Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 802 (ALL)

Pramod Kumar v. State of U. P.

2024-03-13

RAM MANOHAR NARAYAN MISHRA, SIDDHARTH

body2024
JUDGMENT Siddharth, J. Heard Sri. Mewa Lal Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri. G.N. Kanaujia, learned A.G.A.-1 for the state-respondent. 2. Present criminal appeal has been filed against the judgement and order dated 13.01.1983 passed by Sessions Judge, Etawah in Sessions Trial No.267 of 1979 convicting and sentencing the appellant to imprisonment for life under Section 302 I.P.C. 3. The prosecution case, in short, is that on 27.02.1979 at about 8.30 a.m. Ram Swaroop PW-1; Suggat Khan PW-2; Budh Lal, Ram Rai and Rajendra Kumar (deceased) were digging potatoes in the field of informant, Ram Swaroop. Accused, Ram Kumar and Anil Kumar came to the field of Ram Swaroop and abused Rajendra Kumar and caught hold of him forcibly, threw him on ground and pressed him down. The informant and others asked why they are behaving against Rajendra Kumar in such manner. In the meanwhile, Rajendra Kumar, freed himself from the clutches of Ram Kumar and Anil Kumar and ran towards the village. On road he saw the accused, Shyam Singh and Pramod Kumar (appellant) coming from village side. On the exhortation of accused Shyam Singh, accused Pramod Singh, who was carrying a rifle, shot Rajendra Kumar on his chest and he fell down. On hearing sound of fire, Chhedi Lal, Metti Lal and others and also the informant and other witnesses present in the potato field reached there. The accused on seeing them fled away. The informant and other witnesses took the injured, Rajendra Kumar, to police station where Ram Swaroop got the first information lodged. It was stated in the first information report that there was enmity of Rajendra Kumar with the accused persons and hence they committed the alleged offence against him. 4. In support of prosecution case eye witnesses, namely, Ram Swaroop and Suggat Khan were examined as PW.1 and PW.2. Dr. Janmajay Shukla, who recorded the dying declaration of the deceased, was examined as PW-3. B. Roy, ballistic expert, was examined as PW-4. Dr. R. C. Sharma, who conducted post mortem of dead body of deceased was examined as PW-5. Raj Bahadur, constable of the police station, who went to search the house of Ranjit Singh and recovery of rifle used in the incident was made and recovery memo was prepared in his presence, was examined as PW-6. Dr. R. C. Sharma, who conducted post mortem of dead body of deceased was examined as PW-5. Raj Bahadur, constable of the police station, who went to search the house of Ranjit Singh and recovery of rifle used in the incident was made and recovery memo was prepared in his presence, was examined as PW-6. Surjeet Singh, who prepared the chik report and registered case, at police station, was examined as PW-7. Todar Singh, constable, who took the dead body of Rajendra Kumar for post mortem, was examined as PW. 8. Ram Autar Gupta, Sub Inspector who prepared the inquest report and other papers was examined as PW-9. Birendra Kumar Srivastava, Arms clerk, who brought the arms licence register and proved that the licence of Rifle No.3358 was in the name of accused, Shyam Singh, was examined as PW-10; Ram Bahadur, Sub Inspector who was the Investigating Officer of the case, was examined as PW-11 for life. 5. The trial court discharged the co-accused, Anil Kumar and Ram Kumar and only Pramod Kumar has been convicted under Section 302 I.P.C. 6. PW-1, Ram Swaroop, stated before the court that deceased was his nephew (bhanja). Accused, Pramod Kumar and Anil Kumar are sons of accused, Shyam Singh. Accused, Ram Kumar, is son of accused, Ranjit Singh. He explained the place of incident with reference to the adjoining plots. He stated that on the date of incident PW-1 and deceased, Rajendra Kumar; Budh Lal, Raja Ram and Suggat Khan were digging potatoes when accused, Ram Kumar and Anil Kumar started abusing Rajendra Kumar and threw him on the ground and the informant and others asked them why they are behaving like this with Rajendra Kumar. In the meanwhile Rajendra Kumar stood up and ran towards the village. When he reached the road he saw accused Shyam Singh and Pramod Kumar, coming. Pramod Kumar was having a rifle and on the exhortation of accused, Shyam Singh, he fired from the rifle and the bullet hit, Rajendra Kumar on the right side of his chest. On hearing sound of firing Chhedi Lal, Metti lal, etc., came and informant and other witnesses also reached there and challenged the accused persons, namely, Pramod Kumar, Shyam Singh, Ram Singh and Anil Kumar, who ran towards the village. He proved the first information report lodged regarding the incident on 27.02.1979. On