State Of Up vs Sachin Shukla And 3 Others
2024 Latest Caselaw 16494 ALL

Allahabad High Court

State Of Up vs Sachin Shukla And 3 Others on 10 May, 2024

Author: Rahul Chaturvedi

Bench: Rahul Chaturvedi

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:84718-DB
 
Court No. - 67
 

 
Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 200 of 2024
 

 
Appellant :- State of U.P.
 
Respondent :- Sachin Shukla And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Appellant :- A. K. Sand
 

 
Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.
 

Hon'ble Ms. Nand Prabha Shukla,J.

1. Heard Mr.Mohammad Shoeb Khan, learned AGA on behalf of State of UP pursuing this Government appeal under Section 378 (3) Cr.P.C.

2. Present government appeal has been preferred against judgement and order of acquittal dated 12.2.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Jalaun at Orai while deciding Session Trial No.385 of 2017 (State of U.P. vs. Sachin Shukla and others), arising out of Case Crime No.1244 of 2011, u/s 304/34, 323/34, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station-Kotwali Konch, District-Jalaun, whereby the accused-respondents namely, Sachin Shukla, Govind Shukla, Sitasaran Mishra and Bade Lala @ Aanad Mishra have been acquitted from all the charges.

3. After being satisfied, we are proposing to decide the present Government Appeal at the admission stage itself. From the impugned judgment, it is clear that the proposed accused-respondents were convicted for the offences under Section 325/34 IPC awarding three years R.I. with fine of Rs.5,000/-, under Section 323/34 awarding one year R.I. with fine of Rs.1,000/-, under Section 504 one year R.I. with Rs.1,000/- fine and under Section 506 one year R.I. with Rs.1,000/- fine. All the sentences were run concurrently. However, the proposed accused-respondents were acquitted from the charges under Section 304 IPC. Aggrieved by this, the State of UP has preferred this Government Appeal requesting the Court to convict the proposed accused-respondents for the charges under Section 304 IPC.

4. Submission advanced by the counsel is that the informant is Shiva Shukla, who has given a written Tehrir on 17.12.2011 at Police Station-Konch, District-Jalaun that they were shopkeepers along with his family members and were raising their house. There was a public temple and they have to cross the chabootra of the temple, which was objected by the accused-respondents. Around 8:00 in the night, after shutting down their shops, they were coming back, all of a sudden, Sachin Shukla, Govind Shukla, Sitasaran Mishra, Bade Lala @ Anand and 4-5 unknown person assaulted by lathi-danda upon his father Pradeep Shukla and uncle Arun Shukla. Resultantly, they have sustained serious injuries over their head and other part of the body.

5. On this prosecution story, a Case Crime No.1244 of 2011 was lodged under Sections 147, 323 IPC against proposed accused respondents. The matter was referred to SHO Munnalal Agnihotri (PW8) to investigate and after holding a thorough and in-depth probe, the I.O. of the case had prepared a report under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. under Sections 304, 323, 504 and 506 IPC.

6. Being cognizable offence, the case was committed to the court of sessions for trial. The trial court after assessing the material on record have framed the charges against the proposed accused-respondents under Sections 304/34, 323/34, 504 and 506 IPC, which was duly explained to the proposed accused respondents with their denial.

7. To bring home the prosecution case, 9 prosecution witnesses were examined from the side of prosecution and thereafter recorded their statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

8. It has been contended from the side of the defence that Pradeep Shukla have died not on account of the injuries sustained by him, but he was undergone the operation of hernia in which he has developed several complications resulting septicaemia over the organ and as such, Pradeep Shukla died.

