Ram Behari vs State Of U.P.
2025 Latest Caselaw 2726 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Ram Behari vs State Of U.P. on 30 July, 2025

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:127266
 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
***** 
 
(SL No.254)
 
Court No. - 78
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 254 of 1986
 

 
Appellant :- Ram Behari
 
Respondent :- State of U.P.
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Pradeep Kumar,Kumar Dhananjay
 
Counsel for Respondent :- A.G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Anish Kumar Gupta,J.
 

1. Heard Sri Kumar Dhananjay, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Om Prakash Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. The instant criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment and order dated 15.01.1986, passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Etawah, in Sessions Trial No. 146 of 1985, whereby the appellant herein was convicted for the offences under Section 307 I.P.C. and was sentenced to undergo four years rigorous imprisonment.

3. The briefly stated prosecution story is that a written report was submitted at the Police Station- Phaphund, District- Etawah, by Smt. Kamla Devi (PW1) alleging that she was married to the accused Ram Behari, appellant herein, one year prior to the incident. During the marriage, her parents had promised to give a cycle and a watch to the appellant herein, which they could not give to the appellant herein, due to which the appellant used to torture the informant and her sister-in-law (Jethani) also used to threaten her to kill.

4. On 23.06.1984, at around 8:00 P.M., her husband and sister-in-law (Jethani) asked her to accompany them on side of the river to lift up an iron angle. When they reached beside the river, the appellant herein caught hold of the neck of the informant from the back, and thereafter, the sister-in-law tied up her hands and legs. When she started shouting, the appellant herein had assaulted her on the head and on face of the informant. Thereafter, the appellant herein torn out the clothes of the informant and then tied her up with a bag filled with sand and stones. Thereafter, the appellant along with the sister-in-law of the informant, thrown her out into the deep water of the river, and told that today it is end of the marriage and in the meantime, the rope with which the informant was tied came in front of the mouth of the informant, which she loosened and then caught hold of something and then came out from the river, and the bag filled with sand and stones was loosened and left in the river. Since, she was without clothes and afraid of her husband and sister-in-law, she stayed and hid herself the whole night. In the morning, she got a coffin cloth from the bank of river, which she wrapped on her body and then the villagers, Chote Lal, Suresh, Shyamlal, and Rangnath, reached there and then Chote Lal brought her to his house and reported the incident to the parents of the informant. Thereafter, the family members of the informant came there, and thereafter alongwith them she went to the police station to register the F.I.R. against the appellant and her sister-in-law.

5. On the basis of the aforesaid written report, the F.I.R. was registered, and the investigation was started. The police investigated the matter and recovered two pieces of broken bangles, four pieces of jute rope, and one bag from the river and the river bank and the victim was medically examined on the same day. On medical examination, the following injuries were found on the informant's body:

"1. Contusion and swalling 6 cms x 4 cms ever the left side of face.

2. Abrasion 2.5 cms x 1.5 cms over the post and lower part. of right upper arm.

3. Contusion 4 cms x 2 cms over the dorsal aspect of left hand.

4. Contusion and abrasion (ultiple) over the front and upper part of the left leg.

5. C/o pain over the both shoulder joint. No external injury."

6. The victim was medically examined on 25.06.1986 at 1:15 P.M. by Dr. A.K. Bhardwaj (PW4) in the instant case. As per the doctor's opinion, the injuries could have been caused to the victim on 23.06.1984 at any time after 8 or 9 P.M. by hard and blunt object.

7. After recording the statements of other witnesses, the chargesheet was filed against the appellant herein on 03.08.1984. Thereafter, the matter was committed for trial to the sessions court. The charges were framed against the appellant herein on 25.10.1985 and were subsequently amended on 01.01.1986.The appellant herein denied the charges and claimed trial. Thereafter, in support of its case, the prosecution examined the informant/injured Kamla Devi as PW1, Chote Lal as PW2, who is the brother-in-law of the informant, Ram Swaroop as PW3, Dr. A.K. Bhardwaj as PW4, R.P. Dubey as PW5, Karan Singh as PW 6, who is the Constable and formal witness, Sub Inspector Veerendra Kumar as PW7, who submitted the chargesheet in the instant case and H.N. Dubey, as PW8, who is the Investigation Officer in the instant case.

