Court No. - 50
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 394 of 1986 Appellant :- Mewa Lal & Another Respondent :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Appellant :- S.N. Gupta,Abhishek Kumar Srivastava,Rajesh Kumar Rai Counsel for Respondent :- A.G.A.
Hon'ble Harsh Kumar,J.
1. The present criminal appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment and order dated 31.01.1986 passed by Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehpur in S.T. No. 98 of 1985 (State Vs. Mewa Lal Lodh and another), convicting the accused-appellant Mewa Lal Lodh under section 307 I.P.C. and accused-appellant Man Singh under section 307 I.P.C. read with section 34 I.P.C. and sentencing them with rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 years each.
2. The brief facts of the case are that Vishun Dutta lodged F.I.R. at P.S. Thariyaon, District Fatehpur on 12.11.1984 at 7:05 p.m. against Mewa lal and Man Singh, the accused-appellants with the allegations that, yesterday on 11.11.1984 accused-appellant Mewa Lal under effect of liquor was abusing every one and was stopped by his brother Leela Dhar and today when Leela Dhar was returning from temple at the time of sun set he hurled abuses on him while his brother-in-law (sala) Maan Singh armed with lathi gave 2-3 lathi blows to Leela Dhar upon which Leela Dhar ran towards home and Ramesh Chandra and Jugal Kishore called the accused persons; that when Leela Dhar was seeing towards his back, chasing Mewa Lal fired at him with his gun with an intention to cause his death which hit him in right shoulder and the pellets also hit Cheddu who was passing from the rasta and thereafter Mewa Lal and his sala Man Singh fled away.
3. After investigation charge-sheet was submitted against two accused persons and charges were framed against accused- appellant Mewa Lal Lodh for the offence under section 307 I.P.C. and against Man Singh for the offence under section 307 I.P.C. read with section 34 I.P.C. In order to prove charges prosecution produced seven witnesses as Vishun Datta, the first informant as P.W.-1, Chheddu injured witness as P.W.-2, Liladhar injured witness as P.W.-3, Jugal Kishore eyewitness as P.W.-4, Dr. V.K. Tripathi, Medical Officer as P.W.-5, I.O., Thanedar Singh as P.W.-6, Head Constable Deodatta Tewari as P.W.-7 after which the statements of accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and after hearing the arguments, the learned trial court passed the impugned order of conviction and convicted both the accused persons sentencing them accordingly.
4. During pendency of appeal, the appellants no.1 Mewa Lal was reported to have died and appeal in respect of him was abated vide order dated 04.09.2018.
5. Heard Sri Abhishek Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the sole surviving accused-appellant no. 2 Man Singh, Sri L.D. Rajbhar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record, paper book as well as the lower court record summoned in appeal.
6. Sri Abhishek Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the sole surviving accused-appellant no. 2 Man Singh contends that the appellant has been falsely implicated; that the appellant had no motive to attempt on the life of the Lila Dhar; that P.W.-1 Vishun Datta, first informant was not eyewitness of the incident while injured P.W.-2 Chheddu turned hostile; that Vishun Datta P.W.-1, injured Lila Dhar P.W.-3 and eyewitness Jugal Kishore, P.W.4 in their statements on oath have stated that the surviving appellant Man Singh charged lathi on Liladhar but since Liladhar was run, no lathi blow could hit Liladhar; that the injury report of injured Lila Dhar also does not show any lathi injury rather shows only gun shot injury which are alleged to have been caused by accused-appellant Mewa Lal; that the appellant has been falsely implicated being brother-in-law (sala) of Mewa Lal; that the appellant had no motive or common intention with Mewa Lal for attempting on the life of Lila Dhar and no offence is made out against him; that the conviction of appellant is wrong and is liable to be set-aside.
7. Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State supported the impugned judgment and order of conviction and contended that learned trial court has analysed the prosecution evidence on record in detail and has rightly convicted him for the offences as mentioned in the judgment; that the appeal has been filed with absolutely false and baseless allegations and is liable to be dismissed.
8. Upon hearing the parties' counsel and perusal of record, paper-book as well as the original record of court below summoned in the appeal, I find that injured P.W.-3 Lila Dhar himself has stated in his examination-in-chief that lathi charged by Man Singh did not hit him and similar statement has been given by his brother Vishun Datta, the first informant as well as Jugal Kishore the eyewitness. The material on record shows that on the preceding day a dispute did take place between the injured Liladhar and accused-appellant Mewa Lal and so only Mewa Lal may have motive to attempt on his life and cause injuries to Liladhar. The evidence on record shows that Mewa Lal fired at Lila Dhar with an intention to cause his death by which he sustained two fire arm injuries and participation of appellant Man Singh in the incident is not established by any reliable or cogent evidence on record. Moreover, the appellant no. 2 may not have any motive to attempt on life of Liladhar, commit the incident in question and participate in the same. In any case even if, had Liladhar sustained any lathi injury at his hands, even then it would not be correct to say that he was having common intention with Mewa Lal and in that case of sustaining lathi injury by Lila Dhar at the most he could have been held guilty and convicted for the offence under section 323 I.P.C. However, since Liladhar has stated as P.W.-3 that he did not sustain any lathi injury by Man Singh so the prosecution story of his participation in the incident in question with his brother-in-law (Bahnoi) Mewa Lal does not aspire confidence. The prosecution has failed to prove charges against the appellant no. 2 and he is entitled for benefit of doubt.
9. In view of the discussions made above, I find that learned trial court has acted wrongly and illegally in holding the appellant no. 2 Man Singh guilty and convicting him for the offence under section 307 I.P.C. read with section 34 I.P.C. The impugned conviction order in respect of appellant no. 2 Man Singh is liable to be set aside, the appeal is liable to be allowed and the sole surviving appellant Man Singh is liable to be acquitted.
10. The appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order convicting the sole accused-appellant Man Singh for the offences under Sections 307 I.P.C. read with section 34 I.P.C. is set-aside and he stands acquitted of the charges levelled against him.
11. The sole surviving appellant Man Singh is on bail. He need not to surrender. His bail bonds and surety bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged.
12. The material exhibits, if any, shall be disposed off after statutory period in accordance with rules.
13. Let lower court record be sent back to court below along with a copy of this order for necessary compliance.
Order Date :- 13.9.2018 Bhanu