Allahabad High Court
Uttam vs State Of U.P. on 12 November, 2025
Author: Subhash Chandra Sharma
Bench: Subhash Chandra Sharma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:201179
Reserved on 13.08.2025
Delivered on 12.11.2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 489 of 1983
Uttam
..Appellant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
..Respondents(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s)
:
N.K. Sharma, Sanjay Kumar Dubey
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
Govt. Advocate
HONBLE SUBHASH CHANDRA SHARMA, J.
1. Heard Sri N.K. Sharma and Sri Sanjay Kumar Dubey learned counsels for the appellant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.
2. This criminal appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 26.02.1983 passed by IVth Additional Session Judge, Aligarh in Session Trial No. 187 of 1982 arising out of Crime No. 273 of 1981 (State Versus Uttam) under Section 354, 326, 307 I.P.C., Police Station Atrauli, District Aligarh by which the learned trial court has convicted and sentenced the appellant under Section 307 I.P.C. for a period of five years rigorous imprisonment.
3. Facts in brief are that on 31.08.1981 at about 1 P.M. the victim Kumari Meena was returning back from her field in the village Peepali where the appellant caught hold of her hands with the intention of committing rape and dragged her in the field of Bajra pulled her saree and attempted to have sexual intercourse but she resisted and left from the grip of the appellant. Thereupon, he made assault on the victim with Khurpi causing injuries on her person at 23 places those were on the head, neck and hand. On her cry the informant (mother and her uncle) reached there then the appellant went away and on the same day by giving tehreer at the police station concerned present F.I.R. was lodged at about 6:15 P.M. under Sections 354, 326, 325, 307 I.P.C.
4. Majrubi chitthi was prepared and the injured was sent for her medical examination with Constable Virendra Singh. On the same day at about 6:55 P.M. she was medically examined at P.H.C. Atrauli and following injuries were found on her person.
(i) Incised wound 4.2cm x 0.6 c.m. x muscle deep on the back of the head.
(ii) Incised wound 3.2 c.m. x 0.6 c.m. x skin deep on the back of the head, 1/2cm above injury no.1.
(iii) Incised wound 4.2cm x 0.6 c.m. x muscle deep on the back of the head, 2 c.m. below injury no.1.
(iv) Incised wound 8 c.m. x 0.6 c.m. x bone deep on the right side of the head, 6.5 c.m. above the right ear.
(v) Abrasion 2 c.m. x 1c.m. on the head, 1 c.m. above the injury no. (iv).
(vi) Incised wound 4 c.m. x 2.7 c.m. x bone deep on the left side of the head, 8.8 c.m. above the left ear.
(vii) Incised wound 4.5 c.m. x 0.5 c.m. x bone deep on the right side of the head extending upto injury no. (vi) in a semi linear way.
(viii) Incised wound 3 c.m. x 0.8 c.m. x bone deep on the left side of the neck, 2 c.m. behind the left ear.
(ix) Incised wound 4 c.m. x 1 c.m. x bone deep on the right side of the neck and on the back of it.
(x) Lacerated wound 1.6 c.m. x 0.6. c.m. on the back of the neck on the second bone of it.
(xi) Abrasion 3 c.m. x 0.1 c.m. on the back of the neck and in the middle of it.
(xii) Abrasion 1.2 c.m. x 0.2 c.m. on the back of the neck, 0.5 c.m. below injury no. (xi)
(xiii) Incised wound 2 c.m. x 0.4 c.m. x skin deep on the back of the left ear.
(xiv) Incised wound 1.6 c.m. x 0.4 c.m. x skin deep on the left side of the neck on the front portion of it.
(xv) Incised wound 4 c.m. x 1 c.m. x muscle deep on the left side of the neck, 1 c.m. below injury no. (xiv).
(xvi) Incised wound 3.4 c.m. x 1 c.m. x skin deep on the left shoulder.
(xvii) Incised wound 3 c.m. x 1 c.m. on the left side of the neck, 2 c.m. above the collar bone.
(xviii) Incised wound 3.8 c.m. x 1.2 c.m. x muscle deep on the joint of the right wrist and on the back of it.
(xix) Incised wound 1.2 c.m. x 0.2 c.m. x skin deep on the front of the right thumb.
(xx) Incised wound 1.5 c.m. x 0.3 c.m. x skin deep on the middle finger of the right hand on the lower portion of it.
(xxi) Incised wound 4.2 c.m. x 0.8 c.m. x muscle deep on the front of the left hand.
(xxii) The ring finger of the left hand had been amputated from the upper one third part of it.
(xxiii) The little finger of the left hand had also been amputated to the extent of two third of it.
