Nand Ram vs State of U.P.

S.C. Chaurasia, J.—Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

This appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment & order dated 16.09.2009 passed by the learned Additional Session Judge/F.T.C.3, Jalaun at Orai in S.T. No. 125 of 1995, State Vs. Nand Ram and others, whereby, he convicted the accused/appellant Nand Ram under Sections 148, 323/149 and 302/149 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment under Section 148 I.P.C., six months rigorous imprisonment under Section 323/149 I.P.C. and rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/ under Section 302/149 I.P.C. and on default of payment of fine, he was directed to further undergo six months rigorous imprisonment. During the pendency of appeal, the prayer for bail has been made on behalf of the appellant.

The coaccused Ram Swaroop S/o Amarju, Shyam Lal, Munna Rajak and Mata Prasad were also convicted and sentenced vide impugned judgment and order dated 16.09.2009 passed in S.T. No. 125 of 1995 State Vs. Nand Ram and others and they have preferred a Criminal Appeal No. 6063 of 2009 against their conviction separately. They have been enlarged on bail during the pendency of appeal vide order dated 19.11.2009 passed by the Division Bench of this Court.

The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 20.03.1992 at about 2.00 p.m., informant Ram Swaroop S/o Baijnath along with other villagers went from the village Gadar to village Madora for meeting on the occasion of Holi. At about 5.00 p.m., they were returning to their village. When Anand Kumar and Hari Singh reached by motorcycle and other persons by tractor on the road at the outskirt of the village Madora, Nand Ram, Ram Swaroop S/o Amarju, Shyam Lal, Munna Rajak and Mata Prasad met there. They stopped them and started hurling abuses and tried to snatch the motorcycle. When Anand Kumar and Hari Singh resisted, Nand Ram assaulted by axe on the head of Anand Kumar and he fell down. Munna Rajak assaulted Hari Singh by danda. When other persons challenged them, Ram Swaroop S/o Amarju opened fires, but they escaped. When Mansukh and Madhau tried to save Anand Kumar, Mata Prasad and Shyam Lal also assaulted them by danda and axe. They threw bricks and stones on the accused. Thereafter, the accused fled away after causing damage to motorcycle and tractor. Anand Kumar, Mansukh, Hari Singh and Madhau sustained injuries. They were carried to the hospital, where Anand Kumar succumbed to his injuries. Thereafter, the F.I.R. was lodged on the same day at 7.25 P.M. The case was investigated and the chargesheet was filed against all the five accused.

After considering the evidence produced by the prosecution, the learned Trial Court has convicted the appellant and other coaccused as referred to above.

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the coaccused have been granted bail by this Court; that the deceased has also suffered other injuries; that the accused of crosscase have been convicted; that the complainant party was the aggressor; that there was no sufficient evidence to record conviction against the appellant.

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that the learned Trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant and the other coaccused and there is no sufficient ground to enlarge the appellant on bail as his case stands on different footing than that of the case of the coaccused, who have been enlarged on bail.

The prosecution has examined eight witnesses including informant Ram Swaroop S/o Baijnath, PW1, Mansukh, PW2 and Hari Singh, PW3 eye witnesses of the incident. They have supported the prosecution version. Sri Mansukh (PW2) and Sri Hari Singh (PW3) are the injured witnesses. Their testimonies have been corroborated by the medical evidence. The appellant Nand Ram is alleged to have assaulted the deceased on the head by axe and he sustained one incised wound on vital part and it caused his death. The role assigned to the other coaccused is different than that of the role assigned to the appellant. The injuries sustained by the other injured were found simple. Since the role assigned to the appellant is different than that of the role assigned to the other coaccused, he is not entitled to get bail on the ground of parity.

The injured witnesses Mansukh and Hari Singh of the instant case have been convicted and sentenced under Sections 147 and 323/149 I.P.C. in S.T. No. 156 of 1996, State Vs. Hari Singh & another. In our opinion, the conviction of the said persons in the crosscase under the said offences cannot be a valid ground to enlarge the appellant on bail in the instant case, who is the main accused.

After considering the record and submissions made on behalf of both the parties, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, we do not find any sufficient or valid ground to enlarge the appellant on bail. The prayer for bail made on behalf of the appellant Nand Ram is rejected accordingly.