Surendra Alias Pintu vs State Of U.P.
2018 Latest Caselaw 3286 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

A.F.R.
 
Court No. - 42
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2699 of 1998
 

 
Appellant :- Surendra Alias Pintu
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P.
 
Counsel for Appellant :- S.P.Gautham
 
Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate
 

 
Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I,J.

The instant criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order of conviction dated 6.10.1998 passed by the Court of the then Xth Additional Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad in Sessions Trial No. 588 of 1995 (State vs. Surendra alias Pintu) under Section - 307 I.P.C. Police Station - Vijay Nagar, District - Ghaziabad, arising out of Case Crime No. 259 of 1995, whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section - 307 I.P.C. and sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment coupled with fine Rs. 1,000/- (One Thousand Rupees) with default stipulation to suffer additional imprisonment for six months.

Facts relevant for adjudication of this appeal as reflected from the record appear to be that informant - Veerpal lodged written report (Ext.Ka-1) at Police Station - Vijay Nagar on 25.7.1995 at around 7:30 a.m. against the accused - Surendra alias Pintu that he is a mischievous person and always picks quarrel with people. Sometime ago, he had assaulted a person of the locality with a pair of scissors and thereafter, he himself consumed poison. However, that case was compromised without informing the police. The informant's wife Pushpa used to admonish the accused for his mischievous behaviour and also asked the accused not to come to her home, due to which the accused developed grudge against her.

On 25.7.1995, while the informant and his wife were present at home, accused - Surendra alias Pintu came to his home and assaulted his wife with knife, thus causing injuries on her person, due to which she fell down. On alarm being raised, Mohan Lal, Pale and his brother Chandrapal arrived on the spot. They intercepted and caught hold of Surendra alias Pintu along with the blood-stained knife. It was also described in the report that had these persons not intervened, the accused would have killed his wife. The report was noted at the relevant record at Case Crime No. 259 of 1995. The injured was sent to Government Hospital for medical examination, whereupon, the following injuries were found on examination on the person of Pushpa.

1. Stab wound over left side chest. 01½ cm. x 3/4 cm. x (02 cm) deep. (Not probed thoroughly) 06 cm below & lateral to left nipple. Margins clean cut. Edges well defined. Oozing of blood present.

2. Incised wound over back of left arm at the lever of axillary angle 03½ cm x 01½ cm x Muscle deep. Oozing of blood present.

In the opinion of the doctor, injury no. 1 was kept under observation and x-ray was advised.

Injury no. 2 was stated to be simple.

Both the injuries were found fresh and caused by sharp-edged object.

The injury report has been proved as Ex.Ka-3.

Thereafter, the investigation ensued and the Investigating Officer recorded statement of the witnesses, took note of the contents of first information report and the entry made in the G.D. concerned of the date and time concerned. He prepared the site plan - Ext.Ka-6 and after completion of the investigation, filed charge-sheet Ext.Ka-7 under Section-307 I.P.C.

Consequently, committal proceedings took place and the case was committed to the court of Session, wherein it was numbered as Sessions Trial No. 588 of 1995. The Session Judge charged the accused under Section-307 I.P.C. and as a sequel to that, the case was transferred to the aforesaid court of Additional Session Judge. Appellant was heard on point of charge and the trial court was prima facie satisfied with the case against the accused, therefore, it framed charge against the accused under Section 307 IPC. The charge was read over and explained to the accused in hindi, who denied the charge and claimed to be tried.

Consequently, the prosecution in order to prove the guilt of the accused and substantiate charge against him, produced in all five (5) witnesses, of whom Veerpal P.W.-1 is the informant. He has proved the written report as Ext.Ka-1.

P.W.-2 is Mohan Lal. He is eye-witness of the occurrence and has supported the incident.

P.W.-3 is victim - Pushpa. She has described the incident.

P.W.-4 is Dr. Harish Chandra Dua. He has proved the medical examination report Ext.Ka-3.

P.W.-5 is Omveer Singh. He has proved the investigation conducted by the Investigating Officer and has proved the relevant papers viz. site plan, charge-sheet, relevant entry made in the G.D. concerned, Check FIR, etc.

Thereafter, the evidence for prosecution was closed and statement of the accused was recorded under Section-313 Cr.P.C., wherein, he claimed his implication false.

No evidence was put forth by the defence, either oral or documentary.

The court below after hearing the accused on the merit of the case, recorded aforesaid finding of conviction and sentenced the accused to five years' rigorous imprisonment coupled with fine Rs.1,000/- with default stipulation to suffer additional imprisonment for six months.

Consequently, this appeal.

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P.

It has been vehemently claimed on behalf of the appellant that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused under Section 307 I.P.C. The evidence is woefully wanting on the point of probative force for charge under Section 307 I.P.C. The injury caused shall not be covered within the four corners of Section 307 I.P.C. that in ordinary course, it would have been fatal and would cause death. The appellant has been falsely implicated on account of enmity.

Learned A.G.A. has supported the judgment of conviction and the sentence awarded against the accused and has claimed that charge has been satisfactorily proved.

Insofar as the merit of the case is concerned, obviously the accused is known to the informant and his family, particularly, Pushpa, wife of the informant - the victim.

