 03 years at that point of time. Based upon the Written Report, an F.I.R. was registered as Case 6. Crime No.191 of 1997, under Sections 498-A, 307/34, 323/34, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station - Kotwali, District - Sitapur.

7. On the basis of the F.I.R.. the investigation proceeded in the matter and the Investigation Officer (in short “IO”), after completion of the investigation, filed the charge-sheet against Shiv Kumar, Pavan Kumar, Smt. Neeru and Smt. Monisha for the offence under Sections 498-A, 307/34, 323/34, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (in short “D.P. Act”). Upon receiving the charge-sheet, the Magistrate concerned took 8. cognizance and committed the case to the Court of Session where it was registered as Session Trial No.769 of 2003 and charges were framed against Shiv Kumar, Pavan Kumar, Smt. Neeru and Smt. Monisha for the offence under Sections 498-A, 307/34, 323/34, 506 I.P.C. and under Section 3/4 D.P. Act, which were denied by the accused and trial was claimed. 9. To establish its case, the prosecution produced Salik Ram (PW-1), Injured-Geeta (PW-2), Dr. Sharad Chandra (PW-3), Gunja (PW-4), Dr. Govardhan Lal Dixit (PW-5), Sub Inspector Sabhajeet Singh (PW-6), Constable Shivnaresh Singh (PW-7) and Sub Inspector Satya Narayan Tiwari (PW-8). These witnesses proved the documentary evidence as also the basic story of the prosecution indicated in the F.I.R. It is to be noted that along with the charge-sheet, the I.O. has filed 10. written report (Ext.Ka-1), Medical Examination Report (Ext.Ka-2), Statement of the victim (Ext.Ka-3), Certificate provided by the medical practitioner (Ext.Ka-4), Chik F.I.R. (Ext.Ka-5), the report relating to destruction of the original Rapat (Ext.Ka-6), copy of the Rapat (Ext.Ka- 7), Site Plan (Ext.Ka-8) and Charge-sheet (Ext.Ka-9). These documents were proved by the prosecution witnesses. 3 CRLA No. - 65 of 2011

11. After closing the evidence of prosecution, statement of accused- appellant under section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded by the trial court explaining the entire evidence and other circumstances, in which the appellant denied the prosecution story and the entire prosecution story was said to be wrong and concocted. 12. It would be apt to indicate here that it is well established that the evidence of an injured witness must be given due weightage as being an injured witness, his presence cannot be doubted. His statement is generally considered to be very reliable and it is unlikely that he/she has spared the actual assailant in order to falsely implicate someone else. The testimony of an injured witness has its own relevancy and efficacy as he has sustained injuries at the time and place of occurrence and this lends support to his testimony that he was present during the occurrence. Thus, the testimony of an injured witness is accorded a special status in law. The witness would not like or want to let his actual assailant go unpunished merely to implicate a third person falsely for the commission of the offence. Thus, the evidence of the injured witness should be relied upon unless there are grounds for the rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies therein [Vide: State of M.P. vs. Mansingh, (2003) 10 SCC 414; Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab, (2009) 9 SCC 719; Balraje @ Trimbak v. State of Maharashtra, (2010) 6 SCC 673; Abdul Sayeed vs. State of M.P., (2010) 10 SCC 259; State of U.P. vs. Naresh, (2011) 4 SCC 324; Laxman Singh vs. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) (2021) 9 SCC 191; Balu Sudam Khalde and another vs. State of Maharashtra, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 355]. 13. In the aforesaid background of the case, the counsel for the appellant has submitted that taking note of the principle embodied with regard to the testimony of the injured witness, he is confining his submission only with regard to the sentence awarded by the trial court against the accused-appellant and same may be reduced. In this regard the learned counsel for the appellant submitted as under :- (i) That the incident is of 17th February, 1997 as on this date the accused-appellant to save the life of the injured-Geeta (PW-2) himself admitted her in the District Hospital, Sitapur. The doctor on the said date found all the burn injuries to be (ii) superficial in nature. (iii) Nothing adverse was stated by the injured-Geeta (PW-2) against the accused-appellant who is husband of the injured-Geeta (PW-2). (iv) On 16.02.1997, before the doctor as also on 18.02.1997 before the Magistrate (Naib Tehsildar, Sadar, District-Sitapur) the injured-Geeta 4 CRLA No. - 65 of 2011 (PW-2) has stated that she on her own poured the kerosene oil and set fire on account of matrimonial dispute/family dispute. (v) Injured-Geeta (PW-2) who before the trial court leveled the allegations against the accused-appellant in support of the prosecution story and according to the same appellant on the instigation of the co- accused Neeru poured the kerosene oil upon the injured- Geeta (PW-2) and set fire and the tenants tried to save her life and she became unconscious. (vi) Witness Gunja (PW-4) supported the story of the prosecution before the trial court and also stated in favour of the appellant, according to which the accused-appellant was present in the marriage of Gunja (PW-4) and also performed all the rituals including 'Kanyadan' along with the injured-Geeta (PW-2). (vii) Till date the marriage between the accused-appellant and the injured (PW-2) has not been dissolved.

