High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Sri Krishna v. State - CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 790 of 1982  RD-AH 6754 (12 April 2007)
Court No. 49
Criminal Appeal No. 790 of 1982.
Shri Krishan Vs. State of U.P.
Hon'ble M. K. Mittal, J.
1. This appeal has been preferred by Shri Krishan against the judgement and order dated 24.3.1982 passed by Sri N. S. Gupta the then Addl. Sessions Judge, Agra in S. T. No. 609 of 1978 whereby the appellant has been found guilty and convicted under Section 324 IPC and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 1000/- has also been imposed on him with default stipulation of six months rigorous imprisonment.
2. Brief facts encapsulating the prosecution case are that Man Singh the informant lodged a written report (Ex Ka-1) at Police Station Firozabad, District Agra on 31.12.1975 at about 8 p.m. alleging that he was running a 'Parchun' shop in Mohalla Rasoolpur and his father used to sit there. Rs. 20/- were due against the accused and on 31.12.1975 at about 8 p.m. his father demanded his money but Shri Krishan refused and started abusing him and when his brother Harishchandra and Chedi Lal asked him as to why he was abusing the accused Sri Krishan gave knife blows on the back of Harishchandra and Chedi Lal. At that time Beerbal, Vedram and Jaidayal came and saw the incident. The informant took his brothers to the hospital and lodged a written report.
3. The report was written by the constable Moharrir and check report (Ex.Ka-6)was prepared and case was also registered in the general diary (Ex.Ka-7). The case was investigated by Sub inspector C.P.Dubey, P.W.-5. He interrogated the witnesses, inspected the place of occurrence and prepared the site plan (Ex-Ka4) and after completing the investigation he submitted a charge sheet (Ex-Ka-5) against the accused under Section 307 IPC.
4. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions and the charge was framed against him on 10.8.1981. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. In support of its case, prosecution led evidence and examined Man Singh the informant P.W.-1, the injured Chedi Lal as P.W.-2, Harishchandra as P.W.-3 and Dr. Ram Kumar Gupta, Medical Officer, P.W.-4, who examined the injured witnesses beside the Investigating Officer.
6. Dr. R. K. Gupta, P.W.-4 found the following injuries on the person of Chedi Lal:-
Stab wound 2 cm X 1.5 cm on the left side back scapular region 9 cm above inferior angle scapula bone deep, depth 3 cm direction backward. Margins were clear cut and bleeding was present. According to the doctor this injury was fresh and was caused by sharp edged weapon. X-ray of chest was advised. He proved the injury report Ex-Ka-2.
7. The Medical Officer found the following injury on the person of Harishchandra:-
Stab wound 5.5 cm X 1 cm X cavity deep on the right side back 7 cm lateral to mid line 5 cm above iliac crest. Margins were clear cut. Direction was backward and bleeding was present. Injury was fresh and was caused by sharp edged weapon and was kept under observation. He proved the injury report (Ex.Ka-3).
8. The witness P.W.-1 Man Singh, Chedi Lal and Harishchandra stated about the prosecution case and the manner in which the accused gave knife blows to Chedi Lal and Harischandra.
9. Accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and he denied the prosecution case. According to him he had not taken any money from the father of Harishchandra and Chedi Lal and that he has been falsely implicated on account of enmity and party bandi. Accused did not adduce any evidence in defence.
10. Learned Trial Court after considering the evidence on record came to the conclusion that the accused had given the knife blows and had caused injuries voluntarily but he had no intention to cause the death of these two persons. Accordingly finding that the prosecution had established its case against accused under Section 324 IPC convicted him as aforesaid. Feeling aggrieved this appeal has been preferred.
11. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. and have perused the trial Court record.
12. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that although the accused was charged under Section 307 IPC but learned Trial Court finding that he had no intention to commit murder of the injured persons has convicted him under Section 324 IPC. Learned counsel for the appellant did not press the appeal on merits.
13. He has also contended that instead of awarding any sentence fine be imposed on the appellant. But the impugned judgement shows that fine has already been imposed on the accused appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant has also contended that it is the first offence of the appellant and that he be given the benefit under Section 4 of the First Offenders of Probation Act.
14. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of injuries as were caused by the accused the interest of justice will be served if the accused is given benefit under Section 4 of the First Offenders of Probation Act instead of sending him to Jail to serve out the sentence as awarded by the learned Trial Court. Therefore the appeal is to be partly allowed.
15. Appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of the appellant under Section 324 IPC is confirmed. However, instead of directing the appellant to undergo the imprisonment as awarded by the learned Trial Court, the accused is given the benefit under Section 4 of the First Offenders of Probation Act and he is directed to be of good behaviour and to keep peace for a period of one year. He shall submit is personal bond and two surety bonds before the concerned District Probation Officer for Rs. 20,000/- each and to his satisfaction within a period of three weeks from today. The appellant shall also deposit the fine of Rs. 1000/- as imposed on him within three weeks. In case of any default the accused shall serve the sentence as imposed by the learned Trial Court.
16. The copy of judgement be sent to the Trial Court within seven days.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.