Allahabad High Court
Nathu Ram And Others vs The State Of U.P. on 1 June, 2020
Author: Chandra Dhari Singh
Bench: Chandra Dhari Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH Reserved In chamber Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 705 of 1998 Appellant :- Nathu Ram and others Respondent :- The State Of U.P. Counsel for Appellant :- Udai Bhan Pande,Ajay Kumar Pandey Hon'ble Chandra Dhari Singh,J.
1. The instant criminal appeal has been filed by appellants against the judgment and order dated 04.12.1998 passed by learned Xth Additional District and Sessions Judge, Faizabad in ST No.772 of 1996 convicting and sentencing the appellants to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years under Section 307/ 149 IPC and one year rigorous imprisonment under Section 342 IPC. Appellant no.1 Nathu Ram and appellant no.2 Sita Ram have also been sentenced for two years rigorous imprisonment under Section 148 IPC and appellant no.3 Smt. Deoki Devi for one year rigorous imprisonment under Section 147 IPC.
2. Brief facts of this case are that on 24.07.1996, in the morning after hearing the sound of crying and shouting of Vidhyawati wife of Ram Gopal, the complainant and other villagers approached to the house of Ram Gopal where they have been informed by Vidhyawati that Nathu Ram, Sita Ram and two other persons, who were their relatives, were beating her husband after closing the door inside. The villagers broken the door and saw that Nathu Ram and Sita Ram were armed with Gadasa mutilated the hand of Ram Gopal in the courtyard of Nathu Ram and they are trying to mutilate the legs of the injured Ram Gopal. The other two relatives namely, Ashok Kumar and Raju Gopal were caught the injured whereas Smt. Deoki Devi, who is the wife of Nathu Ram, instigated the accused persons to mutilate the hands and legs of Ram Gopal. The villagers caught hold all the accused persons on the spot but Sita Ram who armed with Gadasa managed to run away from the place of incident. An FIR was registered against the accused persons in Case Crime No.111 of 1996, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 342, 307, 326 IPC, Police Station Kumarganj, District Faizabad. After investigation, the charge-sheet has been submitted against the accused persons under the abovesaid sections.
3. On the charge-sheet, the court concerned had taken cognizance against the accused persons. Vide order dated 10.01.1997, the charges were framed against the accused persons under Sections 147, 148, 342, 326, 307/149 IPC and on denial of the charges, the trial was commenced. The recovery memo of chopped hand was exhibited as Exht. Ka-1, FIR as Exht. Ka-2, injury report as Exht. Ka-3, Charge-sheet as Exht. Ka-4, Chick report as Exht. Ka-5, site map as Exht. Ka-7, blood stained earth and plain soil as Exht. Ka-8, recovery memo of Gadasa as Exht. Ka-9. The prosecution has examined six witnesses to establish the case.
4. The injured P.W. 1 Ram Gopal in his deposition has stated that the incident was taken place one and a half year ago in the morning at about 7:00 AM. The injured has further stated that while he was cleaning his teeth in front of the door of his house, the wife of Nathu Ram came and told that Nathu Ram is asking for help to carry wheat bag inside the house. The injured went to the house of Nathu Ram and after providing help, he was washing his mouth and face by the hand pump situated in the courtyard of Nathu Ram and at that time, Nathu Ram and Sita Ram closed the door. Raju and Ashok had caught one hand each of Ram Gopal whereas Smt. Deoki had caught the legs. Nathu Ram and Sita Ram had mutilated the hands. Smt. Deoki instigated the accused persons to mutilate the hands and legs of the injured. The injured could not shout due to the clothe putted in his mouth. The accused persons have chopped both hands of the injured. The injured had received injuries in his legs and chest. The injured in his statement also stated that there was a property dispute and appellant Nathu Ram wanted to possess the same forcefully.
5. PW 2 Smt. Vidhyawati, who is the wife of Ram Gopal Yadav, has narrated the same story and supported the prosecution case. PW 3 Govind Singh has also supported the prosecution story. PW 4 Prabhu Nath, who had examined the injured and prepared the injury report, has also proved the injury report and stated that the injured had received eight injuries and all the injuries have been caused by sharp edged weapon. The doctor also opined that the injuries could be inflected by Gadasa.
6. Learned Counsel for appellants has submitted that the court below has committed manifest error of law and facts both while convicting and sentencing the appellants. The judgment and order is misconceived and based on conjuncture and surmises. The trial court has failed to appreciate the material contradictions and also the fact that Ram Gopal had entered in the house of the appellants only with the intention to molest the appellant no.3 wife of appellant no.1.
7. Learned Counsel for appellants has further submitted that the accused have no intention to kill or give severe injury to the injured.
8. On the other hand, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the State supported the judgment of the learned trial court and submitted that looking to the facts and circumstances and the act of the accused persons, the learned trial court has justified in finding the appellants guilty to the offence under Sections 307/ 149, 342, 148 and 147 IPC and passing sentence against them.
9. I have heard leaned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.
10. After perusing of the material on record, in the instant case genesis of the offence has not been put forwarded by the prosecution in its real nature. A look at the record shows that the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge erred in holding that from the statement of P.W. 1, P.W.2 and P.W. 3, it is established that appellants have committed the offence. The testimony of the aforesaid witnesses recorded by the learned trial Court are self-contradictory. In view of these circumstances, the learned trial Court erred in placing reliance on the testimony appearing in the statements of PW 1 and PW 2. A close scrutiny of the statements of these three witnesses would reveal that there are material contradictions in their depositions and therefore, they are not reliable. All these witnesses were highly interested and this possibility cannot be ruled out that these witnesses wanted to falsely implicate the appellants.
11. From the perusal of the record, it is also apparent that the relation between the appellants and injured person was strained and there was an old enmity between them due to property dispute. The learned trial court found the appellant guilty under Section 307 IPC on the ground that the appellant inflicted injury on the vital part of the injured but it is not a sufficient ground to hold the person guilty under Section 307 IPC but something more is required to be proved by the prosecution because it is settled proposition of law that before holding a person guilty under Section 307 IPC, the prosecution is required to prove beyond doubt that the act has been completed and the injury inflicted by such person was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. A bare perusal of the report of the injuries sustained by injured would reveal that these were not such which could have been sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Further the prosecution also failed to establish beyond doubt that the accused appellants had any intention to commit murder of injured or they had knowledge that the injuries inflicted on the person of the injured were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. It is thus clear that none of the ingredients of Section 307 IPC can be said to have been proved in the instant case and as such accused-appellant could not have been held guilty for the offence under Section 307 IPC.
12. The learned trial Court also seriously erred in not properly considering the fact that there are material contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. Failure to do so casts a serious doubt regarding the truthfulness of the prosecution case and in these circumstances, the learned trial Court could have given benefit of doubt to the accused-appellants. The testimony of the eyewitnesses are highly doubtful.
13. In view of the foregoing discussions, I am of the opinion that the prosecution ulterly failed to bring home guilt against the accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt and, therefore, the learned trial Court erred in convicting the accused-appellants.
14. For the reasons stated above, this appeal is, therefore, allowed and judgment and order dated 04.12.1998 passed by learned Xth Additional District and Sessions Judge, Faizabad in ST No.772 of 1996 is hereby set aside.
15. Let the copy of this judgment as well as the record be transmitted to the concerned Trial Court forthwith for necessary compliance.
Order Date:01.06.2020
akverma (Chandra Dhari Singh, J.)