Mani Ram Singh vs State Of U.P.
2018 Latest Caselaw 2008 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

A.F.R.
 
Reserved on 9.8.2018
 
Delivered on 20.8.2018
 
Court No. - 50
 
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3155 of 1984
 
Appellant :- Mani Ram Singh
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P.
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Amar Saran,Devendra Vikram Singh
 
Counsel for Respondent :- A.G.A.
 
Hon'ble Harsh Kumar,J.

1. The present criminal appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment and order dated 16.11.1984 passed by Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Mirzapur in S.T. No.103 of 1983, convicting the accused-appellant under Section 307 I.P.C. and sentencing him with rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 years.

2. The brief facts relating to the case are that "Raj Murat Singh lodged a F.I.R. at 11:45 p.m. on 11.1.1983 against Ram Lochan Singh Singh, Ram Palat Singh and Mani Ram Singh with the contention that his co-sharer Ram Lochan Singh started constructions over the wall in question by putting window as against the previous agreement and when Roop Narain Singh and Lallan Singh asked them to stop constructions, the accused persons started abusing and left to their roof from where, upon exhortation by Ram Lochan Singh and Ram Palat Singh, accused-appellant Mani Ram Singh made three fires resulting in injuries to his two brothers Roop Narain Singh, Lallan Singh as well as Smt. Kamali wife of Jiut Singh and the incident was seen by Gulab Singh, Ram Lal Singh, Jiut Singh and others."

3. Upon investigation charge-sheet was submitted and case was committed to sessions in which after framing of charges and recording of evidence of parties the learned trial court passed the impugned order acquitting co-accused Ram Lochan Singh and Ram Palat Singh from the charges under Section 307 I.P.C. and convicted Mani Ram Singh under Section 307 I.P.C. and sentencing appellant him with 3 years rigorous imprisonment, feeling aggrieved with which he has preferred this appeal.

4. Heard Ms. Zia Naz Zaidi, learned counsel for appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record as well as the lower court record summoned in appeal.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that according to the prosecution case there are three injured persons but prosecution has produced only injured Lallan Singh as P.W.-2 and failed to produce other two injured persons Roop Narain Singh and Smt. Kamali; that the injury reports of injured persons duly proved by P.W.-4 Dr. Vijay Narang shows that all the injuries were simple in nature; that Medical Officer has stated in his cross examination that all the injuries of injured persons may not be caused by single fire and can be sustained only by more than one fire; that the prosecution has failed to produce Ram Lal Singh and Jiut Singh, the alleged eye witnesses of the incident and have produced only Gulab Singh; that gun in question by which the fires were allegedly made by appellant has not been recovered from him; that there is no supplementary report of any injured though they were advised X-ray of certain injuries; that accused persons and the victims were co-sharers and the appellant had no motive to commit the incident in question or attempt on the lives of Roop Narain Singh, Lallan Singh or Smt. Kamali or to cause injuries to them; that there is no evidence on record to show that any of the injury of any of the three injured was grievous in nature and on vital part of body which may be considered to be dangerous to their lives; that in any case the offence against appellant does not travel beyond the ambit of offence under Section 324 I.P.C.

6. The learned counsel lastly submitted that the appellant has retired from Armed Force Services and is facing trial since last 35 years, he has become old so for the alleged incident of petty dispute between co-sharers over constructions which were being raised by appellant, even upon upholding the appellant guilty for the incident, his conviction under Section 307 I.P.C. is liable to be set-aside and may be convicted under Section 324 I.P.C. and sentence may also be reduced to period of imprisonment already undergone.

7. Per contra, learned A.G.A. supported the impugned judgment and order of conviction and contended that prompt F.I.R. of the broad day light incident has been lodged against the named accused persons in which incident attempt on the lives of Roop Narain Singh and Lallan Singh was made and fire arm injuries were caused to Roop Narain Singh, Lallan Singh and Smt. Kamali; that prosecution case may not be adversely affected for non-recovery of weapon of crime, the gun in question by which three fires were made by appellant; that it is proved from the evidence on record the injury reports Exhibits A-2, A-3 & A-4, of three injured; that injured Roop Narain Singh sustained two fire arm injuries, injured Lallan Singh sustained four fire arm injuries and injured Smt. Kamali sustained as many as nine fire arm injuries; that P.W.-5 Dr. Udai Singh, a Surgeon has stated on oath that he taken out three pellets from the body of Roop Narain Singh and similarly several pellets from the body of Lallan Singh by surgery.