hearing sound of firing Chhedi Lal, Metti lal, etc., came and informant and other witnesses also reached there and challenged the accused persons, namely, Pramod Kumar, Shyam Singh, Ram Singh and Anil Kumar, who ran towards the village. He proved the first information report lodged regarding the incident on 27.02.1979. He stated that Rajendra Kumar had studied upto High School and was Jatav by caste. The accused persons are Thakur and old landlords. Accused, Shyam Singh, had enmity with Rajendra Kumar. The accused persons used to take 'begaar' (work without payment of labour charge) from deceased, Rajendra Kumar and other persons of his community. They compelled them to pick up dead animals. Rajendra Kumar used to complain against them and also refused to do the aforesaid work. 3-4 months prior to the incident the deceased, Rajendra Kumar, had given evidence against, Vishambhar Singh, etc., from the side of police. Three days prior of the incident there was invitation at the house of the accused persons on the eve of festival of Shivratri. Deceased, Rajendra Kumar, was not willing to go there and has stated that he has suspicion of being given poison through food if he goes to house of accused but accused, Shyam Singh, assured him that nothing of this sort will happen. Rajendra Singh, stated that member of his community will not collect the left over pattals (leaf plates) of the people taking food in the festival. On this accused, Shyam Singh, was annoyed and he had threatened Rajendra Kumar stating that he will see him and decide his fate within short time. Rajendra Kumar used to reside in the same locality, as the informant, with his wife and two children. He was digging potatoes because of his relation-ship with the informant when Ram Kumar and Anil Kumar came on the field. They were not armed with any weapon and abused him. As soon as they came, they dragged him and thereafter threw him on the ground and put him down. He was confined by them for 1-2 minutes. He had admitted that he did not mention this fact in the first information report but later he came to know that hand of Rajendra Kumar was fractured from the post mortem report. As soon as they came, they dragged him and thereafter threw him on the ground and put him down. He was confined by them for 1-2 minutes. He had admitted that he did not mention this fact in the first information report but later he came to know that hand of Rajendra Kumar was fractured from the post mortem report. The informant and other witnesses stood up and asked the accused Thakur Saheb why they are abusing and beating Rajendra Kumar and then accused persons left Rajendra Kumar who started running and was chased by the accused persons. It was admitted by PW-1 that he did not mentioned in the first information report that Rajendra Kumar was chased by accused persons. On being pointed out this fact as not been mention in the statement of PW-1, recorded by Investigating Officer, he stated that he had informed the Investigating Officer but does not knows why it was not mentioned. He admitted that after Rajendra Kumar fell down suffering gun shot wound, informant and other witnesses came and raised alarm. Prior to that they did not raise alarm. He admitted that the deceased was taken on a cot in injured condition to the police station. Thereafter he was taken to the hospital. The Sub Inspector recorded the statement of Rajendra Kumar also. After dropping Rajendra Kumar in the hospital he went to the police station because the Sub Inspector had called him. His brother and others persons had gone to the hospital and hence he went back to the police station. After the inspection of place of occurrence by the Sub Inspector, he returned to the hospital at 12.30 p.m. By that time Rajendra Kumar had died and his dead body was sealed and given to two constables who was there. He proved that he had shown the place of incident to the Sub Inspector and informed him about the manner of incident and place from where the firing was made on the deceased. He denied in suggestion that Rajendra Kumar had illicit relation with the wife of his brother, Babu Ram. He denied that despite Babu Ram having under gone Vasectomy his wife gave birth to a child because of relation with Rajendra Kumar. He denied in suggestion that Rajendra Kumar had illicit relation with the wife of his brother, Babu Ram. He denied that despite Babu Ram having under gone Vasectomy his wife gave birth to a child because of relation with Rajendra Kumar. He proved that he is not aware what happened on Shivratri between the deceased and Shyam Singh but he admitted that food was distributed at the house of accused persons on Shivratri. 