Dinesh Singh @ Dullar vs State Of U.P.
2023 Latest Caselaw 25309 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:60110
 
Court No. - 13
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 66 of 2000
 

 
Appellant :- Dinesh Singh @ Dullar
 
Respondent :- State of U.P.
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Ramesh Singh,Amit Kumar Singh,Surendra Pratap Singh
 
Counsel for Respondent :- Govt Advocate
 

 
Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

1. Heard Sri Ramesh Singh, learned counsel for the appellant learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the record.

2. The present appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 28.01.2000 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, XIV Lucknow in Sessions Trial No.358/97, "State Vs. Dinesh Singh @ Dullar", arising out of Case Crime No.2/1995, under Sections 307 I.P.C., Police Station Banthra, District Lucknow, whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 307 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo 4 years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, appellant would undergo further six months additional rigorous imprisonment.

3. It is alleged in the prosecution case that on 04.01.1995 at about 10:00 am, the complainant's brother Veer Pal Singh while going to teach by bicycle through canal, the accused Dinesh Singh and Rajesh Yadav reached there on the canal and stopped him and said that since his wife shows slipper to their mother therefore, they will kill him today. He ran towards Shahpur through dry canal then Dinesh Singh and Rajesh yadav fired upon him with intention to kill him. They made total seven fires which came upon Veer Pal Singh. After hearing firearm, several people reached there on the place of incident. The complainant also saw the incident. After seeing the crowd gathering, the accused ran away. The complainant along with his brother went to the Police Station and gave a Tehrir. On that basis F.I.R. was registered and investigation was started. Veer Pal Singh was medically examined. Investigating Officer had completed the formalities, taken the statements of the prosecution witnesses, made the site plan, took the sample of the blood stained earth and plain earth, cartridges, empty cartridges etc. and prepared the recovery memo and also seize the blood stained cloths of the injured and file the charge-sheet against the accused under Section 307 IPC. The co-accused Rajesh was juvenile hence was tried by Juvenile Justice Board.

4. Prosecution in support of its case has produced PW-1 Ratipal Singh, PW-2 Veer Pal Singh, PW-3 Dr. S.K. Hasan, PW-4, Ganga Baksha Singh, Investigating Officer, PW-5 Ram Shanker Dwivedi, Constable.

5. In the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the case of the accused is of denial and have said that due to enmity the complainant who happens to be his pattidar has falsely implicated him as he was not happy that accused persons are living at their in laws house on the property of their maternal aunt and uncle.

6. PW-1 is the eye witness who has given the written report and has supported the prosecution case.

PW-2 is the injured witness, Veer Pal Singh, who has also supported the prosecution case and has alleged that both the accused persons by a country made pistol has fired upon him and total 7 times they fired which came on his hand, back, chest and head. His thumb has to be amputated due to gangrene and pellets are taking his body.

PW-3, Dr. S.K. Hasan who has medically examined the injured has found the following injuries on the person of the injured:-

"1. ???????? ???????????? ?? ????? (??? ??? ???) 20??????x14?????? ???? ??? ??? ???????? ?? 8 ?????? ???? (0.2 ?????? x 0.2??????x????? ???????? ???) ?????? ????? ?? ???? ???????? ??? ??? ??? ??? ????-?? ?? ??? ?? ???? ???? ?? ?????? ?? ??? ???? ?????

2. ???? ??? ??? ??? (???????????? ??) 20??????x 30?????? ???? ???? ??? ??? ???-1 ?? 8 ?????? ??? ??? ??? ??? ???-1 ?? ???? ?? ??? ?? ???????? ??? ??? ??? ??? ????-?? ?? ???? ?? ???? ???? ?????? ?? ??? ???? ???

3. ???? ??? ??? ??? (???????????? ?? ) 22 ??????x 13 ?????? ???? ??? ?? ????? ?? 14 ?????? ???? ???? ?? ????? ??? 0.2??????x 0.2?????? ??????? ????? ?? ??? ??? ?????? ?? ??? ????? ??, ????? ?? ??? ????? ???? ??? ?????? ????? ???

4. ??? ??? ??? 7 ?????? x 5 ?????? ?????? ??? ???? ??? ??? ?? ???? 7 ?????? ???? ??? ?? ????

5. ???? ?? ??? ??? ??? (???????????? ??) 12 ??????x10 ?????? ???? ?? ????? ??? ?? ??? ?? 4 ?????? ??? ??? 0.2 ?????? x 0.2???????

6. ???? ?? ??? ??? ??? (???????????? ??) 22 ?????? x 12?????? ?????? ??? ?? ???? ?? ?????? ???? 0.2 ?????? x 0.2?????? ?????? ????? ???

7. ???? ??? ??? ??? (???????????? ??) 21 ??????x7?????? ??? ? ???? ?? 8 ?????? ???? ?? ??? 11? ????? ?? ??????? ??? .02 ?????? x 0.2??????

8 ???? ??? ??? ??? 10 ?????? x 6?????? ?????? ??? ?? ???? ?? ??? ??? ?? ??? ??? 0.2 ?????? x 0.2???????

9. ???? ??? ??? ??? 8 ?????? x 4?????? ?????? ??? ?? ????? ?? ????

10. ???? ??? ??? ??? 13 ?????? x 8?????? ?????? ?????? ?? 3 ?????? ??? ?? ?????"

He has stated that except injury No.4, all the injuries came from firearm. Injury No.4 was caused by the blunt object. He has corroborated the prosecution case that injuries could have come on 04.01.1995 at about 10:00 am.

PW-4 the Investigating Officer has proved the Ex.1 to 5 as well as Ex.ka-6 which is charge-sheet.

7. On perusal of the injury report, this Court finds that there were ten injuries on the person of the injured and according to Dr. S.K. Hasan, PW-3 except Injury No.4, all the other injuries were caused by the firearm.

8. There is slight defect in the investigation as the Investigating Officer has not found any blood stain at the place of occurrence and the bicycle of the accused and injured was not seized.

9. Statement of PW-1 and PW-2 regarding the direction of canal where the incident had allegedly taken place slightly varies, however, this does not make the prosecution case doubtful as the statement of the injured is intact who has suffered 10 injuries and which is duly corroborated by the injury report as well as the statement of the doctor.

10. Learned counsel for the appellant, at this stage, submits that he is not challenging the conviction order passed by the trial court; rather he is confining his submission on the sentence part. He submits that keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and the antiquity of the incident which was occurred in the year 1995, coupled with the age of the appellant, he may not be sent to jail; instead some compensation may be awarded under Section 357 Cr.P.C. to the victim/informant.

11. Learned A.G.A. submits that even if he is not assailing the conviction order, the sentence may not be reduced unless some reasonable compensation is given by the accused appellant.

12. Sri Ramesh Singh, learned counsel for appellant has taken oral instructions from the deponent during the course of argument and he submits that accused is willing to pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation to the injured.

13. Keeping in view the fact that almost 28 years have passed since the incident and there is no other criminal antecedent of the appellant who is said to be more than fifty years of age, it would be just and proper to reduce the sentence to the period already undergone. Ordered accordingly.

14.The appeal is allowed in aforesaid terms.

15. In view of the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 357 Cr.P.C. and meet the ends of justice, the appellant-Dinesh Singh @ Dullar is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.25,000/- before the trial court within a period of two months from the date of this order. The trial court shall release the said amount in favour of the victim/informant.

16. In case of default in making the payment as directed above, the appellant shall be taken into custody and he shall serve out a simple imprisonment of six months.

17. Registry is directed to send a copy of this order along with the lower court record to the trial court immediately.

Order Date :- 19.9.2023

Saurabh Yadav/-