Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Hari Shanker @ Gantha v. State Of U.P. - JAIL APPEAL No. 4661 of 2003 [2006] RD-AH 12979 (4 August 2006)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).



Criminal Jail Appeal No. 4661 of 2003

Hari Shankar alias Gantha................................     Appellant


State of U.P. ..........................................                Respondent.  


Hon. M.C. Jain, J.

Hon. V.D. Chaturvedi, J.

(Delivered  by Hon. V.D. Chaturvedi,J.)

This appeal has been preferred by the appellant Hari Shankar alias Gantha from Jail against the judgment and order dated 05.04.2003 passed by Sri Aditya Prakash Sharma, Additional Sessions Judge (Court No. 1), Bareilly, whereby he has been convicted under Sections 376, 302  and  201 read with section 511 I.P.C. He has been sentenced for the said offences to 10 years R.I., life imprisonment and 3 years R.I. respectively as also with a fine of Rs. 4,000/-, 5,000/- and 1,000/- in the same order. In default of payment of fine, 9 months imprisonment, one year's imprisonment and three months further imprisonment in the same order have been awarded.

The relevant facts, briefly stated, are that the complainant Phool Singh alias Phoola, (P.W.1) son of late Bundu Lal Kashyap r/o of village Brahmpura, P. S. Prem Nagar, Bareilly submitted a written report (Ex.Ka-1) at P.S. Prem Nagar, Bareilly on 25.02.2000 at 16.30 hours disclosing  that Smt. Rama Devi's roof  was adjacent to the complainant's roof; that  the complainant's daughter Km. Kavita,  aged about 10 years, used to visit the house of Rama Devi through the said roof  to help her in making kandas (cow dung cakes); that on the date of report at 4.00 p.m. she, as usual, went to the house of Rama Devi; that Rama Devi was not in her house at that time; that Hari Shankar alias Gantha (son of Rama Devi) finding Km. Kavita alone in his house, caught hold of her, took her forcibly inside the room and raped her; that  Km. Kavita raised cry whereupon the complainant, his wife and other people of the locality including Rama Devi reached there but found that the doors of the room were bolted from inside; that the doors were broken open and after entering into the room, the complainant and others saw that Hari Shankar alias Gantha, after committing the murder of Km. Kavita, was keeping her dead body in a wooden box; that the complainant and others caught hold  of accused Hari Shankar alias Gantha . A case was registered on the basis of the FIR lodged by the complainant in writing.

The investigation was conducted by P.W.4 Diwan Giri, Inspector, P.S. Kotwali.

P.W. 3 Dr. C.M. Chaturvedi, who conducted autopsy on 26.2.2000 at 3 p.m.,  found 14 injuries on the corpse of Km. Kavita.  The injuries were in the form of lacerated wounds (including on head) and abraded contusions and abrasion (including on chest,nipples and buttock). Her vagina and vulva were lacerated. Hymen was found torn, lacerated and congested. Vagina and vulva were also congested. Fold around the vaginal orifice  was congested and contused. Blood clots were present in the vagina. The Doctor opined that these injuries on private parts could be caused by male organ. On internal examination, frontal bone, nosal bone and left maxilla bone were found  fractured. Blood clots were found in the brain which was lacerated. Vaginal smear was taken on glass slides and  sent to the pathologist for semen examination. In the doctor's opinion the death was the result of shock and coma due to ante-mortem head injury.

According to  the report of the Forensic Science of laboratory (Ex.Ka 18), blood stains were found on her frock, Samij,  bangle, finger ring, and tabij, as also on the brick, upla (Kanda) shirt, dori, muffler and Angauchha (item no. 1 to 11)   Human blood was found on frock, Sameej and Taveej of the victim as also on shirt, Dori and Anguachha, which were found wrapped / tied around the dead body.

The I.O. after recording the statements of the witnesses and after  usual investigation submitted the charge sheet (Ex. Ka-17)under Section 376, 302, and 201 I.P.C. against the accused appellant.

The prosecution examined five witnesses in support of its case.  They were P.W. 1 Phool Singh alias Phoola (complainant), P.W. 2 Moin Khan, P.W. 3 Dr. C.M. Chaturvedi, P.W. 4 Diwan Giri ( Investigating Officer ) and P.W. 5 Raja Ram Yadav (Head Constable). P. Ws. 1 and 2 were witnesses of fact whereas the remaining witnesses were, more or less, of formal nature. All the witnesses supported the prosecution case.