7. PW-2, Suggat Khan, proved the incident as alleged in the first information report. He denied that accused, Shyam Singh, was witness against him in any of the cases wherein he was implicated. He admitted that in the election regarding the election of Gram Pradhan, Shyam Singh, had lost and he had given evidence against him. He proved the place of incident as proved by PW-1 and also the manner of incident accordingly. He proved the fact that Sub Inspector came to inspect the scene of incident and PW-1, Ram Swaroop, was accompanying him. He proved the rifle used by the appellant, Pramod Kumar, before the trial court. 8. PW-3, Dr. Janmajay Shukla, proved that when the injured, Rajendra Kumar, was brought to the hospital he was quite serious and struggling for his life. He was given medicines of coramine, etc. When he regained consciousness he was asked his name which he replied then he was asked who shot him and he replied, Pramod Kumar. When third question was asked from Rajendra Kumar as to how Pramod Kumar caused him injury, he could not reply and died. Dying declaration was also recorded by him. He proved that Rajendra Kumar died in the hospital at about 10.10. a.m. He denied the suggestion that he recorded his dying declaration after Rajendra Kumar died. 9. PW-4, B Roy, ballistic expert, in his statement has stated that he had received a sealed bundle on 08.06.1979 from a special messenger. On opening the seal a.32 bore deformed bullet was found in the envelope. In the second envelope a.32 bore SBBL gun no.3358 was found. He proved that the bullet was fired from the same gun. He proved the envelopes received. 10. PW-5, Dr. On opening the seal a.32 bore deformed bullet was found in the envelope. In the second envelope a.32 bore SBBL gun no.3358 was found. He proved that the bullet was fired from the same gun. He proved the envelopes received. 10. PW-5, Dr. R.C. Sharma, who conducted post mortem on the dead body of the deceased, proved that he found the following injuries on the person of deceased:- (I) Gun shot wound 1 cm x 1cm on right side chest around 8.5 cm above right nipple. This is wound of entry with blackened margin inverted and ecchymosis. (ii) Alna bone of right wrist was found fractured at lower end with consequent deformity medially. In the internal examination left side valve of chest of deceased was found perforated and his third rib was fractured. He proved the post mortem report. He proved that blackening is found only when the gun shot wound is fired from close range. The direction of bullet oblique downward proves that assailant was standing at a higher level than the injured. 11. PW-6, Raj Bahadur, the witnesses of recovery proved that recovery of rifle was made from the house of Narendra Singh and it was sealed before him and he also proved that in case under Arms Act he had given statement regarding the arms recovered. He further admitted his enmity with the accused persons. 12. PW-7, Head constable of police station proved that the written report of incident was brought by PW-1 at the police station on the basis of which he prepared the chik report. He also admitted that Rajendra Kumar was brought in injured condition to the police station and he prepared the Chithi Majrubi and he was taken to the hospital which was 50ft away from the police station. 13. PW-8, proved that he was posted as constable in the police station on 27.02.1979 and dead body of Rajendra Kumar was given to him for getting post mortem conducted at Etawah. He had taken dead body in the tractor. In the way tractor had broken down and they reached the post mortem house on the next morning at about 8.30 a.m. 14. PW-9, Ram Autar Gupta, proved that he got the inquest proceedings conducted and prepared the necessary documents. He also proved that when the Rajendra Kumar was taken to the hospital, he had died. In the way tractor had broken down and they reached the post mortem house on the next morning at about 8.30 a.m. 14. PW-9, Ram Autar Gupta, proved that he got the inquest proceedings conducted and prepared the necessary documents. He also proved that when the Rajendra Kumar was taken to the hospital, he had died. He stated that Doctor in the hospital tried the injured regain consciousness. 15. PW-10 proved that in the arms register rifle no.3358 was registered in the name of accused, Shyam Singh. Licence no.3635 was also mentioned which was made in the year 1969. 