Shriram & Another vs State Of U.P.
2014 Latest Caselaw 6559 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

A.F.R.
 
Court No. 10
 
Reserved on 04.08.2014
 
Delivered on 17.09.2014
 

 
Criminal Appeal No. 922 of 1995
 
Shri Ram and another					...... Appellants
 
Vs.
 
State of U.P. 						....... Opposite Party.
 

 
Hon. Arun Tandon, J.

Hon. Akhtar Husain Khan, J.

This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the District and Sessions Judge, Kanpur Dehat dated 04.05.1995 passed in Sessions Trial No. 352 of 1994.

Under the judgment and order in appeal the accused appellants Shri Ram and Ramesh have been convicted of an offence under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and have been sentenced to life imprisonment.

The prosecutions case is as follows:-

On 21st June, 1994 one Shankar Lal, after sending of the marriage party of one Ram Kripal, was returning to his house at around 6.00 p.m. The informant Daya Ram, who was the grandson of Shankar Lal, was sitting in his Chhappar in front of his house and one Ram Narain was providing food to his daughter in front of his house. As soon as Shankar Lal reached in front of his house, he was surrounded by Shri Ram and Ramesh along with another relative. Shri Ram and Ramesh had Farsa in their hand, while the relative had Lathi in his hand. The accused stated that today they will handover the possession of the land to Shankar Lal and immediately thereafter assaulted Shankar Lal with Farsas and Lathi. As a result whereof Shankar Lal fell on the road with shrieks. Hearing the shrieks of Shankar Lal, the informant Daya Ram, Ram Narain, Rajkumar, Bharat Singh and others rushed to save him. The accused ran away towards north. Shankar Lal expired on the spot.

A first information report of the incident, which had taken place on 21st June, 2014 at 6.00 p.m., was lodged with the police station-Kakwan, district-Kanpur Dehat by Daya Ram, the grandson of the deceased Shankar Lal on the same date i.e. 21st June, 2014 at 8.10 p.m. The distance between the place of incident and the police station was about 3 kilometres. The Chik F.I.R. was prepared by Head Constable Shitala Prasad Tiwari, who made an endorsement of the same on G.D. and registered a case against Shri Ram, Ramesh and one of his relative.

The investigation of the case was taken over by Sri Ram Prakash Yadav I.O., who proceeded on the spot along with the S.I. Namwar Singh, Constable Ram Kushal Singh and Home Guard Raja Ram and Rampal. For paucity of light the inquest proceedings could not be conducted in the night. On the next day S.I. Namwar Singh conducted the inquest of the dead body of Shankar Lal. Inquest report, Challan Lash, letter to C.M.O. etc. were prepared and the dead body, after being sealed, was handed over to constable Ram Kushal Singh and Ram Naresh for being taken for post-mortem.

Autopsy on the dead body of Shankar Lal deceased was conducted by Dr. D.S. Rana on 23.06.1994 at about 2.30 p.m.

The doctor found the following antemortem injuries on the person of the deceased:

1. Incised wound on the right side of face and skull 22 cm x 2 cm x bone deep. Margins clean cut. Bone clean cut. Clotted blood present at cut bone ends. Blood mixed brain matter coming out of the wound. Jailing present on the face situate 2 cm above right ear going on face upto 4 cm in front of right ear. On exposing right temporal and parietal bones were clean cut. Meningicis are clean cut and brain is liquified and soft.

2. Abraided contusion on the face and lateral aspect of right arm 6 cm x 2 situated 6 cm below the right shoulder underneath injury on right humerus fractured.

3. Abraided contusion on the back of right arm 4 cm x 2 cm situated 3 cm below the back of shoulder.

4. Contusion in the back of right elbow 3cm x 2cm.

On internal examination the doctor found the right temporal and parallel bones clean cut. Membrances were clean cut. Right chamber of heart was full and left empty. Stomach contained 4 oz. semi-digested food. Small intestines half full with gases. Faecal matter present in the large intestines.

The cause of death of the deceased was reported to be due to coma and shock because of antemortem injuries. The doctor performing the post-mortem opined that injury no. 1 could be caused by sharp edged weapon like Pharsa, injury nos. 2, 3, and 4 could be caused by from the back of Pharsa or some blunt object.

