Allahabad High Court
Krishna Kumar Singh And Ors.2 vs State Of U.P. on 12 April, 2023
Bench: Mohd. Faiz Khan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 12
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 627 of 2001
Appellant :- Krishna Kumar Singh And Ors.2
Respondent :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Appellant :- S.B.Singh,Brij Mohan Sahai
Counsel for Respondent :- Govt.Advocate
Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.
It is informed by learned counsel for the appellant that surviving appellant- Smt. Kunti Devi is present before this Court. Her presence is noted.
Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that he is ready to argue the appeal. Thus, the instant appeal is being heard in lieu of the consensus arrived at between learned counsel for the parties.
Heard Shri Amar Singh, Advocate holding brief of Shri Brij Mohan Sahai, learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the record.
The instant appeal has been filed by the appellant- Smt. Kunti Devi against the judgment and order dated 08.08.2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge IXth, Lucknow in S.T. No. 492 of 1995, under Sections 308, 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C., arising out of Case Crime No. 334 of 1992, Police Station Chinhat, District Lucknow, whereby the appellant was convicted for the offence under Sections 308, 504 and 506 I.P.C. and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 02 years pertaining to Section 308 I.P.C. with fine of Rs. 5000/-, six months' rigorous imprisonment pertaining to Section 504 I.P.C. with fine of Rs. 500/- and six months' rigorous imprisonment pertaining to Section 506 I.P.C. with fine of Rs. 500/-.
Learned counsel for the appellant at the outset submits that he is having instructions from the surviving appellant, who is present in this Court also that she doesn't want to press the appeal so far as her conviction under Section 308 read with Section 34 I.P.C. and 504, 506 I.P.C. is concerned and the only grievance of the appellant is that, at the time of sentencing the trial Court has not considered the provisions as contained under Section 360 and 361 Cr.P.C. as well as of Section 4 and 5 of the Probation of First Offenders Act, 1958, while it was apparent on the record that the appellant is a lady and her conviction was made with the help of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and also that she was not having any previous criminal history. Thus, the appellant- Smt. Kunti Devi was entitled for the benefit of Section 4 and 5 of the Probation of First Offenders Act, 1958.
Learned A.G.A. on the other hand submits that appellant has committed the offence in connivance with the other accused persons and, therefore, is not entitled for any discretion.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it is transpired that though, learned counsel for the appellant has not challenged the judgment and order of the trial Court, so far as the conviction part is concerned, but having regard to the duty of the first appellate Court to satisfy itself about the manner in which the appreciation of evidence has been done by the trial Court, this Court has entered into the area of apprehension of evidence in order to satisfy its judicial conscience, as to whether the trial Court has committed any error or illegality in appreciating the evidence available on record and have found that it is a case where two persons namely Smt. Raghurai and Lallan Singh were injured. One of the injured, namely Lallan Singh was produced by the prosecution before the trial Court and apart from the injured Lallan Singh another eye witness P.W.-2/Mohan Lal was testified. The testimony of these two witnesses, in the considered opinion of this Court, is having a ring of truth around it and the trustworthy testimony of these two witnesses have also been supported by the medical evidence and, thus, keeping in view all the facts and evidence which has been tendered by the prosecution before the trial Court, no illegality appears to have been committed by the trial Court in convicting the appellants for committing the offence under Section 308/34, 504 and 506 I.P.C.
Coming to the sentencing part of the judgment, it is the case of the prosecution that at first appellant- Krishna Kumar Singh had started assaulting the son of the informant namely Lallan Singh and thereafter when informant came to his rescue, the wife of Krishna Kumar Singh, i.e. Smt. Kunti Devi (surviving appellant) started assaulting her, whereby the informant as well as the injured Lallan Singh sustained severe injuries. Thus, the case of the prosecution was that it was Krishna Kumar Singh, who had assaulted Lallan Singh and the instant appellant had assaulted Raghurai. Simple injuries are shown to have sustained by injured Raghurai, which are of the nature of contusion and lacerated wound. All injuries except injury no.2 were designated as 'simple' and on the X-ray being done no fracture was found. However, the injured Lallan Singh is shown to have sustained two injuries and one of the injury on his forehead was advised X-ray beneath this injury fracture was also found.
Thus, it is evident that the instant appellant- Smt. Kunti Devi is shown to have assaulted injured Raghurai and she has not sustained fracture of any limb. It is worthwhile to recall that during the pendency of the instant appeal, appellant- Krishna Kumar Singh as well as Smt. Sarla Devi have died and proceedings of this appeal have been abated against them. Thus, the only surviving appellant is appellant- Smt. Kunti Devi.
Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of the case especially that the surviving appellant- Smt. Kunti Devi is a lady, the role of assault to injured Raghurai has been attributed to her and injured Raghurai has not sustained any fracture of any limb. Admittedly the appellant is not having any previous criminal history. Incident is of the year 1992 and in these 31 years since the happening of the unfortunate incident no untoward incident has been reported between the parties, which may manifestly reflects that parties are living in peace, in the considered opinion of this Court, benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of First Offenders Act, 1958 may be provided to the instant appellant- Smt. Kunti Devi.
Resultantly, the appeal is partly allowed and while conviction of the appellant for committing the offences under 308/34, 504 and 506 I.P.C. is maintained and Judgment of the trial court in this regard is affirmed, the appellant is granted the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of First Offenders Act, 1958. Thus, appellant- Smt. Kunti Devi instead of sentence at once is released on probation of good conduct for 01 year. Appellant shall file a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- and two sureties of the like nature and also an undertaking that he shall keep peace in the society and shall not commit any such offence in future.
In case of breach of any of the aforesaid condition, appellant will subject herself to undergo the sentence.
Let the copy of this order as well as the lower court record, if received, be transmitted to the concerned Trial Court, forthwith for necessary compliance.
Order Date :- 12.4.2023
Praveen
