Court No. - 51
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3220 of 2019 Appellant :- Surendra And Another Respondent :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Appellant :- Santosh Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Mewa Lal Shukla
Hon'ble Suneet Kumar,J. Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J.
Order on Criminal Misc. Application (for Suspension of Sentence) No. 8 of 2021 Application is allowed.
Order on Bail Application No. 1 of 2019 Heard Shri K.K. Rao, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, Shri Mewa Lal Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the first informant and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The instant appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 29 March 2019 passed by Additional Session Judge, Court No. 1, Maharajganj, in Sessions Trial No. 66 of 2016 arising out of Case Crime No. 073 of 2016 under Sections 147, 304/149, 506, 323/149, 394 IPC, P.S.
Nautanwa, District Maharajganj.
As per prosecution case, Ram Kripal Shukla @ Hadbad Shukla (deceased) made a complaint at thana alleging that on 17 February 2016 at 14:00 hours, 13 nominated persons including the accused while an inspection was being conducted with regard to Gram Sabha work, accused Narad Yadav, Gram Pradhan along with other accused came and assaulted the deceased and the other members. The FIR came to be lodged at 16:05 hours. The deceased subsequently succumbed to the injury on 21 February 2016 while undergoing treatment at Ram Manohar Lohiya Hospital, Lucknow. The deceased and the other injured i.e. P.W.-1 Brijesh Tiwari; P.W.-2 Raj Kumar Chaudhary; P.W.-3 Mukutnath Yadav; P.W.-4 Dev Narayan Shukla; P.W.-5 Islam; P.W.-6 Santu; P.W.-7 Vikram were examined at the Primary Health Centre, Nautanwa, Maharajganj on 17 February 2016.
In the opinion of the medical expert, the injuries are simple and not fatal. The postmortem report of the deceased shows that the cause of death was the fatal head injury. The prosecution witnesses have assigned the role of causing the head injury to Narad Yadav. Further, the prosecution witnesses have admitted that an FIR came to be lodged against them from the accused side in which they have been nominated as an accused. It is admitted by the prosecution witnesses that the entire village is divided into two groups, one lead by the complainant and the other lead by the accused-respondents contesting the election of Pradhan. In other words, there is election rivalry between the parties. Some of the accused- respondents have admitted that during inspection/enquiry the assault and fight was sudden. It is also admitted that the deceased was a heart patient and had implanted a heart machine. The role assigned to the appellant, herein, is of maarpeet on sudden provocation.
It is submitted that having due regard to the statements of the prosecution witnesses and the circumstances, the ingredients to constitute the offence under Section 149 IPC is not made out. The prosecution, insofar as the appellant is concerned, failed to prove the circumstances beyond reasonable doubt to show that there was common intention or knowledge amongst the members of unlawful assembly to commit the offence.
Learned AGA and Shri Mewa Lal Shukla, learned counsel for the first informant have strongly opposed the bail application but they have not been able to dispute the aforesaid fact.
We have perused the judgment and the records of the lower court with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties. We are of the opinion that the judgment and order passed by the trial court be kept in abeyance and the appellant be enlarged on bail.
Consequently, the prayer for bail is granted. The bail application is allowed.
Without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, let the appellants/applicants- Surendra and Akbal, convicted and sentenced in Sessions Trial No. 66 of 2016 arising out of Case Crime No. 073 of 2016 under Sections 147, 304/149, 506, 323/149, 394 IPC, P.S. Nautanwa, District Maharajganj, be released on bail on his furnishing personal bonds with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.
The appellants/applicants are directed to deposit half of the amount of fine imposed by the trial court within one month from the date they are released on bail, failing which coercive method shall be adopted by the trial court for realization of fine. It is made clear that 50% of realization of fine imposed by the trial court in the impugned judgment and order shall remain stayed till the decision of the appeal.
On acceptance of bail bond and personal bond, the lower court shall transmit photostat copies thereof to this Court for being kept on the record.
Order on Appeal List this appeal in due course.
Order Date :- 20.12.2021 S.Prakash (Brij Raj Singh,J.) (Suneet Kumar,J.)