Allahabad High Court
Ghurahu And Ors. vs State Of U.P. on 11 August, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:135634
Court No. - 75
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1183 of 1985
Appellant :- Ghurahu And Ors.
Respondent :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Appellant :- Amar Saran,Shri Niwash Yadav
Counsel for Respondent :- A.G.A.,Lal Behari Yadav
Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.
1. Heard.
2. Challenge to the appeal is the judgment and order dated 02.04.1985 passed by the IV-Additional Sessions Judge, Azamgarh in Sessions Trial No. 194 of 1984 imposing the fine of Rs. 250/- to each appellant under Section 323/34 IPC and in default of the payment of fine 2-2 months imprisonment to each of the appellants.
3. There is an office report dated 17.07.2025 referring to a report of the Chief Judicial Magistrate dated 31.03.2021 along with supporting document that the appellant- Ghurahu has expired 25 years ago. Thus the appeal against appellant- Ghurahu stands abated.
4. The prosecution theory in brief is that Jagarnath, PW-2 had lodged a first information report on 25.09.1978 with an allegation that Doodthnath and his nephew- Ramjeet had gone to the answer nature's call and when Doodhnath was returning then the appellants herein acted as a gang along with one Chandar Bali, co-accused who had a previous rivalry with them and the first appellant, Ghurahu (since deceased) exhorted that they should not leave Doodhnath as he he is a notorious fellow thereafter the co-accused, Chandra Bali, with the help of a spear, gave a blow to the Doodhnath and the third appellant, Ram Brikch with a cudgel on account of the said blow, Doodhnath fell down and expired and the nephew, Ramjeet who was beaten by the accused, sustained injury. The said incident was witnessed by Mohan, Ramdani, Ram Bujarat and Vindhyanchal who came on the spot. It is also alleged that the nephew of the first informant, Ramjeet also with the aid of cudgel also extended injuries to the accused- faction. The written report was got dictated to Kesari Prasad and post conduction of the investigation against the accused-appellant, chargehseet was submitted under Sections 302, 324 and 323 IPC. The investigation was entrusted to Shri Sambhu Nath Singh who got the punchnama done and prepared the challan and got the postmortem done while sending the dead body. In order to prove the charge, the followings were produced as the prosecution witnesses:
(a) Surajbali Chaudhry, PW1
(b) Jagarnath, PW-2
(c) Ramjeet, PW-3
(d) Vindayachal, PW-4
(e) Dr. S.N.P. Sinha, PW-5
(f) Dr. O.P. Khatri, PW-6
5. Post recording of the statements, the appellants herein were convicted under Sections 323/34 of the IPC and they were sentenced with the fine of Rs. 250/- to each. Further so far as the co-accused is concerned, Chandra Bali, he was convicted under Section 302/34 of the IPC.
6. During the pendency of the present appeal, the appeal against Ghurahu died so the appeal against him stands abated.
7. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the appellants have been falsely implicated in the case as they have not committed any offence. Submission is that there was no intention of the appellants to inflict injury upon the deceased and the injured, particularly, when as per the own case of the prosecution, the co-accused, Chandra Bali was having his spear in his hand on account of the blow so extended by the co-accused Chandra Bali, Doodhnath suffered injuries as he died on the spot. Submission is that the injuries so sustained by the nephew of Ramjeet has not been extended by any act or omission of the appellants, particularly, when the second appellant, Gariban has himself come up with the stand that on 25.09.1978, the father of the Doodhnath told that near the house of Ram Birkch, the third appellant, a panchayat was convened and on account of some heated exchange, Doodhnath was hitting him with the spear. Contention is that the appellants- faction have also sustained injuries that too through the spear and other weapons which the first informant- faction was having.
8. Learned counsel for the appellants has also submitted that no such incident whatsoever occurred as since the place of occurrence is an under cloud. Learned counsel for the appellants also submits that the incident is dated 25.09.1978 and the more than 46 years have passed and there is nothing on record to show that the appellants possess criminal history.
9. Learned AGA on the other hand submits that a perusal of the allegations contained in the first information report as well as the testimony of the witnesses itself lead to one conclusion that there was an inter se fight between both the factions, pursuant whereto the injuries were sustained and the appellants herein have only been convicted under Section 323/34 of the IPC as the appellants- faction also sustained injuries. He submits that since there are direct allegations against the appellants, thus, the conviction and sentence so ordered by the court below cannot be said to be perverse.
10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records carefully.
11. Apparently, the first information report stood logged on 25.09.1978 with an allegation that the deceased Doodhnath had gone to answer nature's call and while he was returning, the appellants herein alongwith other co-accused, Chandra Bali came there and at that point of time, Ramjeet was also there, the accused Ghurahu exhorted the deceased, Doodhtnath while saying that today he should not be spared and thereafter Chandra Bali with the aid of spear had hit Doodhtnath, pursuant whereto, he sustained injuries and fell down and died and Ram Brikch with the help of cudgel extended injury to Ramjeet, pursuant whereto he also sustained injuries.
12. The court below has meticulously analyzed the document available on record and on that basis had come to the conclusion that both the factions had sustained injuries. The court below also point out that since the injury so sustained pursuant whereto Doodhnath died, was an account of the blow extended by the Chandra Bali, thus, he was convicted under Section 302 of the IPC and so far as the appellants are concerned, they were only convicted under Section 323/34 of the IPC. Since from the record, it is apparent that injuries were extended to Ramjeet, thus, it is not a case of no injury, particularly, when the FIR alleges that the appellant was having cudgel in their hand.
13. Bearing in mind the fact that the injuries were sustained on the both side, thus, this Court is of the opinion that the judgment and the order under challenge convicting the appellant under Section 323/34 IPC and expect in reducing of fine to Rs. 250/- to Rs. 200/- each does not require any interference.
14. Accordingly, the appeal stands allowed in part.
15. The conviction of the appellants under Section 323/34 IPC is upheld. However, the sentence of the offence under Section 323/34 IPC with a fine of Rs. 250/- is reduced to Rs.200/-. The fine amount imposed upon the accused-appellant for the aforesaid offence shall be deposited by the appellant within three months from today. In case of default in payment of fine amount within the aforesaid period, the appellant shall serve out the entire sentence awarded to him by the trial court vide impugned judgment and order.
16. Let a copy of the judgment along with trial court record be sent to the Sessions Court, Azamgarh for compliance.
17. A compliance report be sent to this Court.
18. A copy of the order be provided to the counsel for the appellant as well as learned AGA as per rule.
Order Date :- 11.8.2025
A. Prajapati