9. PW1-Shiva Shukla in his testimony has reiterated the version of FIR that after shutting down their shops near Bharat Gas Agency, the proposed accused-respondents along with 4-5 unknown persons reached near Pradeep Shukla and Anand Shukla on the exortation, all the persons have indiscriminately wielded lathi-danda causing serious head injuries to both of them and when they have fallen down, a war-cry was made to kill them. After sustaining head injuries, they have also given injuries by kicks and fists causing serious injuries over the stomach of the deceased. After raising the cry, Untesh Kumar, Chhuttan Chaturvedi rushed to the place of occurrence, but the assailants fled away from the site by making a mention that they would eliminate the injured persons. On this score, informant's father remained unconscious for 5-10 minutes and he was oozing blood from his mouth. The informant has transported his father Pradeep Shukla and uncle Aurn Kumar to the Government Hospital where the condition of his father was serious whereas his uncle Arun Kumar was shifted to hospital at Jhansi, where superficial treatment was made by the doctors, but his father and uncle eventually sent to Medical College, Jhansi, where they are remained admitted for treatment for 18.12.2011 to 28.12.2011. Both the injured persons were asked to undergo radiological report and it was found that there was fracture over the head. His father was sustained injuries over the head and stomach. His father remained in hospital over 28.12.2011 and thereafter he was discharged, but has again developed certain complications and again readmitted on 2.1.2012 and on account of Septicaemia, he died during treatment on 12.1.2012 around 10:26 a.m.

10. In this regard, the testimony of Dr.Basant Lal (PW4), who was E.M.O. of the hospital occupies his significance. The doctor, during his treatment opined that Pradeep Kumar Shukla aged about 53 years, who died during treatment, have sustained following injuries over his persons:

"1. बाए Tempo parietal bone में कम्प्रेस्ड फ्रेक्चर, उसके ऊपर Soft Tissue swelling मौजूद थी। साथ में Parietal haematoma मौजूद थे। Under line brain contusion था।

2. पेट के दाए तरफ Umbilicus के समान्तर Umbilicus से 6 सी०एम० दाए तरफ Incision line (चीरा) लगा है। जो कि 12से०मी० लम्बा है। उसमें टांके लगे थे। Incision lineथी, यह इंजरी 6-7 दिन पुरानी थी जिस पर जाली लगी थी। 20-21 साल पहले की ऑपरेशन के चिन्ह थे। (पथरी का):

3. Contusion over right side of neck latteral aspect midpart ( गले के दाए तरफ बीच में) 0.5Cm X 0.5Cm था।

4. पेट के अंदर मवाद भरा हुआ था व आंते आपस में चिपक गयी थी।"

The cause of death is due to ante mortem injury sustained by the injured over his head and developing infection/septicaemia. The doctor has denied the suggestion that injuries sustained by the deceased over his stomach would be caused by serious fists injury.

11. Dr.Abudulla Ansari (PW6) examined the injured Arun Shukla and Pradeep Kumar Shukla and according to him, all the injuries 2, 3 and 4 were simple in nature whereas injury No.1 was kept under observation. The injured was complaining the paid in the whole body.

12. After threshing te witnesses of fact, the court has framed five issues for the determination:

(a) As to whether the FIR was lodged after unexplained delay?

(b) What is the motive behind committing the offence?

(c) As to whether the place of occurrence is beyond any iota of doubt?

(d) As to whether Sachin Shukla, Govind Shukla, Sita Saran Mishra and Bade Lala @ Anand Mishra on 17.12.2011 around 8:00 p.m. committed the maar-peet with Arun Shukla and Pradeep Shukla and they have extended threats to their lives?

(e) Whether the accused-respondents were aware of the fact that Pradeep Shukla has undergone some injury or surgery prior to the present incident causing head injury over their person and causing his death?