16. PW-11, Sub Inspector, Rai Bahadur, proved that the injured, Rajendra Kumar, gave statement to him that he is resident of village Rathi and Pramod Kumar shot him, who was accompanied by Shyam Singh, Anil Kumar and Ram Kumar. He proved that aforesaid statement was written by him and also signed. Thumb impression of Rajendra Kumar was also taken thereon. Thereafter he proved the entire investigation proceedings before the Trial Court. He stated that deceased was taken in unconscious state to the hospital and despite all treatment he died in the same condition. He denied the suggestion that the informant informed him that when the accused persons chased Rajendra Kumar informant and other witnesses also followed them. 17. DW-1, Jai Prakash Narain, deposed before the trial court that he is Headmaster of a Junior High School. On 27.02.1979 he met co-accused, Shyam Singh, in Bus while coming to school but he was not aware that Shyam Singh involved in this case. 18. DW-2, Triguji Narain, stated that co-accused, Shyam Singh travelled with him in the bus on the fateful date. 19. DW-3, Kamal Ahmad, stated that he is posted in police office as Record Keeper. He proved the application given by Sushil Kumar against Diwan Sudhir Singh and he proved that same was entered at Serial No. 33 but stated that the entry was not made by him in the register. 20. DW-4, Sushil Kumar Singh, proved the application dated 02.03.1979. He further stated that prior to the present incident his father implicated the deceased, Rajendra Kumar, in a case in the year 1974, wherein he was convicted but acquitted in appeal. 21. The statement of appellant, Pramod Kumar, was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He did not state anything in his defence and only denied the questions put-up before him. He further stated that prior to the present incident his father implicated the deceased, Rajendra Kumar, in a case in the year 1974, wherein he was convicted but acquitted in appeal. 21. The statement of appellant, Pramod Kumar, was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He did not state anything in his defence and only denied the questions put-up before him. However, he admitted relation-ship of accused persons and the fact that they belonged to caste 'thakur' and the deceased, Rajendra Kumar, belonged to the caste 'Jatav'. He also denied that a bhoj took place on the eve of Shivratri at his place being festival of fast. 22. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that it is a case of false implication of the appellant. In this case there are material contradictions in the statement of PW.1 which amount to improvement. He has submitted that he never informed the Investigating Officer of the case that when the accused persons chased Rajendra Kumar they also followed them from behind, Investigating Officer, PW-11, has clearly stated that no such statement was given by the informant before he him. He has further submitted that allegation has been made that the deceased was done to death by firing from rifle but the weapon recovered was only a.32 bore shot gun. He has further submitted that one of the motive of the crime step-up by prosecution was the refusal to attend Shivratri bhoj by the deceased but in the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the appellant denied that there was any bhoj, it was fast of Shivratri. No such bhoj ever took place. He has finally submitted that dying declaration recorded by the Doctor, PW-III, was not proved before the trial court. The Investigation Officer, PW-11, has clearly stated that the deceased was brought before the Doctor in unconscious state and he died in the same state. The statement of PW-III Dr. Janmajay Shukla, was not reliable. In fact the deceased died before reaching the hospital and Doctor has wrongly stated that after giving him medicine, deceased became conscious and gave reply to two out of three questions. 23. Learned AGA has vehemently opposed the submissions and has submitted that all the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant are without any substance. In fact the deceased died before reaching the hospital and Doctor has wrongly stated that after giving him medicine, deceased became conscious and gave reply to two out of three questions. 23. Learned AGA has vehemently opposed the submissions and has submitted that all the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant are without any substance. Contradiction sought to be shown in the statement of PW-1 is not material regarding the fact that when the deceased was chased by the accused persons, PW-1 and other witnesses also followed him. He has submitted that they were close to place of incident and as soon as they heard the sound of firing they reached the place of incident and found the appellant in possession of rifle. He has submitted that since the accused persons had beaten, Rajendra Kumar, infront of PW-1 and other witnesses, Rajendra Kumar was running away. Therefore, it was not unnatural that PW-1 and witnesses would have followed the accused persons only to save Rajendra Kumar. From