8. Thereafter, the statement of the appellant herein was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., who denied the allegations and pleaded that the witness PW2 is the brother-in-law (Jija) of the informant, Kamala Devi, and he was having an illicit relationship with his wife and he has seen them in objectionable position, for which a panchayat was conducted and the PW2 had promised that he would not repeat the said incident. The victim left the matrimonial home around 7:00 P.M. on the date of incident and she did not return the entire night thereafter, his sister-in-law (Bhabhi) inquired about her, and she could not be found. On the next day, when he came back, sister-in-law informed him about the same, when he reached to the house of Chhotelal, then, the victim was found there and then he told her that now he would not keep Kamla Devi, the informant. Thereupon, he has been falsely implicated in the instant case.

9. Relying upon the entire material available on record, the trial court convicted the appellant herein as aforesaid and sentenced (him) to undergo four years' rigorous imprisonment.

10. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that as per the deposition of PW1, she was thrown in deep water where she remained for about four-five minutes inside the water. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits if she has remained in the deep water, then, water must have been consumed and inhaled by the victim and if a person is sub-merged in water, then, the heart stops within two-twelve minutes afterwards. Thus, learned counsel for the appellants submits that since during the medical examination the Doctor has not examined with regard to the stomach of the victim nor any question was asked by the Doctor in this regard. Therefore, the entire prosecution story is a doubtful story and has been lodged by the opposite party no.2 due to the matrimonial dispute and when the appellant has seen the informant in a compromising position with her brother-in-law, which was objected by him, therefore, he has been falsely implicated in the instant case. Counsel for the appellant further submits that the injuries are not corroborating to the incident as stated by the informant in her F.I.R. as there were no injury on the neck of the victim. Thus, learned counsel for the appellants submits that entire prosecution story is only a concocted story and is unreliable and nothing but a false prosecution of the appellant herein. Therefore, learned counsel for the seeks acquittal of the appellant herein.

11. Per contra, learned A.G.A. submits that the prosecution has narrated the entire story in great detail and each and every aspect of the incident has been narrated. So far as no injury on the neck is concerned, the allegation in the F.I.R. as per the prosecution is only that the appellant herein had caught hold of the informant from the neck. There is no allegation of strangulation of the informant. After caught hold of the informant, the sister-in-law has tied up her hands and legs and thereafter she was tied up with a bag filled with sand and stones and thereafter she was pushed in the river, where the victim herself has untied the rope and the bag was loosened and thereafter she came out from the river after some distance. So far as the injuries caused by the appellant are concerned, those are fully corroborated by the medical examination report as there is injury on the face where the assault has been alleged by the informant. PW4, the doctor who has conducted the medical examination has fully supported the prosecution case. There is, no allegation against the Investigation Officer, as to why he would falsely implicate the appellant herein. Investigation has been done and all the recoveries have been made as per the indication of the informant, which are duly corroborated by the independent witnesses. Thus, the prosecution has succeeded in proving the guilt of the appellant herein. Therefore, learned trial court has rightly convicted the appellant herein and sentenced him to undergo four years' rigorous imprisonment, taking a liberal view while sentencing the appellants herein. Therefore, learned A.G.A. submits that no interference is called for in the impugned judgement and order dated 15.01.1986.

12. Having heard the rival submissions so made by learned counsels for the parties, this Court has carefully gone through the record of the case. PW1 is the informant and the injured witness. Thus, she is more reliable witness. She has categorically stated the entire story in great detail, as to how she was tied up, how she was thrown out in the river after being tied with the bag filled with sand and stones. In the process, the bangles were also broken on the place where she was tied up, which were recovered from the said places. The bag filled with sand and stones was also recovered by the Investigation Officer from the middle of the river and the coffin was also recovered from the possession of the victim, which she had used to cover herself from the place of incident. Thus, the deposition of PW1 as well as PW2 are reliable evidence.

