Allahabad High Court
Jagram And Others vs State Of U.P. on 4 September, 2025
Author: Saumitra Dayal Singh
Bench: Saumitra Dayal Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3293 of 1985 Jagram And Others Appellants(s) Versus State of U.P Respondents(s) Counsel for Appellants(s) : Pt. Mohan Chandra Counsel for Respondent(s) : Govt. Advocate Court No. -44 HON'BLE SAUMITRA DAYAL SINGH, J.
HON'BLE TEJ PRATAP TIWARI, J.
1. Heard Mr. Arunendra Kumar Singh, learned Amicus Curiae for appellants and Sri Surendra Singh, learned A.G.A for the State.
2. The present criminal appeal arises from the judgement and order dated 05/6.12.1985, passed by Sri Dinesh Mohan Arya, learned IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Bulandshahr in S.T. No. 65 of 1984, (State Versus Jagram, Lekhram, Santram, Banke and Neeman). Thereby the learned Court below has convicted all the accused persons for offence under Sections 147, 452, 342 and 302/149 I.P.C. and sentenced them as below:
(i) life imprisonment for the offence under Section 302/149 I.P.C.;
(ii) one year rigorous imprisonment for offence under Section 147 I.P.C.;
(iii) three years rigorous imprisonment for offence under Section 452 I.P.C; and
(iv) one year rigorous imprisonment for offence under Section 342 I.P.C. All sentences are to run concurrently.
During pendency of this appeal all appellants except appellant no. 3, namely, Santram, died. Order sheet also reveals that against the conviction order, the appellants were granted bail on 09.12.1985.
3. The prosecution story emerged on the strength of Written Report dated 01.09.1982 submitted by Dungar (PW-1) brother of the deceased Deepchand submitted at Police Station Narsena, Bulandshahr, disclosing that all the accused persons reached the house of the victim side. Complaining that the deceased had pelted a stone at the daughter of one Jagram (not examined at the trial). It landed in their house. They started assaulting Deepchand and dragged him outside their house. Deepchand tried to flee and ran inside the house of Nanuwa (not examined). The accused persons dragged him out from that place as well and continued to assault him, forcing him to accompany them to their house. There they locked him and did not release him despite requests made by the victim side. The occurrence was witnessed by Tukiram (PW-2), another brother of the deceased, Bhawani, Hukuma, Kuluwa and Nanuwa (none examined at the trial). The Written Report is Ex. Ka-2 at the trial. On that Written Report, FIR was registered at 7:30 PM on 03.11.1982, under Sections 147, 452, 323, 342 I.P.C. It is Ex. Ka-17.
4. Consequent to that FIR, the Investigation Officer S.I. Jagveer Singh (PW-7) recovered the injured Deepchand from the house of the other accused-appellants, Jagram and Lekhram, both sons of Wazir Singh. The injured was recovered from inside a room, bolted from outside. It was guarded by Lekhram. That Recovery Memo is Ex.Ka-10. Also, on 03.11.1982, the Investigation Officer Jagveer Singh (PW-7) recovered samples of blood stained and plain earth from the place of recovery of the injured Deepchand. It is Ex.Ka-12 at the trial.
5. Thereupon injured Deepchand was examined by the Medical Officer PHC Unchagaon, Dr. A.K. Garg (PW-4), at about 12:30 AM on 04.11.1982. In that he recorded the following injuries suffered by Deepchand:
(i) Abraised contusion 2 x 3 cm, red, on the left side of face 1.5 cm below the left eye;
(ii) Abraised contusion 7 x 3 cm, red, on the outer side of right elbow joint;
(iii) Swelling from the 6 cm above the elbow joint upto the fingers with multiple contusions oer the back of elbow joint, fore arem & a lacerated wound 1 x 1 cm on the back of hand 5 cm above the root of middle finger. Suspected fracture of underlying bone of upper arm at its lower end, fracture shaft of the both bones of forearm, fracture of 2nd, 3rd, 4th metacarples of left hand advised for X-Ray
(iv) Contusion swelling 8 x 12 cm, red, on the front of right leg 12 cm below the knee joint suspected fracture of under lying leg bone advised X-Ray;
(v) Contusion 11 x 3 cm, oblique, red, on the outer & infront of left thigh 6 cm above the knee joint. Suspected fracture of underlying thigh bone advised X-Ray;
(vi) Contusion 4 x 3 cm, with abrasion in middle, red, on the back of left leg 3 cm below the knee joint;
(vii) Lacerated wound 1 x 0.5 x 1.5 cm bleeding on the outer side of left leg 3 cm above the ankle joint. Suspected fracture of underlying outer leg bone. Advisesd X-Ray.
