Allahabad High Court
Phool Singh vs State Of U.P. on 25 November, 2011
Bench: Amar Saran, Ramesh Sinha
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 46
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL U/S 374 CR.P.C. No. - 2177 of 2011
Petitioner :- Phool Singh
Respondent :- State Of U.P.
Petitioner Counsel :- Sarvajeet Singh
Respondent Counsel :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Amar Saran,J.
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned A.G.A. for the State. They are not insisting on the preparation of paper books and are agreeable that the appeal may be decided on the basis of the lower court record, which is available in the Court. We, therefore, straight away proceed to hear the appeal.
The appellant has been convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life by the judgement of the Special Judge, E.C. Act/Additional Sessions Judge, Budaun dated 19.8.2000 in S.T. No. 721 of 1995, under section 302 IPC.
Prosecution case was that on 12.3.1995 the informant Ramveer Singh, P.W.1 and his father the deceased Dhandhari Singh had gone to their field to see the wheat crops there. They saw the appellant cutting grass etc., in the field. When Dhandhari Singh inquired from him as to how he was cutting grass in their field, then the appellant is said to have given a hasia blow on the stomach of the deceased. The informant Ramveer Singh, his brother and other persons such as Mohan Pal Singh and Babloo, who were present there chased the appellant and apprehended him at a distance of 50-60 paces along with hasia at 3.30 p.m. The appellant was taken to the police station Islam Nagar and as Dhandhari Singh died as a result of injury, soon thereafter his body was taken to the police station. The report of the incident was lodged at 5.30 p.m. on 12.3.1995 by P.W.1 Ramveer Singh. P.W. 2 Sohan Pal Singh, who was working in the adjoining field was the other eyewitness, P.W. 3 Dr. S.P. Gangwar, who conducted postmortem on 13.3.1995 at 3.30 p.m., P.W. 4 S.I. Megh Singh, prepared inquest report of this case, P.W. 5 Shamim Haider prepared the chik report (Ext. Ka-10), P.W.6 Anil Kumar Yadav is the Investigating Officer.
The appellant was not on bail during trial. After his conviction on 19.8.2000, he was unable to prefer any appeal for a long time and his appeal was filed only on 22.10.2010. The reason for the delay in filing the appeal was acute poverty, as he was working as a Daily Wager in Punjab, and there were none to do pairvi on his behalf. The delay was condoned by an order dated 30.3.2011.
The Trial Judge has recorded the conviction of the appellant holding that the presence of the witnesses at the spot was natural. The appellant was arrested on the spot. There was no reason for his false implication. We see no error in the finding of conviction recorded by the Trial Judge.
Only one submission has been raised on behalf of the appellant that the appellant has been in jail for almost 17 years since the date of incident and that the case would not go beyond section 304 Part I IPC at the highest. The postmortem report of the deceased Dhandhari was conducted on 13.3.1995 by P.W.3 Dr. S.P. Gangwar shows the presence of a single incised wound (penetrating wound) 1.5 cm x .5 cm x cavity deep on outer aspect of lower chest just below the xiphisternum on the left side through and through. Pleura and pericardium were cut and the wound was penetrating. Cause of death was the result of the ante mortem injury. The appellant has taken the specific plea in his statement under section 313 Cr. P.C. that he was not cutting grass, but he was sowing some sugarcane crop. He used to work for Dhandhari. When he demanded wages from Dhandhari, then Dhandhari refused to pay. The appellant told him that he was a poor person and he was being unnecessarily harassed. There were some exchange of words and he was beaten by the deceased and his son and in his defence he wielded his hasia on the deceased.
It was further argued that there was no motive whatsoever for the appellant to have committed the murder of the deceased. A single blow was given without repetition in the course of a quarrel.
Learned A.G.A. argued that a case under section 302 IPC is clearly made out because the injury received was fatal and it was a deep penetrating wound.
We are of the opinion that the incident does appear to have taken place after a sudden quarrel between the parties. The appellant could not have had any intention to commit the murder of the deceased from before, and that is why he did not repeat the blow given to the deceased. Even if, his entire defence that he acted in his self defence is not accepted, we are of the opinion that the appellant caused the injury without premeditation or cruelty, which has resulted in the death of the deceased. In these circumstances, we are of the view that the conviction of the appellant under section 302 IPC may be substituted with a sentence under section 304 Part I IPC. As the appellant has undergone about 16 years and 9 months in toto, the ends of justice would be met if the sentence of life imprisonment awarded to the appellant is reduced to the period already undergone by him.
We, however, award only a token fine of Rs.1 against the appellant because this is the mandatory requirement of section 304 Part I IPC, as we have seen that in this case the appellant on account of poverty was even unable to file any appeal for 10 years.
The appellant shall be released forthwith unless he is wanted in connection with any other case.
The appeal is partly allowed as above.
Order Date :- 25.11.2011
HSM