the site plan, it is clear that from the place of incident to place where the earlier incident took place was only about 100 steps away. He has further submitted that the trial court has already acquitted all the co-accused and only the appellant was convicted and sentenced. Benefit of doubt was given to Shyam Singh, Anil Kumar and Ram Kumar. The implication of the appellant is based on clear motive of caste rivalry, which is supported by the recovery of incriminating weapon which matched with the cartridge used in the incident. Firing from close range was clear since blackening was found. The manner of incident as alleged in the first information report and in the statement of incident as alleged in the first information report and the statements of eye witnesses, fully corroborates the prosecution case. 24. After hearing rival submissions this court finds that it is settled law that first information report is not expected to be encyclopedia. There is no rule that only the facts mentioned in the first information report would be relevant before the trial court and nothing beyond that. The deceased was thrown on the ground by the accused persons first and he was put down by force. In this process he might have suffered fractured in his hand. This fact was not clear when first information report was lodged. The deceased was thrown on the ground by the accused persons first and he was put down by force. In this process he might have suffered fractured in his hand. This fact was not clear when first information report was lodged. Only because he has suffered grievous injury, on getting first opportunity he escaped from the clutches of the accused, Anil Kumar and Ram Kumar and ran towards the road when he came to face to face with Shyam Singh and Pramod Kumar. Shyam Singh exhorted and Pramod Kumar who was having a rifle in his hand, shot him on his chest. The injury on the chest of deceased proved fatal for his life. PW-II has also proved the incident as proved PW-I and there is nothing in his statement which contradicts PW-1 in material particulars. First information report was lodged with regard to the incident dated 27.02.1979 at 9.45 a.m. when the incident took place 8.30 a.m. The police station was situated at distance of two miles and therefore, it cannot be said that the distance could not be covered within one hour fifteen minutes. The trial court has considered the caste enmity between the deceased and the prosecution witnesses on the one hand and accused persons on the other hand and has recorded findings which cannot be doubted. In case diary Investigating Officer has recorded statement of injured who subsequently died. This dying declaration is corroborated by the statement of PW-III, Janmajay Shukla, who also recorded the dying declaration of the deceased soon before he died. Dr. Janmajay Shukla has stated that he had given coramine and other medicines to the deceased and thereafter he received reply to two out of three questions put to the injured by aforesaid witness. He could reply only two questions. Second being, who caused him injuries and he named the appellant. Third question regarding how injury was caused to him, he could not reply and died. The bullet recovered from the body of the deceased matched with the weapon recovered. The statements of DW-1 and DW-2 do not help the appellant but were in favour of co-accused, Shyam Singh. The statement of DW-III also did not supported the case of the appellant. DW-4 also did not state anything in favour of the appellant. The bullet recovered from the body of the deceased matched with the weapon recovered. The statements of DW-1 and DW-2 do not help the appellant but were in favour of co-accused, Shyam Singh. The statement of DW-III also did not supported the case of the appellant. DW-4 also did not state anything in favour of the appellant. The judgement of the trial court has extensively dealt with all the arguments advanced before this court by the learned counsel for the appellant. There is also motive of the crime fully established against the appellant. Therefore, this court does not finds any reason to interfere with judgement and order of conviction and sentence passed against the appellant under section 302 I.P.C. 25. The appeal is devoid of merit and hereby dismissed. Judgment and order of the trial court is confirmed. The appellant is on bail and his bail bond is cancelled. Sureties are discharged. 26. Trial court is directed to ensure that the appellant is taken into custody and sent to the jail for carrying out the remaining sentence. Let a copy of this judgement be communicated to the trial court within a week. Compliance report shall also be sent to this court by the court below within a month.