As per the written report, the incident took place on 25.7.1995 around 7:00 a.m. At that point of time, the informant and his wife were present in their home, when accused Surendra alias Pintu, who is son of aunt (mausi) of the informant and who is his neighbour, came over there and assaulted Pushpa, wife of the informant with a knife, resulting into her receiving injuries. As per the allegations made in the written report, the accused is a mischievous person and usually used to pick quarrel with other persons. Sometime ago, he had assaulted a person of the locality with a pair of scissors, whereafter he himself consumed poison, but the matter was compromised without informing the police. Due to aforesaid facts, the informant's wife used to admonish the accused asked him not to visit her home, which made him furious. On the fateful day, he came to the house of the informant and assaulted his wife with knife and caused several knife blows, due to which she after sustaining injuries fell on the ground. An alarm was raised, whereupon, Mohan Lal, Pale and Chandrapal arrived on the spot and caught hold of the accused along with the blood-stained knife. The accused was then taken to the police station, where the written report scribed by one Aman Singh was lodged, which is Ext. Ka-1 and memo of knife was also prepared at the police station by Constable Omveer. Memo is Ext. Ka-2. The victim was taken to District Hospital, Ghaziabad where she was medically examined at 8:10 a.m. on 25.7.1995 by Dr. Suresh Chandra Dua who noted two specific injuries on her person.

Injury no. 1 was stab wound over left side chest. 01½ cm. x 3/4 cm. x (02 cm) deep. (Not probed thoroughly) 06 cm below & lateral to left nipple. Injury No.2 was incised wound over back of left arm at the lever of axillary angle 03½ cm x 01½ cm x Muscle deep.

Insofar as the incident is concerned, the testimony of victim is quite consistent. She has proved the incident - that she was present at home at that point of time when the accused came to her home then he picked up knife from her house and assaulted her. The incident was witnessed by Veerpal and Mohal Lal. On alarm being raised, victim's husband informant Veerpal and the witnesses - Mohal Lal, Pale and Chandrapal - arrived at the spot and caught hold of the accused along with the blood-stained knife. Thereafter, the accused was taken to the police station along with the recovered knife. The victim was sent to the hospital where her treatment took place. She has stated that the knife blow was caused with the intention to kill her. She has also stated that the accused is son of sister of her mother-in-law. Nothing adverse of the sort has emerged in the cross examination of P.W.-3 - Pushpa (victim) which may cast any shadow of doubt on the point of her description of the incident.

Further P.W.4 Dr. Harish Chandra Dua has also proved the injury and has stated categorically that the injuries could have been caused by sharp-edged weapon around 7:00 a.m. on 25.7.1995. He has denied suggestion that these injuries can be caused by fall on sewing machine or on the utensils. He has categorically stated that injury no. 2 cannot be caused by fall. Regarding injury no. 1, he has specified that it can be caused by any sharp edged weapon. Injury no.1 was on vital part of the body. The doctor did not prove the depth of injury no. 1 on account of safety of the patient/victim.

P.W.-5 S.I. Omveer Singh has testified to the ambit that he was posted at the relevant point of time as head constable of Police Station - Vijay Nagar and he has worked with S.I. Maharana Pratap Singh and Constable Omveer Singh and he is well-acquainted with their hand writing. S.I. Maharana Pratap Singh has since expired, who was I.O. of this case. Therefore on behalf of the Investigating Officer, P.W.-5 has proved the investigation and the relevant papers - site plan and charge-sheet etc, apart from proving the entry made in the Check FIR and the G.D. concerned, whereby the case was lodged and registered against the accused at Police Station - Vijay Nagar on 25.7.1995.

In view of categorical statement of the victim - P.W.-3 Pushpa and P.W.-4 - Dr. Harish Chandra Dua, obviously, the nature of assault, being caused by a sharp edged knife, stands proved. Insofar as the contention regarding want of intention to kill qua nature of injury no.1 caused on the left side of chest is concerned, then obviously, the point for consideration would be the seat of assault on the person of the victim coupled with manner of the assault. Certainly, as many as three knife blows were claimed to have been caused. However, only two injuries on the person of the victim have been noted at the time of her medical examination by the doctor and may be that one assault might have missed, therefore only two injuries were caused. The nature of assault on the chest of the victim is self-explanatory of fact that the accused intended to cause grievous injury and thus caused injury on the left side of the chest and the depth of the stab wound was not thoroughly probed keeping factum of safety of the victim by the doctor. Assault by knife in such a manner on the left side of the chest is itself indicative of the specific intent of the accused as to what he wished to cause by his act. It is not necessary that accused may always succeed in accomplishing his task as desired by him, but sometimes, the circumstances may prevent him from accomplishing his task which may be beyond his control. The very same thing happened in this case and the accused was caught on the spot because of the arrivals of the witnesses.

Insofar as the statement of P.W.-3 - Dr. Harish Chandra Dua is concerned, obviously this injury can be caused by sharp-edged weapon. The injuries are not artificial and no such testimony has been adduced by the doctor.

In view of the presence of injury on the person of the victim and the spot arrest of the accused, the case stands proved beyond reasonable doubt against the accused rightly within the four corners of Section 307 I.P.C. and the court below has justifiably awarded sentence for five years' rigorous imprisonment coupled with fine Rs.1,000/- and in case of default the accused would have to suffer additional imprisonment for six months period.

Consequently, the finding of conviction and the sentence awarded are hereby upheld and affirmed.

This appeal lacks merit and the same is dismissed.

In this case, the accused is in jail. He will suffer the entire sentence imposed by the trial court.

Let a copy of this order be certified to the trial court concerned for information and necessary follow up action.

Order Date :- 24.10.2018

S Rawat