14. Learned A.G.A. Shri Badrul Hasan on the other hand supported the judgment under appeal based upon the testimony of the injured witness. However, he could not dispute that the minimum punishment has not been provided for the offence under Section 307 I.P.C. as also that the punishment awarded to the appellant cannot be reduced in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. Learned A.G.A. has also not disputed that the period of 15. incarceration /custody of the appellant is about one year. He has also not refuted that according to the order of the trial court, under appeal, the sentence for the offence under Section 307, 498-A I.P.C. and Section 4 of the D.P. Act would run concurrently.

16. Considered the aforesaid and perused the record.

17. Upon due consideration of the aforesaid, particularly that (i) the marriage between the accused-appellant and the injured-Geeta Devi (PW-2) is still surviving/in existence, (ii) in the marriage ceremony of his daughter Gunja (PW-4) the accsued-appellant performed all the rituals including 'Kanyadan' along with his wife injured-Geeta (PW-2), (iii) injured-Geeta (PW-2) was admitted for treatment in the hospital by accused-appellant, which indicates that accident could have been occurred on impulse, and (iv) the accused-appellant would be around 60 years of age and also the period lapsed from the date of incident i.e. about 28 years, this court is of the view that lenient view has to be taken with regard to sentence of the accused-appellant. For the reasons afore-stated, the appeal is allowed in part. The 18. judgment and order of conviction dated order 16.11.2010, passed by the 5 CRLA No. - 65 of 2011 Additional Session Judge, Court No.3, Sitapur in Session Trial No.769 of 2003, arising out of Case Crime No.191 of 1997, under Sections-498- A, 307/34 I.P.C. and Section 4 of the D.P. Act, Police Station - Kotwali, District - Sitapur is hereby modified. The judgment of conviction is affirmed but the sentence awarded to the appellant is reduced to the period already undergone i.e. 12 months with a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default in payment of fine, to undergo one month's simple imprisonment.

19. The accused-appellant shall deposit the amount of fine within three months from today, if already not deposited in terms of the order of the Trial Court. In case of breach of the above condition, the appellant shall be

20. taken into custody and shall have to undergo sentence awarded to him. The appellant is stated to be on bail, his personal bond is cancelled

21. and sureties are discharged.

22. Let a copy of this judgment and trial court record be transmitted forthwith to the Trial Court concerned for compliance. (Saurabh Lavania,J.) December 03, 2025 ML/- MUNNA LAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the

1. State and perused the record.

2. The instant Criminal Appeal under Section 374 (2) Cr.P.C. has been filed by the appellant namely Shiv Kumar S/o Onkar Shukla, impeaching the judgment and order 16.11.2010, passed by the Additional Session Judge, Court No.3, Sitapur (in short "Trial Court") in Session Trial No.769 of 2003, arising out of Case Crime No.191 of 1997, Police Station - Kotwali, District - Sitapur thereby convicting the appellant for the offence under Section 307, 498-A IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and sentencing him to undergo Seven Years' Rigorous Imprisonment with a fine of Rs.5,000/-, One Year's Rigorous Imprisonment with a fine of Rs.3,000/- and Six Months' Rigorous Imprisonment, with default stipulation.