It is Ex.Ka-3 at the trial.
6. Treatment that may have been offered between early hours of 04.11.1982, till the death of Deepchand, has not been proven by the prosecution. At the same time, the Inquest Report indicates that information of his death was received by S.I. Jagveer Singh, at about 9:30 PM on 04.11.1982. Thereupon, the Inquest Report was prepared between 2:30 PM and 3:35 PM, the next day, on 5.11.1982. The Inquest Report is Ex.Ka-5 at the trial.
7. Thereafter, Dr. O.N. Pandey conducted the autopsy examination on the dead body of the deceased on 06.11.1982 at 1:30 PM. He observed, death may have been caused due to shock and haemorrhage due to ante mortem injuries. Those ante mortem injuries were recorded as below:
(i) Contusion 1.5 x 105 cm on the the left side of face including both eyelids;
(ii) Swelling 3 x 3 cm on the dorsal aspect of left hand having L.W x1/4 x bone deep (dressed wound) in middle (of IIIrd metiscorpal bone);
(iii) Swelling 2 x 4 cm on the back & outer aspect of left forearm;
(iv) Swelling & contusion 8 x 3 cm on the back of left upper arm, lower 2/3rd;
(v) Abraded contusion 2 x 1.5 cm on the back of left elbow and lower part of left upper arm;
(vi) Abraised 1.5 x 1.5 cm on the back of right upper arm at lower 1/3rd;
(vii) Swelling & contusion 7 x 5 on the front, 2cm & back of right leg in middle 2/3rd;
(viii) L.W x x muscle deep on the lower part of left leg outer aspect (dressed wound);
(ix) Swelling 2 x 2 cm on the outer aspect of left ankle joint;
(x) contusion 10 x 5 cm on the outer aspect of right thigh & hip.
8. Also, he estimated death to have been caused one and three quarter day earlier. The Autopsy Report is Ex.Ka-4 at the trial.
9. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted under Section 304 I.P.C against the accused persons, by the Investigation Officer, Jagveer Singh (PW-7) .
10. Upon the trial being committed to the Court of Sessions, following charges were framed against the accused persons:
Firstly, that you on 03.11.1982 at about 4:30 PM at the house of Dipchand situated in village Naval, Police Station Narsena were the member of unlawful assembly and in prosecution of the common object of that assembly was to commit the murder of Dipchand committed the offence of roiting and thereby you committed an offence punishable u/s 147 I.P.C and within the cognizance of this Court;
Secondly, that you o the aforesaid date, time and in your house situated in the Abadi of village Mawal, Polie Station Narsena, District Bulandshahr wrongfully confined Dipchand and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 342 I.P.C and within the cognizance of this Court;
Thirdly, that you on the aforesaid date, time and place committed house tres-pass by entering into the house of Dipchand used human dwelling & having made preparation for causing hurt and murder of Dipchand and that you thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 452 I.P.C and within the cognizance of this Court;
Fourthly, that you on the aforesaid date, time and place in prosecution of the common object committed the murder of Dipchand and thereby you committed an offence punishable u/s 302/149 PC and within the cognizance of this Court.
11. At the trial besides, relying on the above documentary evidence, prosecution relied on oral evidence led through nine witnesses. In that, the first informant Dungar (PW-1), Tukiram (PW-2) both brothers of the deceased and Rajkumar (PW-3) nephew of the first informant, were examined as ocular witnesses of the occurrence. They proved that the occurrence was caused in the manner disclosed in the FIR. Both Dungar (PW-1) and Tukiram (PW-2) described, they were present with Deepchand inside their house. They also proved existence of prior animosity. They claimed, that the accused entered their house on the pretext to complain against Deepchand for pelting a stone at the daughter of Jagram. However, they started assaulting Deepchand and dragged him outside their house, Deepchand tried to save himself and ran inside the house of Nanuwa a carpenter. The accused entered that house as well and dragged him out from there, beating him on the way to their house. There, they locked him up in a room. Since, they refused to release the injured Deepchand, the victim side lodged the FIR. On that the police arrived and found Lekhram guarding the injured, who was detained inside a room, bolted from outside. Thereafter, the injured was carried to the hospital where he stayed upto 10-11 PM. From there he was moved to Bulandshahr District Hospital. There he died at 2-2:30 AM.
