Allahabad High Court
Lallu Shukla vs State Of U.P. on 18 August, 2022
Bench: Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Court No. - 15
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 585 of 2004
Appellant :- Lallu Shukla
Respondent :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Appellant :- Arun Sinha
Counsel for Respondent :- Govt.Advocate
Hon'ble Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I,J.
1. Heard Sri Arun Sinha, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri B.R. Chaubey, learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. By means of the instant appeal, the appellant has assailed the judgment and order dated 24.02.2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court 1), District Lucknow in Sessions Trial No.1134/2002, arising out of Crime No.118/2000, under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as "I.P.C."), Police Station Hasanganj, District Lucknow, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced for two years' rigorous imprisonment each for the offene under Section 324 I.P.C. and Rs.2,000/- as a fine and in case of default of aforesaid fine, six months' additional imprisonment.
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the first informant, Kalawati Mishra submitted a written report at Police Station Hasanganj, District Lucknow, stating therein that on 29.03.2000 her grand daughter, Preeti @ Gudda, Shivsagar Sharma, Subham Mishra and Sagar Mishra were playing on the roof of her house. At about 6.00 P.M. in the evening her neighbor, the sole appellant opened fire from the roof top of his house on the children who were playing on the roof top of the house of first informant with the intention to kill them. It caused fire arm injuries to the grand daughter of first informant, Preeti @ Gudda. She was taken to the hospital K.G.M.C., Lucknow and was treated in emergency ward.
4. On the basis of aforesaid written report, first information report, came to be lodged as Crime No.118/2000, under Section 307 I.P.C., Police Station Hasanganj, District Lucknow.
5. Investigating Officer, P.W.-5, S.I. A.K. Mishra, undertook the investigation. He recorded the statements of witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. He also visited the place of occurrence and prepared site plan thereof as Ex. Ka-7. He collected the blood stained of cloth of victim and prepared memo, Ext. Ka-8. He made recovery of Gun, who was allegedly used in the commission of offence and prepared a recovery memo thereof, Ext. Ka-9. Upon conclusion of investigation, he submitted the charge sheet as Ex. Ka-11 against the appellant.
6. The injured Preeti @ Gudda was medically examined by PW-3, Dr. Chandrashekhar. He has prepared her injury report and proved the same as Ext. Ka-6. He has reported five injuries on the body of the injured which were likely to have been caused by gun shot.
7. The accused/appellants were charged under Section 307 I.P.C. to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
8. In order to bring home guilt of appellants, the prosecution has examined five prosecution witnesses, PW-1, Smt. Kalawati Mishra, first informant, PW-2, Kanchanlata, PW-3, Dr. Chandrashekhar, PW-4, Ravi Sharma, PW-5, S.I. A.K. Mishra.
9. The statement of appellant was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. In his detailed statement, the appellant has denied the allegations levelled against him. He has stated to have been falsely implicated.
10. No evidence in defence was adduced by the appellant before the trial Court.
11. Learned trial Court convicted the sole applicant by means of impugned order dated 24.02.2004 and sentenced him as aforesaid. Hence this appeal.
12. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant has submitted that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case due to enmity. His further submission is that in view of aforesaid finding of guilt and resultant sentencing is palpably illegal, which deserves to be set aside. He, while concluding his arguments, has fairly admitted that keeping in view the fact that the alleged incident took place on 29.03.2000, which came to be decided by the impugned judgment and order dated 24.02.2004, after about four years and since then the instant appeal also kept pending. The appellants have, thus, undergone a traumatic phase of about 22 years. Therefore, he has submitted that he would not dispute the impugned judgment whereby the appellants have been held guilty. However, he has submitted that the fact remains that the injured and the appellants belong from the same village and they are aged also. He has undergone a long traumatic phase of about 22 years since the date of incident.
13. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants. He submits that the accused-appellant has been convicted by the learned trial Court after proper appreciation of evidence available against him.
14. Learned A.G.A. has further submitted that the prosecution has proved its case against the appellant on the basis of cogent evidence. The appellant has been convicted by the impugned judgment and order which is well discussed and reasoned, wherein no interference by this Court is warranted. However, he is unable to dispute the other factual submission advanced by learned counsel for the appellant.
15. Having heard learned counsel for parties and upon close scrutiny of record including testimonies of prosecution witnesses, this Court even otherwise finds that the finding of guilt of accused-appellants is based on cogent evidence of first informant and injured witnesses. The injured Preeti @ Gudda was medically examined by PW-3, Dr. Chandrashekhar and he has prepared her injury report and proved the same as Ext. Ka-6. He has reported five injuries on the body of the injured which were likely to have been caused by gun shot. Therefore, no fault with the finding of guilt of the accused-appellants can be found. However, this fact remains undisputed that the injured and the appellant belong from the same village and now they are aged also. He has undergone a long traumatic phase of about 22 years since the date of incident. There is nothing on record to show that the appellant is either having any criminal antecedents or he is prior convict.
16. In the light of the above discussions, this Court finds no illegality in the impugned judgment. Thus, the conviction of the accused-appellant under Section 324 I.P.C. is upheld. However, sentence, as indicated above, is liable to be modified.
17. The upshot of aforesaid discussion is that the conviction of the the accused-appellant under Section 324 I.P.C. is upheld, however, the sentence is modified to the extent that the appellant is sentenced to the period already undergone by him in Crime No.118/2000, Police Station Hasanganj, District Lucknow. The fine of Rs.2,000/- awarded by the trial court is hereby maintained. The appellant is directed to deposit the fine within two months from today. Thereafter, learned trial Court shall remit the amount of fine so deposited by the appellant to the victim as compensation, in case, she is found to be dead, the same shall be given to her heirs. In case the amount of fine is not deposited within the stipulated period, the appellant will undergo simple imprisonment of six months. The appellant is on bail. His bail bond is canceled. Sureties are discharged. He need not surrender, in case, he is not wanted in any other case.
18. With the above modification, the instant criminal appeal is partly allowed.
19. In compliance of the provision contained in Section 437-A Cr.P.C. the accused-appellant is directed to furnish personal bond and two sureties to the satisfaction of the court concerned within a period of six weeks from today.
20. A copy of this order be communicated to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance through e-mail/fax.
Order Date :- 18.08.2022
A.Dewal
[Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I, J]