3. The case of the prosecution, in nutshell is to the effect that on 18.02.1997, Shiv Kumar, Pavan Kumar, both sons of Onkar Shukla, Smt. Monisha wife of Shri Ram and Smt. Neeru wife of Ayodhya Prasad assaulted the injured-Geeta (PW-2), wife of the present appellant-Shiv Kumar and also tried to hang the injured-Geeta (PW-2) and caused burn injuries after pouring kerosene oil over the body of the injured-Geeta 2 CRLA No. - 65 of 2011 (PW-2), which according to the Doctor Sharad Chandra (PW-3), who proved the injury report before the trial court, were superficial injuries.

4. The incident was reported through Written Report (Ext Ka-1), at Police Station - Kotwali, District - Sitapur on 02.04.1997 after delay of one and half month.

5. In the Written Report, other relevant facts were also indicated, according to which the marriage of the injured - Geeta (PW-2) and the present appellant- Shiv Kumar was solemnized 08 years prior to the incident and out of the wedlock of the appellant and injured Geeta (PW- 2) 02 children were born. Girl child was aged about 04 years at that point of time and the male child was aged about 03 years at that point of time. Based upon the Written Report, an F.I.R. was registered as Case 6. Crime No.191 of 1997, under Sections 498-A, 307/34, 323/34, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station - Kotwali, District - Sitapur.

7. On the basis of the F.I.R.. the investigation proceeded in the matter and the Investigation Officer (in short “IO”), after completion of the investigation, filed the charge-sheet against Shiv Kumar, Pavan Kumar, Smt. Neeru and Smt. Monisha for the offence under Sections 498-A, 307/34, 323/34, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (in short “D.P. Act”). Upon receiving the charge-sheet, the Magistrate concerned took 8. cognizance and committed the case to the Court of Session where it was registered as Session Trial No.769 of 2003 and charges were framed against Shiv Kumar, Pavan Kumar, Smt. Neeru and Smt. Monisha for the offence under Sections 498-A, 307/34, 323/34, 506 I.P.C. and under Section 3/4 D.P. Act, which were denied by the accused and trial was claimed. 9. To establish its case, the prosecution produced Salik Ram (PW-1), Injured-Geeta (PW-2), Dr. Sharad Chandra (PW-3), Gunja (PW-4), Dr. Govardhan Lal Dixit (PW-5), Sub Inspector Sabhajeet Singh (PW-6), Constable Shivnaresh Singh (PW-7) and Sub Inspector Satya Narayan Tiwari (PW-8). These witnesses proved the documentary evidence as also the basic story of the prosecution indicated in the F.I.R. It is to be noted that along with the charge-sheet, the I.O. has filed 10. written report (Ext.Ka-1), Medical Examination Report (Ext.Ka-2), Statement of the victim (Ext.Ka-3), Certificate provided by the medical practitioner (Ext.Ka-4), Chik F.I.R. (Ext.Ka-5), the report relating to destruction of the original Rapat (Ext.Ka-6), copy of the Rapat (Ext.Ka- 7), Site Plan (Ext.Ka-8) and Charge-sheet (Ext.Ka-9). These documents were proved by the prosecution witnesses. 3 CRLA No. - 65 of 2011