13. After examining version and counter version of the case, the learned trial Judge has come to the following conclusion:

"अभियुक्तगण के विद्वान अधिवक्ता द्वारा दौरान बहस में यह कथन किया गया कि दोनों पक्षों के मध्य मकान के रास्ते को लेकर विवाद था जिसके कारण दोनों पक्षों के मध्य झगड़ा दिनांक 17.11.2011 को हुआ जिसमें दोनों पक्षों को चोटें आई। इस केस का क्रॉस केस राज्य बनाम प्रदीप कुमार व अन्य सत्र परीक्षण संख्या 129/2018 है उसमें सीता शरण के सर पर गम्भीर चोटें आई। मृतक प्रदीप शुक्ला को झगड़े के दौरान जो चोटें आई थी वह दिनांक 22.12.2011 को ठीक हो गई थी। उसे दिनांक 28.12.2011 को डिस्चार्ज भी कर दिया गया था। तत्पश्चात् दिनांक 02.01.2012 को मृतक प्रदीप शुक्ला को दोबारा झांसी मेडिकल कॉलेज में एडमिट कराया गया जहां उसके हर्निया का ऑपरेशन हुआ तथा ऑपरेशन के पश्चात् (सेफ्टीसीमिया इन्फैक्शन के कारण उसकी मृत्यु हुई) चिकित्सीय प्रमाणपत्र के अवलोकन से भी विदित होता है कि मजरुव मृतक प्रदीप शुक्ला के पेट पर कोई चोट नहीं आई थी। उसने इसकी शिकायत तत्कालीन डॉक्टर को नहीं की थी तथा झगड़े के दौरान किसी के पेट में लात मारे जाने पर उसे हर्निया हो जाये तो ऐसी अवस्था में पीड़ित को असहनीय दर्द होता है, परन्तु प्रथम चिकित्सीय प्रपत्रों से विदित होता है कि उसके पेट में कोई चोट नहीं लगी थी, मात्र सर में चोट लगी थी और वह भी चार दिन पश्चात् ठीक हो गई। तत्पश्चात् दिनांक 28.11.2012 को पीड़ित प्रदीप शुक्ला को डिस्चार्ज किया गया, परन्तु दोबारा हर्निया के दर्द के कारण उसे दिनांक 02.01.2012 को झांसी मेडिकल कॉलेज में भर्ती कराया गया जहां उसका ऑपरेशन हुआ और लापरवाही के कारण उसे सेफ्टीसीमिया हुआ और उसकी मृत्यु हो गई।"

"इसने अपनी प्रतिपरीक्षा में यह भी कथन किया कि उसने प्रदर्श क-12 में बाहरी चोटों का वर्णन किया। अन्दरूनी चोटों के बारे में नहीं लिखा। उसने कोई अन्दरूनी चोट नहीं पायी थी। पेट की कोई चोट नहीं लिखी है। ऐसी अन्दरूनी चोट जो पैर या पैर के जूते से आ सकती है वह उसने नहीं लिखी है। उसने प्रतिपरीक्षा में आगे कथन किया कि उसने मजरूव अरूण शुक्ला व प्रदीप शुक्ला के पेट में कोई चोट नहीं पायी। उक्त मजरूबों ने पेट में दर्द होना भी नहीं बताया। पूरे शरीर में दर्द बताया था। अतः यह पी०डब्लू०6 डॉक्टर अब्दुला अंसारी व डॉक्टर है जिसने सर्वप्रथम मृतक प्रदीप शुक्ला का इलाज किया था। घटना के तुरन्त बाद वे लोग उरई जिला अस्पताल आये, परन्तु प्रदीप शुक्ला द्वारा उन्हें पेट में चोट लगने अथवा दर्द होने का कथन नहीं किया गया न ही उसने पेट पर किसी चोट के निशान अथवा सूजन होना पाया हो। अपितु मृतक प्रदीप शुक्ला के सर में चोट पायी गयी।"

14. Before proceeding further, it would be appropriate to take note of law on the appeal against acquittal.

15. Since it is a government appeal against the acquittal, it will be relevant to note the principles of law laid down by the Apex Court with regard to the appreciation of evidence in the appeal against the acquittal. Recently in Mallappa v. State of Karnataka, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 130, the Apex Court has held as under:-

"37. Our criminal jurisprudence is essentially based on the promise that no innocent shall be condemned as guilty. All the safeguards and the jurisprudential values of criminal law, are intended to prevent any failure of justice. The principles which come into play while deciding an appeal from acquittal could be summarized as:

