Laxman Yadav vs State of U.P.

Yogendra Kumar Sangal, J.—This is a criminal appeal against the judgment and order dated 23.3.1999, passed by Xth Additional Session Judge, Faizabad in Session Trial No. 20/1999, related to Case Crime No. 100/1994, State v. Laxman Yadav under Sections 307 and 324, I.P.C., P. S. Tarun, district Faizabad. By the impugned judgment and order, learned Session Judge hold guilty to the accused-Appellant for the offence u/s 307, I.P.C. and sentenced him for 10 years R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000 and in default of payment of fine, six months additional imprisonment. Rs. 1,000 out of the fine deposited was awarded as compensation to injured of the case named Bakaru.

As per prosecution case, in the night of 2/3.8.1994 when the injured Bakaru as usual was sleeping in front of kotha of his tube-well, at about 12.30 in the night accused Laxman Yadav having "gandasa" in his hand came there and started to give blow of "gandasa" on the body of the victim. He wake up and raised alarm and tried to save himself but accused had given several blows on his head, eye-brow and other parts of the body. Ram Nayak, Shyam Lal, Shiv Bahadur Verma, etc. several persons assembled there. Accused was identified in the light of electric bulb hanging on the wall of kotha of tube-well and later on, he succeeded in escaping from there.

In the same night, a report was lodged at police station concerned and case was registered against the accused. After investigation in the case, charge-sheet was submitted in the court of Magistrate for the offence u/s 307, I.P.C. Later on, the case was committed to the court of Session for his trial.

Charge was framed against the accused for his trial for the offence under Sections 307 and 324 I.P.C. but he pleaded not guilty and claimed his trial.

On behalf of prosecution, P.W. 1 Bakaru informant injured of the case, P.W. 2 Ram Nayak, P.W. 3 Shyam Lal, P.W. 4 Shiv Bahadur Verma were examined as witnesses of the case. Sudhakar Pandey Inspector, after completion of the investigation, submitted charge-sheet against the accused. P.W. 6 Dr. Hari Om Srivastava examined the injuries of the victim. He had given details of injuries found by him on the body of the victim and proved injury report prepared by him.

In his statement u/s 313, Code of Criminal Procedure, accused denied the correctness of the prosecution case and evidence and stated that he is falsely implicated in the case due to enmity. He further stated that his vision is very poor and he cannot see in the night. No litigation between him and informant is there. Informant lives in her in-laws house with his family. Severally he was rebuked for his misdeeds. No defence evidence was adduced on his behalf.

After going through the arguments of the learned Counsel for the accused and State counsel and perusing the record by the impugned judgment and order, learned trial court held him guilty for the offence u/s 307, I.P.C. and sentenced him as above. Aggrieved by this judgment and order, this appeal has been filed.

Heard learned Counsel for the Appellant and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

Accused is Dever''s son of informant''s mother-in-law which is not denied on behalf of the accused. It is also not disputed between parties that their house situated in neighbourhood of each other. It was suggested to the informant on behalf of the accused in his on oath statement that some unknown person has inflicted injuries on his body and he was falsely implicated in the case which was denied by him. This shows that it is not disputed to the accused that injuries found by the doctor on the body of the victim were there. Nowhere it is the case of the accused-Appellant that these injuries were manufactured by the accused. In his oath statement P.W. 6 Dr. Hari Om Srivastava had given details of injuries found on the body of the victim. He found five incised wound out of them four were in head region and one was on the back side of the hand. In the opinion of the doctor, all the injuries were simple and inflicted to the victim by some sharp edged weapon. He has also not denied that these injuries might have been inflicted to him in . the night of 2/3.8.1994 at about 12 O''clock by gandasa which supports the on oath version of victim. He further said that injury Nos. 3 and 4 were on vital part of the body of the victim and may be dangerous to his life if proper treatment not given to him. Injured Bakaru had also stated in his oath statement that injuries on his body were examined by the doctor. Three witnesses, i.e., P.W. 2 Ram Nayak, P.W. 3 Shyam Lal and P.W. 4 Shiv Bahadur Verma stated that they saw injuries on the body of the victim when they reached on the spot immediately after hearing hue and cry of the victim. Entry in G. D. about registration of case also supports the factum of injury on his body of injured. This all shows that injuries found by the doctor on the body of the victim and recorded by the doctor in injury report Exhibit Ka-6 were received by him in occurrence and also not denied on behalf of the accused.