8. Upon hearing the parties' counsel and perusal of paper-book as well as the original record of court below summoned in the appeal, I find that injury reports of Roop Narain Singh and Smt. Kamali shows that Roop Narain Singh sustained two fire arm wounds and Smt. Kamali sustained nine fire arm wounds and Lallan sustained four fire arm wounds which were kept under obsevation but all their wounds were pellets injuries and none of them was found grievous in nature. It is also pertinent to mention that the pellets were taken out from the body of injured persons by Surgeon, who has stated that when he attended the referred patients Lallan and Roop Narain, their general condition was normal. As far as non-production of eye witness Ram Lal Singh, and injured witnesses Roop Narain Singh and Smt. Kamali, I find that their non-production does not adversely affect the prosecution case as the prosecution has fully proved its case by the evidence of Raj Murat Singh, the first informant P.W.-1, injured witness Lallan Singh, P.W.-2 and eye witness Gulab Singh, P.W.-3 whose statements are consistent with no material contradictions and are also corroborated by medical evidence on record. The incident in question is a broad day light incident of which prompt F.I.R. has been lodged against named accused. The two parties were co-sharers and there is no whisper of any enmity between them so there can be no reason for falsely implicating the appellant in the promptly lodged F.I.R.

9. Upon careful analysis of entire evidence as well as the medical evidence on record, I find that there is nothing on record to show that the injuries sustained by Roop Narain Singh, Smt. Kamali or even Lallan Singh or any of them were grievous in nature on vital parts of their body which may be considered to be dangerous to their lives. Undisputedly the parties were co-sharers and in absence of any previous enmity, on account of petty dispute over constructions, the appellant or co-accused persons may not have any motive to cause death of any of the three injured persons or attempt on their lives. The prosecution has failed to prove from the evidence on record, that over the dispute of constructions on property appellant Mani Ram Singh intentionally made fires and made an attempt to cause death of Lallan Singh, Roop Narain Singh and Smt. Kamali or any of them. The injury reports of three injured persons show that none of the fire arm injury carries blackening and tattooing which means that the injuries were caused from a distant place.

10. The appellant is said to be an army man and had he any intention to cause death of any of the injured, the injured would have sustained grievous injuries on or around vital parts of his body. Since Dr. Vijay Narang P.W.-4 has stated that fires would have been made from the height up to 15 feet, the possibility of sustaining multiple fire arm injuries by three persons, due to dispersal of pellets, may not be ruled out. In view of above evidence, the possibility of the fires having been made by appellant only to teach the victims a lesson and desist them from interfering in their constructions may also not be ruled out. There is nothing on record to show that the appellant fired at them with an attempt to cause their death.

11. In view of the discussions made above, I find that the appellant did not make any attempt on the lives of three injured persons and by causing fire arm injuries to Roop Narain Singh, Lallan Singh and Smt. Kamali (most of which are pellets injuries) the appellant has not committed any offence under Section 307 I.P.C. rather his act brings his offence within the ambit of offence under Section 324 I.P.C. Considering the fact that the incident in question between the co-sharers did take place about 37 years ago and the appellant, who was 29 years old at the time of his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on 31.10.1984 has attained the age around 63 years, I find that his conviction is liable to be altered from Section 307 I.P.C. to Section 324 I.P.C. I find that in view of facts and circumstances on record if the appellant is sentenced with imprisonment for a period already undergone with imposition of fine, it will meet the ends of justice. Hence, the appeal is liable to be allowed accordingly.

12. The appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order of conviction, convicting the accused-appellant for the offence under Section 307 I.P.C. and sentencing with 3 years rigorous imprisonment is set-aside and he is acquitted of the charges under Section 307 I.P.C. The accused-appellant is held guilty, and is convicted for the offence under Section 324 I.P.C. and sentenced with rigorous imprisonment for a period already undergone and fine of Rs.10,000/- to be deposited within three months and in case of default in payment of fine, he will undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months.

13. The appellant Mani Ram Singh is on bail. His bail bonds and surety bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged. He need not surrender unless wanted in some other case or commits default in payment of fine.

14. The material exhibits, if any, will be disposed off after statutory period in accordance with rules.

15. Let lower court record be sent back to court below along with a copy of this order for necessary compliance, if any.

Order Date :-20/08/2018

Kpy