11. After closing the evidence of prosecution, statement of accused- appellant under section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded by the trial court explaining the entire evidence and other circumstances, in which the appellant denied the prosecution story and the entire prosecution story was said to be wrong and concocted. 12. It would be apt to indicate here that it is well established that the evidence of an injured witness must be given due weightage as being an injured witness, his presence cannot be doubted. His statement is generally considered to be very reliable and it is unlikely that he/she has spared the actual assailant in order to falsely implicate someone else. The testimony of an injured witness has its own relevancy and efficacy as he has sustained injuries at the time and place of occurrence and this lends support to his testimony that he was present during the occurrence. Thus, the testimony of an injured witness is accorded a special status in law. The witness would not like or want to let his actual assailant go unpunished merely to implicate a third person falsely for the commission of the offence. Thus, the evidence of the injured witness should be relied upon unless there are grounds for the rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies therein [Vide: State of M.P. vs. Mansingh, (2003) 10 SCC 414; Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab, (2009) 9 SCC 719; Balraje @ Trimbak v. State of Maharashtra, (2010) 6 SCC 673; Abdul Sayeed vs. State of M.P., (2010) 10 SCC 259; State of U.P. vs. Naresh, (2011) 4 SCC 324; Laxman Singh vs. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) (2021) 9 SCC 191; Balu Sudam Khalde and another vs. State of Maharashtra, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 355]. 13. In the aforesaid background of the case, the counsel for the appellant has submitted that taking note of the principle embodied with regard to the testimony of the injured witness, he is confining his submission only with regard to the sentence awarded by the trial court against the accused-appellant and same may be reduced. In this regard the learned counsel for the appellant submitted as under :- (i) That the incident is of 17th February, 1997 as on this date the accused-appellant to save the life of the injured-Geeta (PW-2) himself admitted her in the District Hospital, Sitapur. The doctor on the said date found all the burn injuries to be (ii) superficial in nature. (iii) Nothing adverse was stated by the injured-Geeta (PW-2) against the accused-appellant who is husband of the injured-Geeta (PW-2). (iv) On 16.02.1997, before the doctor as also on 18.02.1997 before the Magistrate (Naib Tehsildar, Sadar, District-Sitapur) the injured-Geeta 4 CRLA No. - 65 of 2011 (PW-2) has stated that she on her own poured the kerosene oil and set fire on account of matrimonial dispute/family dispute. (v) Injured-Geeta (PW-2) who before the trial court leveled the allegations against the accused-appellant in support of the prosecution story and according to the same appellant on the instigation of the co- accused Neeru poured the kerosene oil upon the injured- Geeta (PW-2) and set fire and the tenants tried to save her life and she became unconscious. (vi) Witness Gunja (PW-4) supported the story of the prosecution before the trial court and also stated in favour of the appellant, according to which the accused-appellant was present in the marriage of Gunja (PW-4) and also performed all the rituals including 'Kanyadan' along with the injured-Geeta (PW-2). (vii) Till date the marriage between the accused-appellant and the injured (PW-2) has not been dissolved.

14. Learned A.G.A. Shri Badrul Hasan on the other hand supported the judgment under appeal based upon the testimony of the injured witness. However, he could not dispute that the minimum punishment has not been provided for the offence under Section 307 I.P.C. as also that the punishment awarded to the appellant cannot be reduced in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. Learned A.G.A. has also not disputed that the period of 15. incarceration /custody of the appellant is about one year. He has also not refuted that according to the order of the trial court, under appeal, the sentence for the offence under Section 307, 498-A I.P.C. and Section 4 of the D.P. Act would run concurrently.

16. Considered the aforesaid and perused the record.

17. Upon due consideration of the aforesaid, particularly that (i) the marriage between the accused-appellant and the injured-Geeta Devi (PW-2) is still surviving/in existence, (ii) in the marriage ceremony of his daughter Gunja (PW-4) the accsued-appellant performed all the rituals including 'Kanyadan' along with his wife injured-Geeta (PW-2), (iii) injured-Geeta (PW-2) was admitted for treatment in the hospital by accused-appellant, which indicates that accident could have been occurred on impulse, and (iv) the accused-appellant would be around 60 years of age and also the period lapsed from the date of incident i.e. about 28 years, this court is of the view that lenient view has to be taken with regard to sentence of the accused-appellant. For the reasons afore-stated, the appeal is allowed in part. The 18. judgment and order of conviction dated order 16.11.2010, passed by the 5 CRLA No. - 65 of 2011 Additional Session Judge, Court No.3, Sitapur in Session Trial No.769 of 2003, arising out of Case Crime No.191 of 1997, under Sections-498- A, 307/34 I.P.C. and Section 4 of the D.P. Act, Police Station - Kotwali, District - Sitapur is hereby modified. The judgment of conviction is affirmed but the sentence awarded to the appellant is reduced to the period already undergone i.e. 12 months with a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default in payment of fine, to undergo one month's simple imprisonment.

19. The accused-appellant shall deposit the amount of fine within three months from today, if already not deposited in terms of the order of the Trial Court. In case of breach of the above condition, the appellant shall be

20. taken into custody and shall have to undergo sentence awarded to him. The appellant is stated to be on bail, his personal bond is cancelled

21. and sureties are discharged.

22. Let a copy of this judgment and trial court record be transmitted forthwith to the Trial Court concerned for compliance. (Saurabh Lavania,J.) December 03, 2025 ML/- MUNNA LAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench