Allahabad High Court
Ram Vir And Others vs State on 16 September, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:164941
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1273 of 1984
Ram Vir And Others
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
State
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s)
:
Ashok Kumar Singh, Pankaj Kumar Sharma, Pratibha Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
A.G.A.
Court No. - 75
HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J.
1. Heard Ashok Kumar Singh, counsel for the appellants and Shri S.K. Singh, learned AGA for the State.
2. Challenge in this appeal is the judgment and order dated 01.05.1984 passed by the IInd, Additional District and Sessions Judge of Etah in Criminal Sessions Trial No. 194 of 1983 convicting and sentencing the appellants under Sections 326 read with 34 of the IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment of four years and to pay fine of Rs.500 and and in default of the payment of fine undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.
3. Though the present appeal has been preferred by the four appellants being first appellant- Ram Vir son of Nek Ram, second appellant- Ranvir son of Megh Singh, third appellant- Mehtab son of Govind and fourth appellant- Raj Kumar son of Raghuraj Singh, however, in view of the office report dated 15.07.2025 and the report of the CJM , Etah dated 20.07.2022, the third appellant- Mehtab has expired 15 years ago, thus, the appeal against the third appellant stands abated further office report dated 02.09.2025 as well as the report of CJM, Etah dated 02.09.2025, the second appellant- Ranvir has also died on 29.07.2024, supporting documents are already on record thus the appeal against him also stands abated.
4. The case of the prosecution in brief is that a first information report was lodged with an allegation that on fateful day 2/3.05.1982, the complainant Shishu Pal and his son Rakesh were sleeping under a Verandah at the door of their house in the west while the second son being the victim Sushil Kumar was sleeping in the west of the Verandah in the open space. Allegation is that one relative, Deen Dayal was sleeping in the north of the well near the cot of Sushil Kumar. At about 4:00 AM, the appellants-accused being Ramvir, Ranvir, Mehtab and Raj Kumar, armed with armed with knife and pharsas came near the cot of Sushil Kumar and wielded pharsa and knife extended blow upon the Sushil Kumar and on hue and cry so raised by the victim Sushil Kumar, the complainant Shishu Pal, his son Rakesh, relative Deen Dayal and other relatives who were also sleeping in the house, woke up and they saw and recognized the appellants- accused inflicting pharsas and knife injuries on Sushil Kumar and running towards north and then east in the Galiyara. It is stated that it was the day of the marriage of the daughter of the complainant, Shishu Pal. The blood oozed out and it fell on the clothes and the cot of the Sushil Kumar. The motive behind the crime is said to be an old enmity of the complainant and the injured Sushil Kumar with the appellants-accused.
5. The complainant Shishu Pal himself wrote the report Ex.Ka.1 at his house and took the injured to the police station Kasganj immediately. On the basis of the written report, clerk constable, Ramesh Chandra prepared the check FIR Ex.Ka.2 and registered a case in the general diary at report no. 7 on 03/05/1982 at 5:15 hours. The investigation was entrusted to P.W.3, S.I. Ganga Prasad in whose presence, the case was registered at the police station. He immediately interrogated the complainant Shishu Pal at the police station. He also visited and inspected the place of reference on the same day and prepared the site plan Ex.Ka.4. He also took into possession the blood stained sample of 'Baan' (Ex.1) of the cot on which the injured was lying and the sample of blood stained and simple earths (Ex. 2 and 3) in two separate containers and all these three articles were sealed on the spot after preparetion of the two spearate seizure lists Ex. 5 and Ex. 6 respectively.
6. P.W. 5 Dr. R.C. Vajpayee, the then Medical Officer Incharge, P.H.C. Kasganj conducted the medical examination of injured Sushil Kumar on 03.05.1982 at 5.50 a.m. and found the following on his person:-
"1. Incised wounds 3 in number, measuring in size 9 cm x 1 cm x bone, 9 cm x 1.5 cm x bone, 8 cm x 1/2 cm x bone deep on front of chin, lower lip left side face and upper part of left side neck in an area of 12 cms x 5 cms. Margin of each wound clear cut. Transverse in direction, bleeding present.
2. Incised wound 6 cms x o.5 cm x skin deep on front and left side of neck. Conscious, G.D. Poor, pulse 90/mt feeble, E.P.100/50 mm, Respiration-N.A.D."
7. All the injuries were kept under observation and X-ray was advised of the skull left side face and chin. As per the opinion of the doctor, the injuries were caused by some shar-adged weapon like pharsa and knife and their duration was fresh and the possibility of extension of the injuries was on 03.05.1982 at 4.00 am. P.W. 4, Dr. K.L. Maheshwari, a private medical practitioner, X-rayed injured Sushil Kumar at his private clinic and x-ray plant on 04.05.1982. He found fracture on the left side of mandible in the X-ray plate of skull. The X-ray plate and the original X-ray report were handed over to the police. However, a chargesheet came to be submitted against the appellants, post investigation, the appellants- accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried while coming up with the stand that they had been falsely implicated. The prosecution in order to bring home the charges produced the following witnesses:
1) P.W.1- Shishu Pal, complainant; (2) P.W.-2 Sushil Kumar (injured); (3) P.W.3-S.I. Ganga Prasad (investigator); (4) P.W.4- Dr. K.L. Maheswari who x-rayed the victim, and; (5) P.W.5- Dr. Dr. R.C. Vajpayee who medically examined the injured.
8. Post conduction of the trial, the court of IInd, Additional Sessions Judge, Etah proceeded to convict the appellants under Section 326/ 34 IPC to undergo R.I. for four years and to pay fine Rs.500/- in default of payment of fine undergo rigorous imprisonment of six months.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the entire prosecution theory culminating into conviction cannot be sustained for the single moment. Elaborating the said submission, it is submitted that a totally false and frivolous allegation has been levelled without any nexus to the reality. Submission is that the appellants are at at no point of time present when the said incident took place and whatever recovery has been shown, it is a planted one and farse. Contention is that though the incident is stated to have been witnessed by several villagers as per the version of the prosecution being one Deen Dayal who was sleeping near the cot of the Sushil Kumar along with other relatives who have alleged to have been sleeping in the house who woke up and saw and recognized the appellants but none of them came in the witness box in support of the prosecution theory which itself shows that there is falsity and hollowness in the prosecution case. Submission is that two witnesses on which the entire prosecution case hinges is firstly of the complainant Sishu Pal and secondly, the injured Sushil Kumar. Submission is that they are the interested witnesses and the entire basis so made of their testimony to hold the appellants' guilty is nothing but a clear cut case of false implication. It is also contended that there happens to be no motive so as to take such an extreme step, particularly, when only making bald allegations that the accused Raj Kumar son of Raghuraj Singh has lodged a first information report under Section 307 against the son of Sushil Kumar in which they had to remain in jail and they were bailed out that they cannot be to be the basis for committing criminality. Submission is that there was no actual motive behind commission of the said offences and the appellants have been framed in that regard. It is also contended on behalf of the appellants that the first information report is anti-timed which has been written after much deliberations and consultations at the advice of the police, particularly, when in the Chithi/ Majrubi, no crime number has been mentioned by the clerk constable and at the first information report being in-existence, there is no as to why the crime number or heading of the case had not been mentioned in chitti/ majrubi. Further submission is that there happens to be grave discrepancies and contradictions in the statements of the eye-witnesses. Contention is that in the first information report there is no specific weapon has been assigned with the individual accused while in the statements before the court below, the eyewitness stated to accused- Mehtab and Ramvir for having Pharsa while the rest of the two accused were armed with knife. It is also contended that the said fact has also not been mentioned before the investigating officer by the witness which shows a clear cut case of improvement which makes the entire prosecution case bogus.
10. Argument is also to the extent that the medical evidence also does not support the ocular evidence inasmuch as only two injuries have been found by the doctors while it is stated by all the witnesses and all the four accused persons including the appellants had extended several blows and, thus, at least 4 injuries would have been found in that regard. It is also contended that the conviction of the appellants under section 326/34 of the IPC could have been made, particularly, when there were only two injuries and one of the injuries were simple in nature and the other has been shown to be grievous but the same is not. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that though the incident is dated 03.05.1982 and more than 43 years have passed and the appellants do not possess any criminal record, thus, the sentence of the appellants be modified and altered to fine.
11. Shri S.K. Singh, learned AGA for the State while countering the submission of the counsel for the appellants has submitted that the contention so sought to be raised has no legs to stand, particularly, when it is amply clear and beyond shadow of doubt that the appellants have committed criminality. Submission is that a perusal of the first information report itself points out the involvement of the appellants in commission of the offences and the eyewitness to the said incident P.W.1-Shishu Pal, complainant and P.W.-2, Shushil Kumar and the nature of the injuries vis-a-vis the weapons so used itself corroborates the prosecution and merely because the said two eyewitnesses are related to each other cannot be said to be a disqualification, particularly, when there is no allegation against the same. Furthermore, it has also come on record in the statements of the eyewitnesses that there happens to be a motive, thus, it cannot be said that no offences have been committed. He further submits that looking into the fact that 43 years have passed post the incident and the appellants do not possess any criminal record, thus, the conviction under Section 326 read with 34 IPC be upheld but the sentence of imprisonment for four years be reduced to fine.