12. Thereafter, Tukiram was examined as PW-2. Besides making similar narration of the occurrence, he stated that the police reached the place of occurrence around 9:30-9:45 PM and recovered the injured. The injured was treated at the hospital at Unchgaon between 10-11 PM and that he died at the District Hospital at about midnight.
13. Rajkumar (PW-3) also made a similar narration of the occurrence. However, he did not specify the time when the injured was recovered or taken to Unchgaon PHC or the District Hospital or the time of his death.
14. Dr. A.K. Garg was examined as PW-4. He proved 7 injuries suffered by the deceased. In that, injury nos. 1, 2 and 6 were simple. Injury nos. 3, 4 and 5 were kept under observation. He also proved that the injuries were fresh and may have been caused between 4-5 PM on 03.11.1982.
15. Dr. O.N. Pandey was examined as PW-5. He proved the autopsy examination was conducted by him on 06.11.1982 at about 1:30 PM. He maintained that the deceased may have died one and three quarter of a day earlier. Last, he proved that all injuries may have been caused by hard and blunt object and may have been sufficient to cause death.
16. Thereafter, S.I. Bhoop Singh was examined as PW-6, to prove the Inquest Report and transportation of the dead body of the deceased Deepchand. Investigation Officer, S.I. Jagveer Singh was examined as PW-7. He proved the recoveries and investigation as also the submission of the charge sheet. Constable clerk Asharfi Lal was examined as PW-8. He proved the preparation of the check FIR and the relevant G.D. entries. Last, Constable Dharamveer Singh was examined as PW-9. He proved preparation of certain documents.
17. Thereafter, the statement of accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
18. In that state of evidence, the learned Court below has convicted the appellants for offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced them accordingly.
19. Submissions of learned Amicus Curiae are, in the first place, the occurrence was caused otherwise. Referring to the cross-examination statements, it has been stressed that the informant side had assaulted the appellant side first. In self defence, the appellant side had retaliated. In that injury may have been suffered by the deceased. It was wholly unintentional and caused in self defence. Second, it has been submitted that the death occurred much later. All injuries were simple in nature as may not have resulted in death. Owing to lack of proper treatment the deceased may have suffered certain conditions not known to the parties. Third, it has been submitted, the injuries are either simple in nature or suffered on non vital body parts. Fourth, in any case, the occurrence may not travel beyond Section 304 (1) I.P.C. In the first place, FIR was lodged under Sections 147, 452, 323, 342 I.P.C. Keeping in mind simple/non fatal nature of the injuries. Upon occurrence of death and conclusion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted under Section 304 I.P.C. Yet, the learned Court below framed charge under Section 302 I.P.C. and erred in law in convicting the appellants for that higher offence. Last, it has been pointed that the appellant Santram would be about 83 years of age, today. He was not assigned any specific role in the occurrence. He has been named, charged and convicted upon over implication.
20. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. would submit, all the ingredients of the offence as alleged have been duly proven at the trial. Therefore, no doubt may exist that may allow the Court to interfere in the order of conviction.
21. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, before the order of conviction may be sustained, it is a settled principle in law that prosecution story must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. In the present facts, the prosecution has narrated that the appellant started assaulting the deceased at around 4:30 PM. on 3.11.1982. That assault started at the house of the informant and continued through the common places as also at the house of Nanuwa and then further on the path up to the house of the appellants where the deceased was assaulted and confined inside a room. Yet, as to the manner of assault, no specific weapon or role came to be assigned to Santram, with respect to any of the seven injuries noted by Dr. A.K. Garg who first examined Deepchand at about 12.30 AM on 4.11.1982.
22. Second, no recovery of any weapon used in assault was made, either at the pointing out of Santram or otherwise.
23. Third, no independent witness was examined though the occurrence is described to have taken place not only at the house of the informant but also at the house of Nanuwa and on the way from the house of the first informant, to the house of the Nanuwa and from the house of Nanuwa to the house of appellants.
24. Fourth, Dr. A.K. Garg (PW-4) clearly proved - injury nos. 1, 2 and 6 were simple in nature. Though injury nos. 3, 4, 5 and 7 were kept under observation, there is neither any X-ray examination report nor those injuries were received on any vital body part of the deceased.
