Allahabad High Court
Dammo vs State on 9 October, 2025
Author: Sanjay Kumar Pachori
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Pachori
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:181490
Reserved on 28.8.2025
Delivered on 9.10.2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.-2538 of 1982
Dammo ...Appellant
Versus
State ...Respondent
JUDGMENT
HONBLE SANJAY KUMAR PACHORI, J.
1. Present Criminal Appeal has been preferred under Section 374 of Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred as Cr.P.C.) against the judgment and order dated 4.10.1982 passed by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Agra in Session Trial No. 297 of 1980, whereby trial court convicted the appellant under Section 307, I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo 7 years rigorous imprisonment, however, trial court acquitted the other co-accused Dauji and Keshav under Section 307/34, I.P.C.
2. Brief facts of the case giving rise to the present appeal is that the first information report dated 4.7.1979 at 6.15 a.m. against the appellant and other named co-accused Dauji has been lodged by PW-2 Sukua alleging that the appellant and other co-accused persons had enmity for showing ownership of the Neem or Peepal trees. At about 2.00 a.m. in the night the complainant woke up after flashing the light of a torch by accused Dauji on him and the present appellant shot fire upon him, which was hit in the left side of stomach. After hearing the noise of fire, other villagers reached the spot and witnessed the incident. The investigation was started and the Investigating Officer took possession of clothes of the injured person and the medical examination was conducted on 4.7.1979 at 10.30 a.m. at District Hospital Agra and after completing the investigation, charge sheet has been submitted under Section 307, I.P.C. against the appellant and two other named co-accused persons Dauji and Keshav.
3. After taking cognizance by the Magistrate, the case has been committed to the Court of Session as the case is triable exclusively by the Sessions Judge. The trial court after considering the pre-summoning evidence framed the charges against the appellant under Section 307, I.P.C. and against the two other co-accused persons Dauji and Keshav under Section 307/34, I.P.C., who denied the charges and demanded trial.
4. To prove the charges against the appellant, the Prosecution has examined as many as four witnesses namely, PW-1, Jiwa Ram, PW-2, Sukua PW-3, Ramshri and PW-4 Kamla.
5. After completing the prosecution evidence, statements of the present appellant and other co-accused persons have been recorded under Section 313, Cr.P.C. wherein they stated that the prosecution produced the false evidence due to enmity. The appellant and other co-accused persons did not lead any documentary/oral evidence in defence.
6. Learned trial court observed that the first informant, his wife and other witnesses Jiwa ram have been declared hostile, but the circumstances clearly indicates that on account of the high handedness of the accused persons, they were not having courage to tell the truth. After referring the evidence of PW-3 Ramshri, it has been held that the prosecution has successfully proved the case against the present appellant beyond reasonable doubt and convicted and sentenced the appellant. Hence, the present criminal appeal has been preferred.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the prosecution witness Jewa Ram (PW-1), Sukua (PW-2) and Kamla (PW-4) have not supported the prosecution case and they have been declared hostile by the prosecution before the trial court. The medical examination was conducted at 10.30 a.m. after about eight hours of the incident. The appellant has been convicted on the basis of sole testimony of PW-3 Ramshri (mother of the inured Sukua, PW-2). As per the evidence of PW-3 Ramshri, she was not the eye witness of the incident and she also did not support the prosecution case in her cross-examination. It is further submitted that on the basis of same evidence, co-accused Dauji and Keshav have been also acquitted by the trial court. The present appeal is liable to be allowed.
8. Learned A.G.A. vehemently refuted the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and supported the judgment and order passed by the trial court and submits that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant. Hence, the criminal appeal deserves no merit and is liable to be dismissed.
9. Heard Shri Mukesh Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant and Smt. Ladli Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.
10. As per prosecution case, the incident was taken place at 2.00 a.m. in the night and medical examination was conducted at 10.30 a.m. on the same day wherein following injuries were found on the body of Sukua (PW-2):-
1. Gun shot wound of entry 1 cm x 1/2 cm x depth not probed. The margins were inverted and the wound was surrounded by blackening and scorching in an area of 7 cm x 5 cm. The X-ray was advised.
2. Lacerated wound 3/4 cm x 1/4 cm x subcutaneous tissues deep on the dorsum of right hand lateral side just below the wrist at the root of the thumb. The wound was surrounded by blackening around it in an area of 3 cm.
11. PW-1 Jewa Ram reached the place of incident after hearing the noise of fire. He has not supported the prosecution case and declared hostile by the prosecution. PW-2 Sukua (injured) also declared hostile and stated that he did not see the assailant. He also did not support the prosecution case.
12. PW-3 Ramshri stated in her cross-examination that she was sleeping in her hut. She also did not identify the assailants. She reached at the place of incident after 10 minutes of hearing the noise of fire.
13. PW-4 Kamla (wife of injured) also did not support the prosecution case and she has been declared hostile.
14. On the basis of the facts and circumstances discussed above, an inference can easily be drawn that the prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. The contrary view taken by the trial court is against the weight of evidence.
15. For all the reasons recorded and discussed above, I am of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges for the offence punishable under Section 307, I.P.C. against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt as the evidence on record does not bring home the guilt of the appellant beyond the pale of doubt, the appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubt. Consequently, the appellant is entitled to be acquitted of the charges for which he was tried.
16. As a result, present criminal appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order of conviction as well as sentence recorded by the trial court against the appellant is set aside. The appellant Dammo is acquitted of the charges for which he has been tried. The appellant Dammo is on bail, therefore, his personal bonds and sureties are, hereby, discharged. The appellant will fulfil the requirement of Section 437-A, Cr.P.C. to the satisfaction of the trial court at the earliest.
17. The trial court record be returned forthwith with a certified copy of this judgment for compliance. The office is further directed to enter the judgment in compliance register maintained for the purpose of the Court.
Order Date :- 9.10.2025
T. Sinha
(Sanjay Kumar Pachori, J.)