5. Investigation was handed over to S.I. R.K. Tyagi who recorded the statement of the informant and visited the place of occurrence and prepared site plan and after recording the statements of other witnesses he filed charge sheet under Sections 307, 354, 326, 325 I.P.C. against the appellant.
6. The learned court concerned took cognizance of the offences and after completing the provisions as contained under Section 207 Cr.P.C. committed the case for trial to the learned court of Sessions.
7. The learned court of Sessions framed the charges against the appellant on the basis of material on record under Section 354, 326, 307 I.P.C. which was read over and explained to him which he denied and did not plead guilty and claimed for trial, as a result case was fixed for prosecution evidence.
8. The prosecution examined P.W. 1, Smt. Meena, the injured; P.W. 2, Dalbir Singh, the eye-witness; P.W. 3, Dr. J.P. Garg, who examined the injuries on the person of the injured; P.W. 4, Mahaveer, scribe of tehreer, P.W. 5, S.I. R.K. Tyagi, the Investigating Officer; P.W. 6, Head Moharrer, Anar Singh who lodged the F.I.R.
9. After conclusion of prosecution evidence statement of the appellant/accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded in which he told the incident to be false and further told that there was enmity regarding litigation between his father and the witness Dalbir Singh. The father of witness Dalbir Singh was sentenced for a period of six months imprisonment at the instance of his father and other witnesses belong to the same party this was the reason for his false implication.
10. In defence, the learned counsel for the appellant has examined D.W. 1 Mihi Lal and other witness Maharaj Singh Upadhaya, Incharge Head Master Primary School, Peepali and also filed certified copy regarding conviction of father of witness Dalbir Singh.
11. After hearing the arguments for the prosecution as well as the defence the learned trial court has convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforesaid against which present appeal has been preferred.
12. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that in the present case the appellant has not committed any offence but due to enmity of P.W. 2, Dalbir Singh he was implicated falsely. He further submits that mother, brother-in-law and father of the victim has not been examined by the prosecution. Other argument of the appellant is that the appellant went before the victim after incident and told her as to why she is naming her falsely. It shows that he was innocent. There are material contradictions in the statements of the victim that make it unreliable and P.W. 2, Dalbir Singh being inimical is also unreliable. There is no other evidence on record to support the prosecution version. So far as the injuries are concerned, they are simple in nature and do not bring the case within the ambit of Section 307 I.P.C. Keeping in view all the aforesaid facts there arises doubt in the prosecution story and appellant is entitled for benefit of doubt. He further argues that 45 years have elapsed from the date of incident and now the appellant has become aged about 60 though he was about 16 years at the time of occurrence and he remained in jail for a period of more than one month and after lapse of so long period it will serve no purpose to send him jail, therefore, request to reduce the sentence to the extent of undergone.
13. Per contra learned A.G.A. opposed the aforesaid arguments raised by the learned counsels for the appellant and contended that there are 23 injuries on the person of the victim caused with sharp edged weapon showing the intention of the appellant and all these injuries were caused to her when she resisted the attempt of rape. In view of injuries caused to the victim the appellant cannot be said to be entitled for the reduction of sentence for the period already undergone. The injured has supported the prosecution version and only on the ground of enmity the prosecution witness Dalbir Singh cannot be said to be unreliable. Victim is injured witness who cannot be said to implicate the appellant falsely by leaving the real culprit scot-free. Her version also gets corroboration with the medical report and also the testimony as deposed by the doctor examining the injuries on her person. In this way, there is no force in the appeal and it is liable to be dismissed.
14. From the arguments extended on the part of appellant and the State, this Court is to decide as to whether the appellant caused injuries on the person of the victim who resisted the attempt made by the appellant to commit rape with her and the testimony of the victim and other witness P.W. 2 is reliable or not and also the learned trial court has convicted and sentenced the appellant after appreciating the evidence in proper manner. Lastly, after lapse of long period the appellant be released on the period already undergone by him.
15. The incident took place on 31.08.1981 at about 1 P.M. and F.I.R. was lodged on the same day at 6:15 P.M. and the distance between the place of incident and the concerned police station was 13 kms. The victim sustained 23 injuries on her person, most of them were incised wounds. She was also taken to the police station. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that F.I.R. was lodged after delay but it was prompt.
16. As per prosecution case the appellant was coming back to her house at about 1 P.M. In the way, the appellant caught with intention to commit rape but she resisted and tried to go away but he dragged her in the field of millet but the victim did not let him commit rape. On her forceful resistance, the appellant assaulted her with Khurpi causing injuries on her back of the head, neck and other places of the body and also two fingers were amputated. On her cry, the informant and her Jeth went there then the appellant ran away, then the mother of the victim and other persons took her to the police station and lodged F.I.R. on the basis of tehreer given by her which was proved during her examination before the learned court as Exhibit Ka 2.
