Gaurav vs State Of U.P.
2025 Latest Caselaw 12582 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Gaurav vs State Of U.P. on 15 November, 2025

Author: Siddharth

Bench: Siddharth

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:203850-DB
 

 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD 
 
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 7007 of 2024   
 
   Gaurav    
 
  .....Appellant(s)   
 
 Versus  
 
   State of U.P.    
 
  .....Respondent(s)       
 
   
 
  
 
Counsel for Appellant(s)   
 
:   
 
Anil Kumar Dubey, Chandra Bhan Dubey, Ravi Shankar Tripathi   
 
  
 
Counsel for Respondent(s)   
 
:   
 
G.A.   
 
     
 
 Court No. - 46
 
   
 
 HON'BLE SIDDHARTH, J.  

HON'BLE PRASHANT MISHRA-I, J.

1. Heard Sri Ravi Shankar Tripathi, learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.

2. The instant criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 10.06.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC 1st Bareilly in Sessions Trial No. 825 of 2021, State Vs. Gaurav and others arising out of Case Crime No. 265 of 2018, Police Station- Bhuta, District- Bareilly, whereby appellant- Gaurav Alias Godhu, has been convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-, for committing the offence under Section 307 I.P.C. and in default of payment of fine, two years' additional rigorous imprisonment.

3. The prosecution case in brief is that the marriage of the informant was solemnized with the appellant on 05.11.2018 according to Hindu marriage rites and rituals. The parents of the informant had given sufficient dowry but the in laws of the informant were not satisfied with the said dowry and they demanded rupees one lakh cash from the informant and due to non fulfillment of the demand of said additional dowry they started harassing the informant. The informant and her parents tried their level best to adjust and compromise with her in laws but, they were adamant on their demand and ultimately they expelled to the informant from their house after badly assaulting to her.

4. The appellant was charged with commission of offence under Sections 498-A, 307, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act.

5. Statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein he claimed his innocence and alleged that he has been falsely implicated in this case.

6. In documentary evidence, original complaint, medical report of injured, Laxmi, supplementary medical report of the injured, Laxmi, Chick F.I.R., G.D., site plan, charge sheet and X-Ray report of injured, Laxmi, were filed.

7. The learned Trial Court after evaluating the evidence found the appellant guilty for offence under Section 307 I.P.C. and exonerated him of the charges under Sections 498-A, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act. The learned Trial Court convicted the accused, appellant under Section 307 I.P.C. with imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine additional imprisonment of two years.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the marriage of the victim/informant with the accused appellant was solemnized without any dowry and even after marriage no dowry was demanded. Even the learned trial court has confirmed this finding in its impugned judgement. It was also argued that the victim/informant received injuries on her own as she fell down and out of anger she roped the accused-appellant in false case. There are material contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses and the medical evidence has not supported the prosecution version of the informant. Even then the learned trial court held the accused-appellant guilty under Section 307 I.P.C. and convicted him too severely. The sentence imposed by the learned trial court is too harsh and it is not commensurate with the act of the accused-appellant. It was also argued that no motive for the culpable act was assigned to the accused-appellant. The findings of the learned trial court is purely based on conjectures and surmises and is against the evidence on record. Hence, he prays to set aside the impugned judgement and order of learned Trial court.

9. On the other hand learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the aforesaid submission of the counsel for the appellant and argued that the accused-appellant demanded dowry from the informant and in that regard she was subjected to physical and mental harassment. The appellant used to abuse her and often threatened her to kill. The appellant caused injuries with a sharp edged weapon, Hasiya, as a result of which the informant/victim sustained injuries on her head. The act was done by the appellant with the intention and motive to kill the informant/victim. The informant/victim has very clearly stated in her statement recorded before the learned Trial Court and implicated the appellant for causing such injury. The statements of the informant finds corroboration with the medical evidence and hence the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.

10. The informant, Laxmi Devi, is the victim/injured of this case. She has been examined as PW-1 before the learned Trial Court where she specifically averred that her husband, Gaurav Rathore, (appellant), inflicted head injury with a Hasiya. She has also stated that her husband, with an intention to kill, assaulted her with a Hasiya on her head and the injury was so severe that blood was oozing out from the wound.

11. The brother of the informant/victim has been examined as PW-2 who has stated that his sister, Laxmi Devi, called him and informed on 03.11.2018 that her husband and other co-accused committed marpeet with her and her husband assaulted her with a Hasiya on her head. Resultantly, she bled profusely.