The Investigating Officer, after investigation, submitted a charge-sheet against the accused under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. The proceedings were committed to Sessions Court.

The accused pleaded not guilty of offence and requested for trial.

The prosecution in support of its case examined informant eyewitness Daya Ram as P.W.-1, Ram Narain an eye witness was examined as P.W.-2, Dr. D.S. Rana, who had performed the post-mortem, was examined as P.W.-3, Head Constable Shitala Prasad Tiwari was examined as P.W.-4, S.I. Namwar Singh was examined as P.W.-5, Constable Ram Kushal Singh was examined as P.W.-6 and R.P. Yadav, Investigation Officer was examined as P.W.-7.

The accused did not produced any evidence in their defence.

The Trial Court after considering the material evidence brought on record came to the conclusion that the prosecution has been able to bring home the charges against the accused Shri Ram and Ramesh and therefore after convicting them of an offence under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC proceeded to punish them as aforesaid.

So far as the third accused Munnu is concerned, it has been held that the ocular witness Daya Ram P.W.-1 and Ram Narain P.W.-2 respectively had stated that Munnu was not present on the spot and they had not identified him. Therefore, the complicity of the Munnu had not been established. Accordingly, Munnu has been held not guilty of the charges levelled.

The instant appeal has been filed challenging the judgment and order of the Trial Court dated 03.05.1995 on behalf of the accused Shri Ram and Ramesh only.

Counsel for the appellants Sri D. Kumar made an attempt to take us through the first information report, testimony of the witnesses of fact P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 in great detail and tried to point out the discrepancies.

Counsel for the appellant has submitted that in the Chik F.I.R. (Ext. Ka-3) the distance between the place of occurrence and police station has been shown as 3 kilometres, while in the inquest report (Ext.Ka-6) the distance between aforesaid two places has been shown as 5 kilometres. Therefore, it is suggested that the first information report was not in existence when the inquest was conducted. The discrepancy so pointed out has been taken note of by the Trial Court and it has been recorded that the discrepancy cannot be said to be a material discrepancy. Even otherwise it has been explained by the Investigating Officer R.P. Yadav in his testimony by stating that the distance of 3 kilometres was by way of crow flight, while the distance would be nearly 5 kilometres by road.

We find that the discrepancy so pointed out by the counsel for the appellants cannot be said to be a material discrepancy so as to vitiate the prosecution story.

Counsel for the appellants could not establish that the G.D. has not been prepared in chronological order. The contention, that the first information report has been ante time, has rightly been repelled by the Trial Court.

The Trial Court has recorded that the first information report discloses the date, time and place of occurrence and the weapon used and the prescribed manner of occurrence. The first information report has been registered by a person, who is witness of the occurrence. Further the first information report is prompt.

The incident, as disclosed in the first information report, has been corroborated by testimony of the eyewitnesses of fact P.W.-1 and P.W.-2, which in turn was fully supported by the medical evidence as borne out from the post-mortem report as well as from the testimony of the doctor, who had performed the post-mortem.

The Trial Court has specifically recorded that the accused has not challenged the medical evidence as well as link evidence of S.I. Namwar Singh (P.W.-5) and Constable Ram Kushal Singh (P.W.-6). Therefore, the prosecution has successfully proved identity, death and cause of death of Shankar Lal deceased.

Counsel for the appellant could not point out any material discrepancy in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses or any material discrepancy which may flow from reading of the first information report, ocular evidence and the medical evidence or any other evidence on record before us so as to create any doubt in out mind qua the conviction of appellants, as recorded by the Trial Court. The Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. vs. Naresh; (2011) 4 SCC 324 has also explained the trivial contradiction and the material contradiction affecting the prosecution story.

The Apex Court in the case of Lokesh Shivkumar vs State of Karnataka; (2012) 3 SCC 196 has held that if the first information report is prompt and the incident, as stated therein is supported by the ocular evidence and the medical evidence, then the prosecution can be said to have brought home the charge with certainty.

We do not find any infirmity in the judgment and order of the Trial Court convicting the appellants of the offence under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and punishing them for the same.

Appeal lacks merit and is dismissed.

Appellants Shri Ram and Ramesh are on bail, their bail is cancelled, bail bonds are forfeited. They may be arrested to undergo the sentence.

Dt/-17.09.2014

Pkb/