12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records carefully.
13. FIR alleges that on 03.05.1982 when the complainant, P.W.-1 Shishu Pal and P.W.-2, Shushil Kumar, injured along with one Deen Dayal and other relatives in their house then the appellants barged into the house along with pointed weapons being pharsas and knife and extended blow upon the injured- Sushil Kumar pursuant whereto the two injuries were sustained, one being incised wounds 3 in number, measuring in size 9 cm x 1 cm x bone, 9 cm x 1.5 cm x bone, 8 cm x 1/2 cm x bone deep on front of chin, lower lip left side face and upper part of left side neck in an area of 12 cms x 5 cms. Margin of each wound clear cut, second being incised wound 6 cms x o.5 cm x skin deep on front and left side of neck. So far as the injury no. 1 is concerned, the same is grievous and the second is simple. Importantly, there are two eyewitnesses being P.W.-1, complainant and P.W.-2, Shushil Kumar though it is the allegation of the appellants that barring the two eyewitnesses, the other persons who had witnessed the said incident were Deen Dayal etc. but they did step into the witness box and thus the prosecution theory stands exploded, the same is preposterous being misconceived, particularly, when the injured as well as the complainant are the eyewitnesses and their testimony is intact and they support the prosecution theory, thus, merely because there happened to be related to each other would not make their testimony unreliable.
14. Even otherwise, there happens to be the motive also as the complainant, Shishu Pal has deposed that the accused-appellant, Raj kumar's father Raghuraj Singh had lodged FIR under Section 307 IPC against the son of the injured Sushil Kumar which pursuant whereto they have to go to jail and they were bailed out which became the basis for committing the said crime. Though the counsel for the appellants has sought to deny the same but the denial is bald, there is nothing on record to suggest otherwise.
15. Apart from the same objection of the appellants to the extent that the first information report is anti-timed and made after much deliberations and consultations on the ground that no crime number or heading of the case has been mentioned in chitty/ majrubi is concerned, the same is not convincible, particularly, when it is the consistent case of the prosecution that the condition of the injured- Shushil Kumar was deteriorating and, thus, clerk constable must have been in a hurry in preparing the chitty/ majrubi. The mere fact that no crime number or heading of the case was mentioned in chitty/ majrubi would not make the ocular evidence to be unreliable.
16. Insofar as the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants to the extent that in the first information report, no weapons have been assigned to individual accused but in the statements, the accused- Mehtab and Ramvir were shown to be armed with pharsas by the rest with knives is concerned, thus, it is alleged that it is nothing but a classic case of improvement is concerned, the same is preposterous, particularly, when the FIR cannot be said to be encyclopedia and what would be relevant is the nature of the injuries which can always be extended with the aid and blow so made with the pharsa and knife. Thus, it can be safely said that the involvement of the appellants while commissioning the said offence. However, looking into the fact that the incident is dated 02/03.05.1982 and the appeal had been preferred in the year 1984, more than 43 years have passed from the date of the incident and nothing has been forthcoming that the appellants possess any criminal history, thus, the conviction of the appellants under Section 326 read with 34 of the IPC is liable to be upheld while modifying and altering and reducing the punishment to the period undergone while imposition of fine.
17. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part.
18. The conviction of the appellants under Section 326 read with 34 of the IPC is upheld. The sentence for the offences under Section 326 read with 34 IPC is reduced to the period already undergone with a fine of Rs. 15,000/- each.
19. The fine amount imposed upon the accused-appellant for the aforesaid offence shall be deposited by the appellant within three months from today. In case of default in payment of fine amount within the aforesaid period, the appellant shall serve out the entire sentence awarded to him by the trial court vide impugned judgment and order.
20. Let a copy of the judgment along with trial court record be sent to the Sessions Judge, Agra for compliance.
21. A compliance report be sent to this Court.
22. A copy of the order be provided to the counsel for the appellant as well as learned AGA as per rule.
(Vikas Budhwar,J.)
September 16, 2025
A. Prajapati