The defence plea was of denial and false implication. The accused did not produce any evidence in defence.

The learned trial court, relying on the prosecution evidence, convicted the appellant under Sections 376, 302 and 201 read with section 511 I.P.C. and sentenced him as above.

We have heard Sri Samit Gopal,  Amicus Curiae, for the appellant and Sri R. K. Singh, A.G.A for the State. We have perused the record carefully.

Sri Samit Gopal contended that the appellant was falsely implicated due to the quarrels which had taken place several times between the appellant and P.W. l & P.W.2; that P.W. 1 was an interested witness and P.W.2 was a chance witness. He argued that the evidence of these witnesses was not trustworthy.

Before discussing the arguments raised by learned Amicus Curiae, we find it appropriate to have a glance upon relevant evidence which was as under:

P.W.1 Phool Singh alias Phoola, the father of the deceased victim Km.  Kavita, deposed that due to local relationship, the witness used to address Rama Devi by word 'Taiji' and  Km. Kavita used to address her by word  'Dadi'; that the roof of Rama Devi was adjacent to that of the witness; that due to the said relationship,  the witness's daughter used to go to Ramadevi's house; that Km. Kavita went  to Rama Devi's house on the date of occurrence at about 4 pm;  that Rama Devi was not there and  Rama Devi's son Hari Shankar, finding Km. Kavita alone in his house,caught hold of her, took her in the room and raped her;  when Km. Kavita raised a cry, the witness, his wife Kusum and many other persons of locality including Deepak and Ramadevi reached (at the door of Rama Devi) which the accused had bolted from inside; that even on shouts  being raised, the doors were not opened, hence the doors were broken open after an exercise. On entering  the room  he found that accused Hari Shankar alias Gantha, after committing the murder of witness's daughter and was keeping the dead body in the wooden box; that Hari Shankar was apprehended by the witness and other persons; that Moin Khan and Anis had also reached there; that upon the dictation of the witness, the occurrence was reduced  into writing by Shailendra Sharma. The witness proved the written report (Ex.Ka 1) and also proved the wooden box, as material Ex-1.

P.W.2 Moin Khan deposed that  the complainant Phoola as well as  accused Hari Shankar both were known to him as both  were residing in his Mohalla. On 25.2.2000 at about 4 pm. while the witness was going out from his house, he saw in the courtyard of accused Hari Shankar that Phoola, his wife and the mother of Hari Shankar were knocking the doors of the room which were bolted from inside.  Deepak, Anis and Safiq also reached there. The doors  could not be opened even after all the efforts were exhausted. The witness  saw from a window that accused was keeping something in the box. Thereafter, the doors were broken open and the witness saw that the accused, after keeping the dead body in the wooden box, was making efforts to shut the box. The witness and Safiq apprehended the accused-Gantha at the spot. One blood stained brick was lying near the wooden box and there was one Upla (Kanda)  inside the wooden box. Thereafter a report was dictated by Phool Singh to Shailendra Sharma and the report and the accused Gantha were taken to the police station. The witness told that he again reached  the spot along with Daroga Ji. The inquest report was prepared there whereupon the witness also signed. The witness proved his signatures over the inquest report (Ex.Ka-2), the memo of Angauchha, muffler, Dori and bushirt (Ex.Ka-3) and the  recovery memos of Upla (Ex.Ka-4)  and of blood stained brick (Ex. Ka -5).

P.W.3 Dr. C.M. Chaturvedi  deposed that the autopsy on the dead body of Km. Kavita was conducted by him on 26.2.2000 at about 3.00 pm.  He found the duration of her death as about one day. Her age was assessed as 10 years. He found  14 ante-mortem injuries on the corpse of Km. Kavita, as briefly stated earlier while detailing the outcome of the postmortem report.

           P.W.4 Inspector Diwan Giri (I.O.) deposed  about the investigation done by him. There is nothing particular to comment about it. Now we deal with the argument of learned Amicus-Curiae  that Phool Singh alias Phoola was an interested witness and he falsely implicated the appellant. P.W 1 Phool Singh denied the suggestion that the accused appellant had quarreled with him after taking liquor.  He is the father of Km. Kavita, who was raped and murdered in brutal manner.  In such cases  the father of the victim would  have no interest excepting that the real culprit should be punished, whosoever he may be.  No father would falsely implicate an innocent neighbor and  would not permit the real culprit to go unpunished.  The suggested quarrel is neither proved nor admitted at all. We, therefore, outrightly reject the argument of the learned Amicus Curiae that P.W.1 Phool Singh falsely implicated the accused -appellant for any quarrel or for any other  reason.

