PRAKASH & OTHERS Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the appellants and the learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent

(2.) The present criminal appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 21.7.2010 passed by Learned Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court No.4 District Shahjahanpur, whereby the appellants were convicted and sentenced to undergo ten years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.10,000/- under section 307 IPC and two years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.2,000/- under Section 504 I.P.C. and in case of default of payment of fine under Section 307 I.P.C. 4 years further rigorous imprisonment and one month rigorous imprisonment in case of default in payment of fine under Section 504 I.P.C.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellants has stated that six persons are alleged to have committed the alleged offence namely Ramvaran, Latoori, Matadeen, Munesh, Prakash and Rajveer. It is next contended that as per the prosecution version all the accused persons were assigned the role of firing as a result of which complainant's brother has sustained gun shot injury, although, no specific role has been assigned to any of the accused persons. It is next contended that trial court has acquitted the accused persons namely Ramveer, Matadeen and Munesh and for the same offence has erroneously convicted and sentenced the accused persons namely Prakash, Rajveer and Latoori for the offence under Sections 307/504 I.P.C. by drawing wrong inference. It is further argued that according to the prosecution case, all the accused persons were assigned the role of firing as a result of which complainant's brother & sister in law sustained injuries. It is further contended that there was no specific role assigned to any accused person and the trial court had drawn wrong inference against the appellants by convicting the appellants and acquitting the other co-accused on the same set of facts and evidence on record. It is further contended that the statement of wife of the complainant's brother was not recorded though she was medically examined, whereby, it is not clear as to who had sustained injuries by whom in the said incident. It is next contended that there is great inconsistency in the prosecution version and the statement of the injured. It is further contended that the incident had taken place at the spur of moment on account of altercation between the children on the occasion of Deepawali. It is further argued that the injury report of Latoori Devi and Bahoran has been annexed as annexure-2 and 3 to the affidavit of bail application accompanying the appeal, which is on record, perusal of which shows that the injuries sustained by the said injured are superficial in nature and not dangerous to life, therefore, it is argued that the case would not travel beyond Section 324 I.P.C. and Section 307 I.P.C. would not be attracted in the present case. It is thus, contended that the conviction of the appellants namely Prakash, Rajveer and Latoori is illegal and liable to be set aside. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the decision of Supreme Court rendered in the case of Ramchandra Ohdar Vs. State of Bihar, 1999 LawSuit(SC) 133 and has placed reliance in para 4 and 5 thereof in support of his contention. He further placed reliance in a decision of this Court rendered in Criminal Appeal No.840 of 1981 titled as Ram Surat Vs. State of U.P., reported in LAWS(ALL)-2004-5-16 and had relied on paragraph Nos.10 and 11, thereof, in support of his contention.