17. The victim was medically examined on the same day at 6:55 P.M. in P.H.C. Atrauli. Her injuries were recorded by the doctor those were 23 in number. The doctor was examined before the learned trial court as P.W. 3 who proved the medical report as Exhibit Ka 1 and also told that he prepared the medical report at the time of examination of injuries on the person of the victim in his handwriting. He also opined that the injuries on the person of the victim were possible to be caused with Khurpi and were possible to have been sustained on 31.08.1981 at about 1 P.M. In this way, the injuries stand proved to have been caused on 31.08.1981 at about 1 P.M. P.W. 1, the victim herself has stated about the time of incident and the injuries caused to her by the appellant.
18. The place of occurrence is said to be the field of millet which was visited by the I.O. during the course of investigation who has prepared the site plan in his handwriting and shown the place of occurrence as the field of millet and proved the site plan as Exhibit Ka 3 during his examination before the learned court. He has also proved the fard recovery of pieces of broken bangles of the victim from the place of occurrence and also the clothes, blood stained and plain soil which he proved as Exhibit Ka 4 and 5 and Exhibit 6. The victim P.W. 1 has herself narrated the place of occurrence in the field of millet. It establishes the place of occurrence as narrated in F.I.R.
19. P.W. 1, Smt. Meena/the victim deposed that at about 1 P.M. she was coming back to her house from the field of maize in the way the appellant Uttam met to her near the field of millet which was cultivated by her father on Batai. He caught her hand with bad intention but she made her hand free. He again pulled her saree and took her in the field of millet when she resisted and did not come under the control of the appellant he made assault with Khurpi causing injuries on her person. She also faced assault on her hand, as a result two fingers of left hand were amputated. On her hue and cry, her mother, tau, Atmaram, Dalbir, Rajaram, Bhanwar Singh came there who witnessed the incident and the appellant. Seeing them, the appellant fled away. Her clothes were drenched with blood. She was cross-examined on the part of the appellant at length but she again reiterated the same facts about the incident. Nothing appeared during the course of cross-examination to make her statements unreliable or deviating the facts with regard to the incident as deposed by her during the course of her chief-examination.
20. She is injured person and sustained 23 injuries on her person, therefore, it cannot be said that she is telling a lie to implicate the appellant falsely as she is injured and there is no any excuse for her to implicate the appellant falsely and let the real culprit scot free. She is stampede witness and her testimony cannot be said to be false and unreliable since there is no any enmity between the victim and the appellant. The reliability of injured witness has been explained by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. Vs. Naresh and others (2011) 4 SCC 324. Para no. 23 and 24 are quoted as under:
23......................The evidence of an injured witness must be given due weightage being a stamped witness, thus, his presence cannot be doubted. His statement is generally considered to be very reliable and it is unlikely that he has spared the actual assailant in order to falsely implicate someone else. The testimony of an injured witness has its own relevancy and efficacy as he has sustained injuries at the time and place of occurrence and this lends support to his testimony that he was present during the occurrence. Thus, the testimony of an injured witness is accorded a special status in law. The witness would not like or want to let his actual assailant go unpunished merely to implicate a third person falsely for the commission of the offence.
24. Thus, the evidence of the injured witness should be relied upon unless there are grounds for the rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies therein. [Vide: Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab, (2009) 9 SCC 719; Balraje @ Trimbak v. State of Maharashtra, (2010) 6 SCC 673; and Abdul Sayad v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2010) 10 SCC 259].
In another decision of Mamo Dutt vs. State of U.P. (2012) 4 SCC 79, Hon'ble the Apex Court observed about the evidentiary value required to be attached to the evidence of an injured witness:
"Normally, an injured witness would enjoy greater credibility because he is the sufferer himself and thus, there will be no occasion for such a person to state an incorrect version of the occurrence, or to involve anybody falsely and in the bargain protect the real culprit...................."
Again in the case of Balwan Singh & others vs. State Of Haryana (2014) 13 SCC 560 Hon'ble the Apex Court observed thus:
"It is trite law that the evidence of injured witness, being a stamped witness, is accorded a special status in law. This is as a consequence of the fact that injury to the witness is an inbuilt guarantee of his presence at the scene of the crime and because the witness would not want to let actual assailant go unpunished."