(i) Appreciation of evidence is the core element of a criminal trial and such appreciation must be comprehensive - inclusive of all evidence, oral or documentary;

(ii) Partial or selective appreciation of evidence may result in a miscarriage of justice and is in itself a ground of challenge;

(iii) If the Court, after appreciation of evidence, finds that two views are possible, the one in favour of the accused shall ordinarily be followed;

(iv) If the view of the Trial Court is a legally plausible view, mere possibility of a contrary view shall not justify the reversal of acquittal;

(v) If the appellate Court is inclined to reverse the acquittal in appeal on a re-appreciation of evidence, it must specifically address all the reasons given by the Trial Court for acquittal and must cover all the facts;

(vi) In a case of reversal from acquittal to conviction, the appellate Court must demonstrate an illegality, perversity or error of law or fact in the decision of the Trial Court."

16. In the case of Bannareddy and others vs. State of Karnataka and others, (2018) 5 SCC 790, in paragraph 10, the Hon'ble Apex Court has considered the power and jurisdiction of the High Court while interfering in an appeal against acquittal and in paragraph 26 it has been held that "the High Court should not have reappreciated the evidence in its entirety, especially when there existed no grave infirmity in the findings of the trial Court. There exists no justification behind setting aside the order of acquittal passed by the trial Court, especially when the prosecution case suffers from several contradictions and infirmities."

17. In Jayamma vs. State of Karnataka, 2021 (6) SCC 213, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been pleased to explain the limitations of exercise of power of scrutiny by the High Court in an appeal against an order of acquittal passed by a Trial Court.

18. In a recent judgement of this Court in Virendra Singh vs. State of UP and others, 2022 (3) ADJ 354 DB, the law on the issue involved has been considered.

19. Similar view has been reiterated by Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajesh Prasad vs. State of Bihar and another, (2022) 3 SCC 471.

20. We have perused the conclusion drawn by the learned trial Judge and comparing the same with the testimony of various witnesses, we are of the considered opinion that the conclusion drawn by the learned trial Judge is flawless and firm-footed, which requires no interference from our side in exercise of powers under Section 378 (3) Cr.P.C. The finding recorded is apt and he has taken a plausible view of the matter. There is no denial of the fact that the deceased died on account of Septicaemia suggestive of the fact that there was a maltreatment by the doctor, which resulted into Septicaemia and, therefore, it does not warrant any interference from our side.

21. The finding recorded by the learned trial judge is perfectly just and valid and deserves no interference in exercise of power under Section 378 (3) Cr.P.C. The submission advanced by learned counsel for the appellant is devoid of merit and liable to be rejected.

22. Thus, after thrashing the entire evidence on record and after critically analysing the submissions advanced and the findings recorded by the learned trial Court, we are of the considered opinion that the judgment of the trial court does not suffer from any illegality or non-appreciation of evidence. The reasoning adopted by the learned trial Judge is quite sound and suitable which do not warrant any interference.

23. We, therefore, find that the trial court has taken a plausible and possible view of the matter on appreciation of entire evidence on record, which cannot be substituted by this Court by taking a different view as per the law discussed above. We also do not find that the findings recorded by the trial court are palpably wrong, manifestly erroneous or demonstrably unsustainable.

24. We have critically examined the entire judgment given by the learned trial judge and we are in the agreement with the conclusion drawn by the learned trial judge, which deserves no interference from this Court in exercise of power under Section 378 (3) Cr.P.C. The judgment and order is firm-footed and this appeal is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed.

25. Accordingly, it is not a case worth granting leave to appeal. The application for granting leave to appeal is rejected.

Re: Government Appeal

1. Consequently, since the Criminal Misc. Application (Leave to Appeal) is rejected by order of date, the present government appeal is also dismissed.

Order Date :- 10.5.2024

LN Tripathi