As per prosecution case these injuries were inflicted by Appellant on the body of the victim. He is named in the F.I.R. F.I.R. was lodged promptly in the same night of the occurrence at 2.20 a.m. Distance of police station from the occurrence is shown 3 kilometres in the chak report. In the same night at about 4 a.m., injuries were examined by the Doctor. In Nanhai v. State 1973 SCC 266, Hon''ble Apex Court held that where soon after the occurrence. F.I.R. is lodged at the police station, it is difficult to believe that a false story can be cooked up. Informant P.W. 1 in his oath statement has stated that he was sleeping outside of the tube-well below the chhappar and there was a light arrangement on the kotha tube-well. Investigating Officer while preparing the site plan had confirmed this fact that there was a light arrangement on the spot. Accused-Appellant is not an unknown person to the informant. He is his near relative. Immediately after the occurrence, three witnesses reached there and they have given facts in their statement what actually they have seen. They have not manipulated story that there are eye-witness of the occurrence. They simply said that victim Bakaru had told them on the spot that Laxman Yadav had inflicted Injuries to him. Learned A.G.A. argued that this statement of witnesses has evidential value u/s 6 of the Evidence Act. In Sukhar v. State 2000 SCC 419: 1999 (3) ACR 2283 (SC), in almost similar facts and circumstances, the Hon''ble Apex Court held that the said statements of P. Ws. that victim have told them the name of the assailant was admissible u/s 6 of the Evidence Act.

It was argued on behalf of the accused that no motive has been attributed to the accused to cause injuries to the victim. It is the case of direct evidence against the accused, motive loses its importance in case of direct evidence. Injured himself has named him as an assailant. Even on flimsy grounds heinous offences like murder are committed. A hint is there in the F.I.R., that there is some property dispute. In his oath statement, informant stated that as there is no other issue except his wife of her father, so to share him that he should not get the property of his inlaws, he has committed this offence. He was intending to kill him. In his statement u/s 313, Code of Criminal Procedure, accused himself has admitted that informant was severely rebuked by him for his misdeeds. What were his misdeeds, it is nowhere explained on his behalf. No evidence in defence was adduced on behalf of the accused. When it can be said that it is a case of no motive. On the other hand, it is to be seen why the accused-Appellant has been falsely implicated in this case by the informant. No sufficient cause has been shown on behalf of the accused, if he has not committed the offence, why informant has named him in the prompt F.I.R. Injuries on the body of the victim on vital part by sharp edged weapon were found. Accused himself suggested him that some unknown person has inflicted injury to him. It is not believable that leaving the actual culprit informant will falsely implicate his near relative in such a matter. Informant have another enmities, it is not said on behalf of accused.

From the above all discussions, considering the evidence available on record, taking into consideration the arguments raised by the learned Counsel for the Appellant and A.G.A. on behalf of State and also going through the impugned judgment and order passed by the trial court, I find no reason to interfere on the finding of the trial court holding guilty to the accused-Appellant of inflicting injuries to the informant by gandasa.

Learned Counsel for the Appellant argued that accused is almost a blind person, he cannot see properly. He has no criminal history, although injuries are said on vital part of the body of the victim but no injury was found grievous by the doctor. If there would have been any intention of the accused to kill the informant only 1 or 2 blow of gandasa on his body were sufficient to commit his murder. No one was there to resist the accused. He was young man at that time and victim was sleeping when attack was made on him. This also shows that he was not intending to commit murder. It was further argued by learned Counsel for the Appellant that merely because victim has received injuries on the vital part of his body, it cannot necessarily be inferred that the intention of the accused was to cause the death. No injury was found by the doctor as such that it would have been sufficient to cause his death in normal circumstances. Intention of the accused could be gathered only from the injuries caused and not from the nature of injuries which might have been inflicted. Learned Counsel further argued that during the trial, accused remained in jail about six months. He was not married. He is facing the trial from last 16 years. No such motive has been proved that he was intending to commit murder of the informant, so learned Counsel for the Appellant prayed for taking lenient view in awarding sentence to him. Learned A.G.A. argued that in inflicting injuries accused used heavy cutting weapon. Injuries were inflicted on vital part of body of victim. Several blows were given. This all shows his intention. Learned trial court had sentenced him for a term of 10 years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 5,000 and in default of payment of fine, six months additional imprisonment. Seeing the facts and circumstances of the case and considering above arguments sentence awarded to the Appellant appears to be excessive.

Accordingly appeal of the accused-Appellant for acquitting him from the charge of the offence u/s 307, I.P.C. is dismissed and order of conviction is hereby maintained, but the sentence awarded to him is reduced for a term of three years and sentence awarded for fine and in default of payment of fine is maintained. Order for payment of Rs. 1,000 as compensation to the victim is also maintained.

Interim ball allowed to the accused-Appellant is hereby cancelled. He is not present in the Court. Copy of the judgment be sent forthwith to the Court concerned or summoning the accused and after taking him into custody to send him jail to serve out the sentence awarded. Learned trial court will send compliance report to this Court within two months.