21. P.W. 2, Dalbir Singh is the eye-witness who has deposed that it was about 1 P.M. and he was coming to his village from his tube-well. When he reached near the field of Chokhe he heard the cry of Smt. Meena from the field of millet. He went there and saw the appellant striking her with Khurpi. In addition to him the mother of the victim Saraswati, Atmaram, Bhawar Singh also came there. Seeing them the appellant fled away. Smt. Meena sustained several injuries on her person and was drenched with blood. This witness was also subjected to cross-examination by defence but nothing adverse to his statement as recorded during chief-examination was found. Even during cross-examination, he reiterated that he saw the appellant Uttam while making assault on Smt. Meena with Khurpi. He denied the suggestion given by defence about his deposition due to enmity.
22. So far as the argument by the learned counsel for the appellant regarding enmity of P.W. 2, Dalbir is concerned, only on the ground of enmity it cannot be said that the witness is unreliable or telling a lie. Further there was no enmity between the appellant and P.W. 2, Dalbir Singh but it is said to be between their fathers though the witness has said that he had no knowledge about the enmity between them. There appears no any material contradiction in the testimony of this witness, therefore, his testimony cannot be discarded at all.
23. P.W. 3, Dr. J.P. Garg deposed and proved the injuries sustained by the victim as examined by him on the same day. He stated that the injuries were incised wounds caused with Khurpi. During cross-examination he clearly stated that she was brought and admitted to the hospital. He also stated that though her death was not possible with the injuries, but in case, she had not been brought to the hospital she would have died due to haemorrhage and shock. He also proved date and time of injuries on the person of the injured/victim.
24. P.W. 4, Mahaveer is the scribe of tehreer who has proved it as Exhibit Ka 2 to be written by him at the instance of mother of the victim.
25. P.W. 5, S.I. R.K. Tyagi who investigated the case and during the course of investigation visited the place of occurrence and prepared site plan and also collected plain and blood stained soil and prepared fard recovery of broken pieces of bangles. He proved the investigation, the site plan and the charge sheet filed by him against the appellant.
26. P.W. 6, Head Constable Amar Singh has proved the Chik F.I.R. in his handwriting and also the G.D. as Exhibit Ka 9.
27. From the testimony as deposed by P.W. 1 Smt. Meena Devi; P.W. 2, Dalbir Singh and P.W. 3, J.P. Garg it is established that on the date of occurrence i.e. on 31.08.1981 at 1 P.M. when she was coming back from the field, the appellant caught her hand which she made free and then pulled her saree and dragged in the field of millet with bad intention which she resisted and did not come under his control then he caused several injuries on her person those are 23 in number out of which 19 injuries are incised wounds on the back of her head and neck. Two fingers of her left hand were also amputated in the incident. In the opinion of the doctor, P.W. 3 though the injuries were not fatal to the life but, in case, she had not been taken to the hospital, she would have died due to shock and haemorrhage. The nature of injuries establish that such injuries were caused by the appellant to the victim with intention to cause such bodily injuries with sharp edged weapon those were likely to cause her death. In this way, the charge against the appellant under Section 307 I.P.C. stands proved beyond reasonable doubt and the finding recorded by the learned trial court in this regard cannot be said to be illegal or perverse. There appears no any illegality or impropriety in the order passed by the learned trial court, therefore, there appears no ground to make interference in the order passed by the learned trial court holding guilty to the accused/appellant.
28. So far as the sentence is concerned the learned trial court has awarded five years rigorous imprisonment under Section 307 I.P.C. The incident was caused on 31.08.1981 regarding which appellant was convicted and sentenced on 26.02.1983. At that time, the appellant was aged about 16 years and till now 46 years have elapsed and now he is aged about 60 years. He made attempt to molest the victim which she denied and got herself free from the hold of the appellant but he dragged her in the field of millet and tried to proceed further but the victim resisted, as a result he caused injuries on her person with the Khurpi, a sharp edged weapon. He caused 23 injuries on the person of the victim repeatedly. Most of the injuries were incised and on back of the head and around the neck. She wanted to shield herself stretching her hands, on which two fingers of her left hand were also amputated. The repetition of assault with Khurpi on the person of the helpless victim shows deep intention of the appellant. All this was done by the appellant intentionally about which it cannot be said that he caused such injuries under the spur of moment.
29. Keeping in view all these facts, the age of the victim and the appellant, in particular the time gap from the date of occurrence till now i.e. 46 years, this Court is of the considered opinion that the sentence awarded to the appellant is liable to be reduced.
30. Accordingly, it is reduced to three years on the place of five years imprisonment.
31. Hence, this criminal appeal is partly allowed and the sentence awarded to the appellant is reduced to three years on the place of five years.
32. He is on bail and is directed to surrender before the learned trial court within 30 days from today to serve the remaining part of the sentence.
33. Copy of this judgment alongwith original trial court record be transmitted to the Court concerned for necessary compliance. A compliance report be sent to this Court within one month. Office is directed to keep the compliance report on record.
(Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.)
November 12, 2025
Suraj Srivastav
