Shrawan Kumar Rai @ Guddu Rai vs State of U.P.and Another

M.K. Mittal, J.—This appeal has been preferred by Shrawan Kumar Rai @ Guddu Rai against the judgment and order dated 265 2001 passed by Sri S.S. Gupta the then Additional Sessions Judge (Court No. 2), Mau, in Sessions Trial No. 38/99, whereby he has been found guilty and convicted under Sections 323, 324 IPC but instead of awarding substantive sentence has been directed to be released under Section 4 of U.P. First Offenders Probation Act (hereinafter referred as Act) for keeping peace and of being good behaviour for a period of one year, on furnishing personal bond and two sureties for Rs. 5,000/ each. It was also directed that in case of violation of any condition he would be liable to undergo sentence, after hearing on the question of sentence.

The brief facts are that Smt. Gulaichi Devi lodged an oral report which was written as NCR (Ex. Ka1) at Police Station Ranipura on 26th December, 1998 at 3.15 a.m. According to Smt. Gulaichi Devi, on 25th December, 1998 at about 11.30 p.m. she was sitting out side her house and was waiting for her two daughters who had gone to witness video which was being played at the house of Rai Sahab in the neighbourhood. The lantern was burning at her door. At that time the accused came and when the informant asked as to who was there, he started abusing her and also attacked her with the horn of deer and also pricked it. She caught hold the accused and also raised alarm but he gave a blow on her finger with horn and also gave a fist blow in her stomach and got himself released and ran away. Hari Narain, Vikram, Ramnath and others came and saw the accused running away. She was also medically examined.

Head Constable Shivaji Singh was posted at Police Station on 25th December and he prepared the NCR on the oral information of the informant. Witness Ram Awadh Verma PW 6 with whom constable was passed and with whose signature and handwriting he was familiar, proved the N.C.R. At that time Ramjiram constable clerk was also posted at Police Station and he registered the case in the general diary. The copy has been proved by this witness as Ex. Ka8.

Smt. Gulaichi Devi was medically examined by Dr. Vijai Kumar Rai PW5 Medical Officer Primary Health Centre Rampur, District Mau on 26121998 at 10.00 a.m. She appeared before the doctor herself. He found the following injuries on her person.

(i) Incised wound 2 cm. x .6 cm. x bone deep over scalp back side midline, 10 cm. from right ear. Bleeding was not present. Margins were sharp.

(ii) Incised wound 2 cm. x .3 cm. x bone deep over scalp front side midline 8.5 cm. above from left eye brow. Bleeding was not present. Margins were sharp.

(iii) Incised wound 2.5 cm. x .6 cm. x bone deep over left right finger dorsal aspect 6.5 cm. from tip of the ring finger. Bleeding was not present. Margins were sharp.

(iv) Lacerated wound 1.3 cm. x .3 cm. x skin deep over right toe 2.3 c.m. from tip of right toe. Bleeding was not present. Margins were sharp.

(v) Complaint of pain over abdomen umbilical region. No external mark was present.

(vi) Complaint of pain over left shoulder. No external marks of injury were seen.

According to Medical Officer the injuries No. 1, 2 and 3 were caused by sharp pointed weapon and were grievous in nature and the rest of the injuries were caused by hard and blunt object and were simple in nature. Duration was about half day. The doctor proved the injury report Ex. Ka3. According to him the injuries No. 1, 2 and 3 could be caused by the horn of deer if its edges were made sharp otherwise it could not be caused by the horn.

Case was investigated by SubInspector Ram Awadh Verma. He interrogated the witnesses inspected the place of occurrence and prepared the site plan Ex. Ka4. On the basis of the medical evidence Sections 324 and 308 IPC were added. After his transfer the investigation was continued by PW4 Mahadev Singh who was posted as Station Officer, Raniganj. After completing the investigation he submitted the chargesheet Ex. Ka2 against the accused.

The case was committed to the Court of Sessions. The charges were framed against the accused on 2361999 by the learned Sessions Judge, Mau. The accused denied the charges as leveled against him and pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

In support of its case, the prosecution led evidence and besides the above noted formal witnesses also examined Smt. Gulaichi Devi the informant as PW 1, Hari Narain Rai PW 2 and Ram Nath PW 3 as witnesses of fact and occurrence. Out of these PW 2 Hari Narain Rai and PW 3 Ram Nath did not support the prosecution case. Smt. Gulaichi Devi narrated the prosecution case on oath and stated that when she was sitting at her door and was waiting for her daughters the accused came and abused her and then attacked her with the horn of deer and caused her injuries. She caught him but he gave blows on her hand and stomach and released himself and ran away. It has also come in her evidence that the accused was known to her from before the incident and that the witnesses had come after about 10 minutes of the incident.

The accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He denied the prosecution case and also contended that the witnesses have deposed on account of enmity. According to him he was implicated because of enmity. The accused did not adduce any evidence in defence.

Learned Trial Court on the basis of the evidence on record concluded that the accused had attacked Smt. Gulaichi Devi and had caused her injuries. He also held that the prosecution had failed to give any evidence by way of Xray report or supplementary report to show the nature of the injuries and therefore, he did not find the accused guilty under Section 308 I.P.C. and acquitted him under that section. However, learned Trial Court finding that the prosecution had proved its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt under Sections 323, 324 I.P.C. convicted him. But instead of awarding a substantive sentence he gave him the benefit of Section 4 of the Act as the accused had no criminal history and was likely to be selected in the Police Service and an opportunity could be given to improve his conduct. However the appellant being dissatisfied with this order has come up in this appeal.

I have heard Sri Sarvesh, the learned Counsel for the appellant, Sri A.B. Srivastava the learned AGA and have perused the Trial Court record.

The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the appellant has been wrongly convicted and that the prosecution had failed to show that the alleged injuries were caused by the horn of the deer. According to him the injuries could have been caused by knife as they were found to be incised wounds. According to the learned Counsel for the appellant, the horn of the deer does not have any sharp edge and therefore, the injuries could not have been caused in the manner as alleged by the prosecution. Against it the learned Counsel for the State has contended that Smt. Gulaichi Devi, informant who is also injured person has made a positive statement that the accused attacked her with the horn of the deer and caused her injuries. He was also apprehended but before the witnesses could reach, he managed to release himself by giving blows to the injured and was seen running from the place by the witnesses. Although these two witnesses have not supported the prosecution case and in this connection the informant also stated that they reached after about 10 minutes of the incident but the learned Counsel for the State has contended that the injuries of the victim have been proved, by the medical expert and his testimony also corroborates the version of the victim. He has further contended that the learned Trial Court has rightly convicted the accused and the appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed.

In this case there is only testimony of Smt. Gulaichi Devi the victim and the informant. She stated that when she was sitting outside her house the accused who is her neighbour came there and abused her and when she objected, attacked her with the horn of the deer. She is very specific about the weapon used by the accused. There does not appear to be any ground for false implication of the accused. The Medical Officer PW 5 Dr. Vinay Kumar has stated that if the horn of the deer is made sharp, the injuries as caused to the victim, could be caused. In cross examination he has stated that the injuries No. 1 to 3 could be caused by knife. His statement also shows that the injuries as received by Smt. Gulaichi Devi could not have been selfsuffered because the nature of injuries indicates that a person having a very strong will power could get such injuries selfsuffered. Thus the statement of the Medical Officer clearly shows that if the horn of the deer had been made sharp, the injuries could have been caused by it. The witness PW 1 has denied the suggestion that the accused did not attack her or that he has been wrongly implicated. No reason for false implication has been suggested to the witness.

In view of the evidence on record, I come to the conclusion that the accused attacked Smt. Gulaichi Devi on the date time and place as stated by her and caused her injuries. The accused has been rightly convicted under Sections 323 and 324 I.P.C.

Learned Counsel for the appellant has further contended that the appellant is likely to be selected in the police service in place of his father who died in harness. He has also contended that in case the appeal is dismissed, it be directed that this conviction will not affect the future service career of the appellant and in support of his contention he has placed reliance on the case of Rajendra Kumar and Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2000(2) JCLR 463 (All) : 2000 (41) ACC page 206 Allahabad. In that case the accused was convicted under Section 223 I.P.C. but was given benefit under the provisions of the Act and it was observed that the order of conviction would not affect the career of the accused as public servant. The accused in that case was a police constable.

In the circumstances of the case the same principle will apply to the present appellant and if he is appointed in police service it would not affect his career there.

With this observation, I do not find any merit in this appeal and it is liable to be dismissed.

The appeal is hereby dismissed. The accused shall file the bonds as directed by the Trial Court before the District Probation Officer, Man, within 15 days. Learned Trial Court shall send the compliance report thereafter.