12. PW-3, Smt. Hirakali, has been examined before the learned trial court who happens to be the mother of the informant/victim has also supported the prosecution version and she specifically stated that the in-laws of her daughter often used to physically and mentally torture her.

13. But in case in hand the first and foremost important prosecution witness is the informant/victim herself. If her testimony as injured witness inspires confidence conviction can solely be based on it. Now let us evaluate the evidence of the Doctor, who is PW-4. The doctor examined the informant/victim on 06.11.2018 and found the following injuries on the body of injured.

(i) Healing lacerated wound of present on frontal region of head size 1.5 cm x 0.4 cm x 0.4 cm bleeding not present. Margin healed irregular (near 2-3 days).

(ii) Healing lacerated present on left parietal region of head size, size 1.5 cm x 0.3 cm x 0.4 cm bleeding not present margin healed irregular.

(iii) Multiple abrasions on (3 parallel) (1) forearm of size 6 cm x 0.1 cm/4 cm x 0.1 cm/5 cm x 0.1 cm. X-Ray of skull was advised.

14. In the supplementary report of the injured doctor opined (X-Ray report of skull) that as per X-Ray film a very fine thin linear fracture line seen in left frontal bone of skull of Smt. Laxmi Devi.

15. In the supplementary report, dated 14.12.2018, doctor has opined about the injury as grievous injury. Doctor also opined that the injury inflicted on the body of victim may be caused by some hard and blunt object. In his cross examination at page no. 4, doctor has stated that the fracture caused on the body of the injured was very minor hairline which could be healed without administering any medicine. The learned Trial Court found that in the opinion of the doctor injuries were fatal whereas at one place, on page no. 4, doctor has stated that in his opinion the injuries caused to the complainant/victim was grievous in nature.

16. The learned lower court in its finding/judgement on page 29 arrived at a conclusion that the injuries caused to the injured, Smt. Laxmi Devi were dangerous to life, whereas the doctor, PW-4, has only opined that the injuries caused to the injured were only grievous in nature. One more doctor, namely, Rajkumar, Senior Consultant Radiologist, has been examined as PW-7 who did the X-Ray of the injured and has proved the X-Ray plate as exhibit Ka-8. In his cross examination, on page 2, doctor Rajkumar has clearly stated that the hairline fracture of the injured was probably not dangerous to life. So how come the learned trial court came to the above conclusion is beyond understanding.

17. On the other hand, in his cross examination he clearly stated that the injuries were not fatal and the fracture was also a hairline minor fracture which could be cured without any medicine. So there comes a major contradiction in the evidence of doctor which directly goes to strike the roots of the prosecution case. Although on perusal of the injury report and the evidence of doctor it clearly comes out that the complainant/victim, Laxmi Devi, was hit by her husband on her head with a Hasiya. As a result of which lacerated injuries and multiple abrasions were caused.

18. In this regard the essential ingredients of Section 308 I.P.C. has to be seen, which are as follows:-

(i) That an act was committed by the accused.

(ii) That the said act was done with the intention or knowledge that he shall be guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

(iii) The culpable homicide does not amount to murder.

19. Thus, if an accused did not intend to cause death or any bodily injury which he knows to be likely to cause death or even to cause such bodily injury is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death Section 308 I.P.C. would apply if death in fact does not result.

20. Under Section 308 I.P.C. the punishment provided is imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years or with fine or with both and if hurt is caused to any person by such act, it shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years or with fine or with both.

21. After hearing the rival submissions and going through the material on record, we in our considered opinion the learned Trial Court has wrongly punished the appellant under Section 307 I.P.C. with imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine, two years of additional rigorous imprisonment. This, punishment awarded by the learned Trial Court is not at all in consonance with the act of the accused-appellant.

22. Accordingly, we are of the view that the appellant is held liable to be convicted and sentenced under Section 308 I.P.C. Consequently, the judgement and order of conviction passed by the learned Trial Court under Section 307 I.P.C. sentencing the appellant to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine two years of additional rigorous imprisonment is modified to conviction under Section 308 I.P.C.

23. Hence, we modify the judgement and order of the trial court convicting and sentencing the appellant under Section 307 I.P.C. to conviction under Section 308 I.P.C. and sentence is reduced to a period of 4 years with fine of Rs. 10,000/- payable to the injured.

24. Period of custody already undergone by the appellant shall be adjusted.

25. Appeal is partly allowed.

26. Office is directed to return the trial court record within 15 days and notify this judgment to the trial court too.

(Prashant Mishra-I,J.) (Siddharth,J.)

November 15, 2025

Saurabh