25. Fifth, there is absolutely no reference made by Dr. A.K. Garg (PW- 4) advising the injured Deepchand to be admitted to a higher medical centre.
26. Sixth, the Injury Report prepared by Dr. A.K. Garg (PW-4) (Ex.Ka-3) disclosed seven injuries whereas the Autopsy Report proved by Dr. O.N. Pandey (PW-5) (Ex.Ka-4) disclosed 10 injuries. No attempt was made by the prosecution to explain those other injuries.
27. Seventh, the Inquest Report prepared by Investigation Officer Jagveer Singh (PW-7) clearly bears (on its face), that the information of date and time of death of Deepchand at 04.11.1982 at 09.30 PM. (Ex.Ka-5). The disclosure of that date and time finds wholesome corroboration through the evidence of Dr. O.N. Pandey (PW.-5) who proved that death was caused about one and three quarter day prior to 06.11.1982, 1:30 PM. It clearly indicates that death may have been caused in the early evening on 04.11.1982.
28. Eighth, there is material inconsistency in the time of death disclosed by Dungar (PW.-1) who described that the deceased died around 2-2.30 AM, on 04.11.1982 while Tuki Ram claimed that the death occurred around 12:00 midnight on 3/4.11.1982. The third fact witness Raj Kumar (PW-3) did not disclose the time of death of the Deepchand. Clearly, deliberately, the fact witnesses have shifted the time of death from 9:30 PM to midnight and beyond without disclosing what events may have been witnessed in the meanwhile.
29. Ninth, there is no referral document requiring the injured Deepchand to be admitted to a higher medical centre, there is absolutely no document of admission of Deepchand to any hospital. No bed head ticket or treatment offered to the injured at the District Hospital Bulandshahr, was narrated or proven at the trial. Thereby, it was also not established, if Deepchand was ever admitted to any hospital where he may have died during treatment. Had such evidence existed even at the relevant time, Dr. O.N. Pandey (PW-5), would have mentioned the time of death on the strength of hospital documents and he not have made an estimate of the time of death of Deepchand at one and three quarter day prior to the autopsy examination.
30. In face of such doubts existing, the prosecution has not disclosed to the Court the entire facts specially arising after the recovery of the injured Deepchand.
31. While we may have given a margin to the prosecution with respect to the occurrence of assault inasmuch as there is less to doubt the recovery of the injured from the house of the appellants, at the same time it is difficult to let a single margin arise with respect to the cause of death. In that, neither the date and time of the occurrence nor the cause of death nor the injury that may have led to such death nor the three further ante-mortem injuries noted in the Autopsy Examination have been explained. In absence of proof of admission of Deepchand to the District Hospital and in absence of proof that he died during the treatment, the sustainability of the prosecution story as may lead to a successful conviction, is questionable.
32. Then we are mindful that no specific role was assigned to the present appellant - Santram for causing any specific injury. The two persons specifically named by the prosecution are Jagram to whom motive has been assigned and Lekh Ram who was guarding the injured sitting outside the room where he had been detained, are dead. Also, the prosecution witness themselves stated, they were not aware if the deceased had been assaulted at the house of the appellant.
33. Last, we may note that Nanuwa who was the independent witness of the occurrence, was also not examined. The assault having been committed at his house, that evidence may have also remained relevant especially as to the role played by the appellant Santram.
34. In face of such doubts, we are unable to sustain the prosecution story on the test of reasonable doubt. Accordingly the present appeal is allowed on a benefit of doubt, to Santram. The judgment and order dated 05/6.12.1985 is hereby set aside.
35. The sole surviving appellant no.3, namely, Santram is on bail. He need not to surrender. His bail bonds are cancelled and sureties discharged. However, appellant is directed to furnish bail bonds in compliance of Section 437-A Cr.P.C. to the satisfaction of the Court concerned, within two months from today.
36. Learned Amicus Curiae appearing on behalf of the appellant has rendered his valuable assistance to the Court. He be paid Rs. 25,000/-, towards his fee for the able assistance provided by him in hearing of the present appeal.
37. Copy of this judgment along-with original records of Court below be transmitted to the Court concerned for necessary compliance. Compliance report be submitted to this Court at the earliest. Office is directed to keep the compliance report on record.
(Tej Pratap Tiwari, J.) (Saumitra Dayal Singh, J.) September 04, 2025 PS/Manoj