Learned Amicus-Curiae's another argument is that P.W.2 was a chance witness. The statement of P.W.2 Moin Khan shows that he resided in the same locality wherein the occurrence took place. In cross-examination he told that his house was at a distance of 12-14 houses from the place of occurrence.  In examination-in-chief he told that he was going out from his house when he saw the complainant and others  assembled and  knocking the doors of the room of the accused appellant. A person living in the locality may have several occasions in a day to pass from a house which is situated at the distance of 12-14 houses from his own house. Such witness cannot be termed as a chance witness. He is a natural witness. One, who resides or carries on his business in the  locality where the occurrence took place, cannot be termed as chance witness. The argument that P.W.2 Moin Khan is a chance witness, has no force and is rejected.

Sri Samit Gopal lastly argued that there was no eyewitness who  witnessed the appellant committing either rape or the murder of Km. Kavita. Therefore, the appellant cannot be convicted for the offence under section 376 IPC or 302 IPC.

We should point out that the following circumstances are fully proved by the evidence of the prosecution.

(i)P.W.1 stated that on the date of occurrence Km. Kavita went to the house of Rama Devi; that the appellant Hari Shankar finding Km. Kavita alone in his house, caught hold of her and took her inside the room and  committed rape upon her whereupon she cried. The witness, his wife Kusum and other persons reached there. P.W.l saw that the  doors were bolted from inside. The doors were broken open in his presence and he saw that the appellant, after committing the murder of Km. Kavita, was concealing her dead body in a wooden box. The appellant was apprehended then and there by P.W.1 and other persons and was handed over at the police station very promptly along with the F.I.R.

(ii)P.W.2  stated that the doors of the room were broken open in his presence and he saw inside the room that the accused appellant, after keeping the dead body of Km. Kavita in the wooden box,  was trying to shut the wooden box and that he was apprehended at the spot.

(iii)P.W.3 Dr. C.M. Chaturvedi found the duration of death about one day which tallied with the time of occurrence. He found 14 ante- mortem injuries on the dead body of Km. Kavita besides the laceration and congestion of vagina and vulva and torn condition of hymen as stated above. The fold around the vaginal orifice were found contused and congested. In doctor's opinion, the injury on the private part of Km. Kavita could be caused by male organ. In his opinion, the cause of death was shock and coma due to ante- mortem head injury.

(iv)P.W.4 Diwan Giri (I.O.) recovered blood stained brick from the place of occurrence and found that the legs and the neck of the dead body of Km. Kavita were tied with muffler and  Dori. The blood stains were found by the Chemical Examiner on the clothes of the deceased as also on muffler, Dori and shirt which were tied/ wrapped around the dead body.

The above circumstances rules out all the hypothesis except one that the accused appellant forcibly committed  rape upon Km. Kavita aged about ten years, thereafter committed her murder and thereafter  was concealing the dead body inside the wooden box. The occurrence took place in broad day light, the accused appellant was apprehended at the spot and the report was lodged promptly within half an hour. In order to hold the accused appellant guilty for the offences u/s 376, 302 and 201/511 IPC, it needs nothing beyond what has been proved by the  evidence adduced by the prosecution.

All the arguments of learned Amicus Curiae are, therefore, rejected.

The appeal is dismissed. The conviction and sentences awarded by the trial Court are upheld.

The record shows that the appellant Hari Shankar alias Gantha is already in jail. He will remain in jail to serve out the sentences awarded by the learned trial court.

The C.J.M., Bareilly, is directed to ensure that the accused appellant is in jail. In case  he is out, the C.J.M. Bareilly shall cause him to be arrested and lodged in jail to serve out the punishment as awarded by the trial Court. He shall send the compliance report within two months from the date of the receipt of this order.

Sri Samit Gopal, who argued the appeal as Amicus Curiae, shall get Rs.1000/- as his fee.

Certify, the judgment to the lower court immediately.





Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.