Ram Sunder vs State of U.P.

Vinod Prasad, J.—Challenge in this appeal by the sole appellant Ram Sunder is to his conviction u/s 307. I.P.C. and imposed sentence of four years R.I. recorded by IInd Additional Sessions Judge. Azamgarh in S.T. No. 335 of 1980. State v. Ram Naresh and other Rs. relating to P. S. Madhuban, district Azamgarh. By the impugned judgment, two other accused persons Sabru and Ram Naresh have been acquitted for the charge u/s 302/34. I.P.C.

Prosecution allegations against the appellant, stated briefly, were that on 30.10.1977 at 6 a.m. appellant had caused ballam injury to the informant Laxman in his field at the instigation of acquitted accused Sabru. F.I.R. of the incident was got scribed through Ram Briksha by injured Laxman and then it was lodged at P. S. Madhuban the same day at 9.30 a.m. at a distance of six miles.

Medical examination of the injured Laxman was done on the same day at 10.30 a.m. by Dr. D. K. Singh at State Dispensary, Madhuban. Doctor has noted an incised injury 2.3 cm. x 0.6 cm. x Bone deep on the right side chest 17 cm. away from umbilicus at 10 O''clock position with clean cut margins and bleeding present. Doctor has also suspected a lever injury. Doctor has also noted the injury to be within six hours and was caused by sharp edged weapon. Patient was also referred to Azamgarh Civil Hospital for better needful treatment. In the estimation of Dr. D. K. Singh P.W. 4. the sustained injury was dangerous to life.

After registration of crime, investigation was conducted and ultimately charge-sheet was submitted against three accused Naresh, Sabru and appellant on 9.12.1977 u/s 307. I.P.C.

On the basis of the charge-sheet, Judicial Magistrate, Ghoshi registered Criminal Case No. 214 of 1978, State v. Naresh and others, on 14.2.1978 and finding the case triable by Session''s Court committed it for trial where it was registered as S.T. No. 335 of 1980, State v. Ram Naresh and others, on 1.12.1980.

To establish the guilt of the accused, prosecution examined in all six witnesses, out of whom Smt. Anesia P.W. 1. Chandar P.W. 2 and Ram Briksha P.W. 5 were facts witnesses. Formal witnesses included Inspector Ram Dayal Singh P.W. 3. who is the second Investigating Officer and had charge-sheeted the accused vide Ext. Ka-1, Dr. D. K. Singh P.W. 4, Medical Officer, Madhuban Hospital, who had examined the injured Laxman and S.O. Narendra Bahadur Singh P.W. 6, who is the first Investigating Officer. Besides placing reliance on the above witnesses, prosecution also relied upon medical examination report Ext. Ka-3, written report Ext. Ka-4, site plan Ext. Ka-5 and G.D. entry Ext. Ka-6.

In their statements u/s 313, Cr. P.C., all the accused persons denied prosecution evidences and pleaded their false implication.

Vide impugned judgment and order dated 6th January, 1982, IInd Additional Sessions Judge found prosecution case established only against the appellant Ram Sunder and, therefore, convicted him u/s 307, I.P.C. and imposed sentence of four years R.I. It however found prosecution version unestablished against two other accused Sabru and Ram Naresh and, therefore, acquitted them for charge u/s 307/34, I.P.C. Hence, this appeal by the sole convicted accused-appellant.

In support of the appeal. 1 have heard Smt. Sandhya Agarwal, learned amicus curiae and Sri Patanjali Mishra, learned A.G.A. and have perused the evidences of all the prosecution witnesses and other materials on trial court record.

At the outset, it is noted that before Laxman, the sole injured in the case, could testify in trial, he left for his heavenly abode and, therefore, could not be examined.

The fact witness P.W. 1 has repeated the prosecution allegations contained in the F.I.R. She was cross-examined at length but the defence has failed to elicit any damaging evidence from her testimony. She is categorical in deposing that because the ox of informant penetrated in sugarcane field of accused Sabru. the incident occurred because some sugarcane crop was damaged. She further stated that she had witnessed the incident and after her husband was assaulted, he had fallen down. She further deposed that appellant was armed with ballam whereas co-accused Ram Naresh was armed with lathi. She further deposed that the injured was carried on a cot to the police station and the F.I.R. was scribed by Ram Briksha P.W. 5. She was suggested that the injured had sustained injuries from the plough, which suggestion she has categorically denied. She is widow of the deceased and hence had no reason to spare real assailants of her deceased husband. Her testimony is confidence inspiring and unblemished. She has given truthful narration of the incident.

Version of P.W. 1 has been well corroborated by P.W. 2 Chander. From his cross-examination also the defence has failed to elicit any damaging evidence. He is an independent witness and has no animus to depose falsely against the accused.

Medical evidence of Dr. D. K. Singh P.W. 4 has supported the prosecution version in its entirety as the doctor had deposed that the injury sustained by the injured could be dangerous to life. Defence has not questioned the doctor on the said aspect of the matter. His cross-examination is woefully deficient. No attempt was made by the accused to elicit from the doctor that the injury sustained by the injured could not have been dangerous to life. He was cross-examined only on one aspect that the injury sustained by the injured was by iron plough. The aforesaid suggestion by the defence has been categorically rebuffed by the doctor in no uncertain terms.

P.W. 5 scribe of the F.I.R. has testified that he had written the F.I.R. at the dictation of the injured Laxman and is the correct narration of his dictation. First Investigating Officer Narendra Bahadur Singh P.W. 6 has deposed regarding the investigatory steps taken by him. Only some contradictions were put to him in his cross-examination. From his evidence also, no damaging testimony surfaced.

In such facts scenario, the prosecution successfully established the guilt of the appellant. Defence has failed to elicit anything which may cause a dent in the prosecution version. It is a day light incident and there was no motive for the prosecution, specially the widow, to falsely implicate the appellant exonerating the real assailants. The contention of learned amicus curiae that appellant has been implicated falsely does not appeal to reason and is incredible. If the prosecution wanted to cook up a case and falsely implicate a person, Sabru would have been the first target as the real enimity of the injured was with Sabru whose field lay southwards towards the field of the informant. There was sufficient motive for the appellant to cause grievous injury to the victim. From the perusal of entire trial court record as well as record of the appeal, nothing has been surfaced, which may dilute the offence or prove non participation of the appellant in the crime. Trial Judge was conscious enough to give benefit of doubt to the other two accused. Since the role of the present appellant was specific, clear and cogent of causing grievous injury to the victim, his conviction was recorded by the trial Judge and is rightly so.

I do not find any merit in this appeal. Conviction of the appellant, therefore, stands affirmed.

So far as question of sentence is concerned, learned A.G.A. has pointed out that the appellant had a criminal proclivity. After present crime, he was involved in an offence u/s 302, I.P.C. of murdering Gobari, a witness in the present case regarding which F.I.R. of crime No. 93, u/s 302, I.P.C. is registered against him, in which he has been charge-sheeted. Injured Laxman died due to sustained injury after some period. Because of his involvement in murder case appellant was not appearing in the trial court and it was only when he was apprehended that he was brought to face trial in the instant crime. Thus, he had repeated indulging in crime. In such a view, I do not find any reason to dilute the sentence of the appellant even after a gap of more than three decades. Appeal dismissed.