13. PW2 has also supported the prosecution case, as informed by the victim to him and thereafter he has informed the family members of the victim, thereafter, the F.I.R. was lodged. However, PW2 has stated that the sister-in-law of the appellant, Ram Beti, had come to him at around 11:00 P.M. and told that the informant and her husband, the appellant herein, had gone for defecation in the night and they have not returned and thereafter PW2 alongwith other persons, namely Suresh, Ramnaresh etc. went towards the river for searching the victim, but could not find her. So far as the appellant is concerned, PW2 has categorically supported the allegations as made by the prosecution.

14. PW3 is the cousin brother of the informant and after receiving the intimation with regard to the said incident he has also reached there and on getting the intimation he has also went to the house of Chote Lal and then to the police station. The coffin was recovered and he has been the witness of the recovery of coffin.

15. PW4 is the Dr. A.K. Bhardwaj, who has medically examined the victim on 25.06.1984 at 1:15 P.M. He has supported the medical examination report as well as the timing of the incident of assault in the night of 23/24.06.1984 at around 8:00-9:00 P.M. The doctor has also opined that if a person remains drowned in the water for about five minutes and take breath one or two times, then, the water can go inside the stomach. However, he was not aware whether the victim informed about the water inhaled by her during the said incident.

16. PW5 is the Head Moharir, R.P. Dubey, who has recorded the F.I.R. He has proved the F.I.R. as well as the GD Entries in the instant case and he has also proved that on 25.06.1984, he has received the sealed samples, which were deposited in the store. He has also received the letter for medical examination of the injured witness.

17. PW6 is Sub-Inspector Karan Singh, who has stated that on 17.07.1984 the investigation was handed over to him and after completing the investigation the charge-sheet was filed by him on 03.08.1984, has proved the charge-sheet and his signatures thereon.

18. PW7, Veerendra Kumar, has told that he alongwith the Investigation Officer had gone to the place of incident alongwith Kamla Devi. The Investigation Officer has asked him to bring out the bag from the river, which has been brought out by him from the river. Rope was also brought from the river by him and he has identified the rope and the bag recovered by him. The bag was filled with sand. The recovery memo was prepared, which was signed by him. The rope was tied with the bag.

19. PW8, is the Investigation Officer, Harivansh Narain Dubey, who has conducted the investigation. After registration of the F.I.R., he inspected the site and prepared the site-plan. Recorded the statement of Head Moharir Rajeshwar Dayal, Ram Swaroop, Atmaram, Amar Singh, Chote Lal and informant Kamla Devi. Site-plan was prepared. He has also recovered the two broken bangles from the side of the river. He has also recovered the ropes and the bag. Memo was prepared and the recovery items were sealed. Thus, PW-8 has also supported the entire process of investigation and recording of the statements of the witnesses.

20. Thereafter, on the basis of the aforesaid evidence the trial court has come to a conclusion that the prosecution story is a reliable story. After going through the aforesaid evidences, the prosecution has succeeded in proving the entire prosecution story as made out in the F.I.R. and the witnesses have been firm. Thus, the witnesses are reliable witnesses. The injuries sustained by the informant are duly corroborated by the medical examination report, which is duly proved by the doctor. So far as the other independent witnesses are concerned, there is no allegation of any mala fide against those witnesses. So far as the allegations of false implication as narrated by the appellant in his 313 Cr.P.C. statement is concerned, in which he has also stated that after he has seen the victim and Chote Lal, in a compromising position, a panchayat was held. None of the members of the said panchayat were examined as defence witnesses by him. Therefore, the said story of the appellant cannot be relied upon.

21. Thus, this Court do not find any illegality in the conviction of the appellant herein. Thus, the instant appeal is dismissed.The conviction and sentences awarded by the trial court against the appellant herein for the offences under Section 307 I.P.C. is upheld.

22. The appellants Ram Behari is on bail. The lower court records be sent to the trial court. The trial court concerned shall take him into custody and send him to jail to serve out the sentences awarded by the trial court and affirmed by this Court.

23. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the trial court concerned forthwith for compliance.

Order Date :- 30.7.2025

Shubham Arya

(Anish Kumar Gupta, J.)