Allahabad High Court
Anil And Another vs State Of U.P. on 23 July, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:121155
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
*****
(SL No.526)
Court No. - 78
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1548 of 1983
Appellant :- Anil And Another
Respondent :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Appellant :- Seema Pandey,Tejpal
Counsel for Respondent :- A.G.A.
Hon'ble Anish Kumar Gupta,J.
1. Heard Ms. Seema Pandey, learned Amicus Curiae for the applicants and Sri S.K. Ojha, learned A.G.A.-Ist for the State.
2. The instant criminal appeal was filed by the appellants against the judgment and order dated 19.05.1983, passed by the Special Judge, Agra, in Sessions Trial No. 583 of 1982, whereby the appellants herein were convicted for the offence under Section 393 readwith Section 397 I.P.C., and were sentenced to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment and by the same judgment, the co-accused, Vishnu, was acquitted.
3. The instant appeal was admitted on 04.07.1983, and the appellants herein were granted bail on 02.11.1983.
4. The briefly stated prosecution case is that the informant, Sohan Swarup, submitted a written report at 3:10 P.M. on 27.02.1982 at P.S.- Kotwali, District- Agra, stating therein that at about 2:30 P.M., the informant, along with his brother Ram Narain and servant Puppi, were coming towards the shop. The informant was inside the shop, and Ram Narain was standing outside the shop. In the meanwhile, the accused, Anil, Bhima, Pradeep, and one more person came and asked his brother to hand over Rs. 500/- to him. They also threatened him to kill. His brother refused to hand over the amount, and thereafter Anil slapped him. Pradeep told the other co-accused persons to kill him, as a consequence of this, Bhima fired at Ram Narain, which struck his buttock, and Anil also fired upon him, which struck to his leg. Ram Narain fell down on the spot due to the injuries. The incident was seen by one Kalua and Puppi, and many others. Thereafter, the accused persons ran away from the spot.
5. It is further mentioned that thereafter the informant took the injured Ram Narain to the hospital and, thereafter, came to the police station, and submitted a written report, upon such written report the F.I.R. was lodged at the P.S.- Kotwali for the offenses under Sections 393/397 I.P.C. Thereafter, the investigation was conducted, and the chargesheet was filed only against the three persons, namely, appellant no.1 Anil, appellant no.2 Bhima, and one Vishnu. Thereafter, the case was committed to the Sessions Court for trial, charges were framed and the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
6. In support of its case, the prosecution examined the five witnesses, namely, Sohan Swarup, the informant (PW1), Ram Narain, injured (PW2), Dr. R.C. Agarwal (PW3), who conducted the medical examination of the injured, and Kalua, the independent witness (PW4), of the incident and Sri Ramesh Chand Pathak, the Investigation Officer (PW-5), of the instant case.
7. Thereafter, the statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein they denied the allegations. The accused Anil stated that one Mukesh, the friend of Mohan Swarup, the brother of the informant, was an accused in the murder of his father that is why he has been falsely implicated in the instant case. The trial court, after going through the testimony of the witnesses, concluded the trial and acquitted the accused, Vishnu, and convicted the appellants herein for the offenses under Sections 393 readwith Section 397 I.P.C.
8. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that there are various contradictions in the statements of PW1 and PW2 with regard to their location at the shop, the directions from which they came to the shop, and the direction from which the accused persons fled the spot. Thus, learned counsel for the appellants submits that their evidence is not reliable and as indicated in the statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C., there was a previous enmity, that is why the appellants were falsely implicated in the instant case. In view thereof, learned amicus for the appellants seeks acquittal of the appellants herein.
9. Per contra, learned A.G.A submits that in the instant case, the injured sustained firearm injuries which are attributed to the appellants herein by the injured witnesses, the informant, and also by independent witness, Kalua. Though, there are some minor discrepancies with regard to the location of the informant and the direction in which they were standing or from which direction the accused persons came and to which directions they have ran away. So far as the injuries concerned they are duly corroborated by the medical evidence, and those injuries are the firearm injuries. There is no reason for the injured and his brother to falsely implicate someone other persons than the actual miscreants. So far as the identity of the accused persons is concerned, all three witnesses are firm that only the appellants herein had caused the firearm injury to the victim, Ram Narain and except some minor discrepancies, there is nothing on record to disbelieve the evidence of the said witnesses. Thus, learned A.G.A. submits that the conviction of the appellants and the sentences awarded in the instant case are in accordance with the evidence available on record, therefore, no interference is called for, and the appeal deserves to be dismissed.
10. Having heard the submissions so made by learned counsel for the parties, this Court has carefully gone through the record of the case. The PW1 is the informant, PW2 is the injured, and PW4 Kaluwa is an independent eye witness. All have consistently supported the prosecution case with regard to the incident of injury caused by the appellants herein by firearms. The firearm injuries are duly corroborated by the medical evidence of PW3, Dr. R.C. Agarwal. No material has been brought during the cross-examination to disbelieve the aforesaid witnesses. There can be no witness better than the injured person himself, and who is a more reliable witness and no injured witness will leave the actual assailants and falsely implicate someone else. Therefore, the story of the prosecution, as has come out from the evidence of witnesses PW1, PW2, and PW4, is reliable, and all three witnesses have categorically stated it were the appellants who had caused the injury by firearm to the injured persons. In view thereof, in the considered opinion of this court, though, there are some minor discrepancies in their deposition, but because of such minor discrepancies, their evidence cannot be held to be unreliable.
11. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, there is no illegality in the conviction of the appellants herein for the offences under Section 393 read with Section 397 I.P.C. Since, the trial court has already awarded the minimum sentence provided under Section 397 I.P.C., therefore, no interference can be made in the sentence part of the appellants herein. In view thereof, the instant appeal lacks merit and accordingly is dismissed.
12. The appellants who are on bail are directed to surrender before the trial court concerned for serving out the remaining sentence.
13. The record in the instant case be sent back to the trial court concerned for further necessary action.
14. We appreciate the able assistance provided by Ms. Seema Pandey, learned Amicus Curiae, appointed by this Court, and therefore, an amount of Rs. 10,000/- is directed to be paid to her as honorarium.
Order Date :- 23.7.2025
Shubham Arya
(Anish Kumar Gupta, J.)
