# Govind Kumar Kureel v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2021) 9 ILRA 146
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-09-02
- **Case number:** Jail Appeal No. 507 of 2018
- **Bench:** Syed Aftab Husain Rizvi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/govind-kumar-kureel-v-state-of-u-p-47553
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

A. Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code,1860
- Section 308 - Attempt to commit
culpable homicide - Wife's FIR that she
was assaulted by her husband with lathidanda, bricks and kick and punches, due
to which she suffered grievous injuries -
Her face and nose were disfigured -
Injured-victim was admitted to Hospital
and remained in Hospital for 17-18 days -
Sentence
of
four
years
rigorous
imprisonment
ordered
-
Validity
challenged - Held, the learned trial court
has fully discussed the entire evidence
and has properly appreciated it and has
rightly held the accused guilty for offence
under Section 308 IPC - There is no
illegality or perversity in the findings
recorded by the trial court - However,
High Court converted sentence of four
years RI to three and half years RI and
fine of Rs. 20,000 to Rs. 10,000. (Para 15,
16 and 19)
B. Criminal Law - Trustworthiness of
injured
witness
-
Corroboration
by
medical evidence - Held, the statement of
the victim is reliable and trustworthy and
there
is
no
major
discrepancy
or
9 All. Govind Kumar Kureel Vs. State of U.P.
147
contradiction in her statement, which
makes it unreliable - There is no reason to
disbelieve victim's testimony, which is
also corroborated by the medical evidence
and
there
is
no
reason
for
false
implication. (Para 14)
Appeal partly allowed. (E-1)

## Text

146 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
bones and ashes were of human bones or
not but it was opined in this report that the
hair was found to be human hair.

21.

Investigating
Officer
also
prepared one site plan, Exhibit-Ka 4 which
relates to the place of occurrence and in
addition to that Investigating Officer also
prepared site-plan, Exhibit-Ka 5 which
shows place where the dead body of
deceased was cremated behind a school,
hence it is established and proved by the
prosecution that after the death of deceased,
her body was cremated without getting the
postmortem done to destroy the evidence
which is an offence under Section 201
I.P.C. The conduct of accused appellant
after the death of his wife also establishes
that he had tried to destroy the evidence
because if the deceased had committed
suicide and appellant was not responsible
for that then he would have informed the
police but the accused neither informed the
police nor informed the parents of deceased
and even before arrival of parents of
deceased, dead body of the deceased was
cremated and accused fled away from his
residence. So his conduct is also contrary to
the defence taken by him under Section 313
Cr.P.C.

22. No other argument has been
placed by learned counsel for the appellant
before this Court.

23. Hence, keeping in view the above
discussion, this Court is of the opinion that
learned trial court has rightly appreciated
the evidence on record and rightly
convicted and sentenced the accused Neeraj
alias Kalua.

24. The appeal lacks merit and is
liable to be dismissed, and is accordingly
dismissed.
----------
(2021)09ILR A146
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 02.09.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SYED AFTAB HUSAIN RIZVI, J.

Jail Appeal No. 507 of 2018

Govind Kumar Kureel ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Appellant:
From Jail, Sri Dheeraj Kumar Dwivedi, Sri
Swetashwa Agarwal (A.C.)

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
A.G.A.

A. Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code,1860
- Section 308 - Attempt to commit
culpable homicide - Wife's FIR that she
was assaulted by her husband with lathidanda, bricks and kick and punches, due
to which she suffered grievous injuries -
Her face and nose were disfigured -
Injured-victim was admitted to Hospital
and remained in Hospital for 17-18 days -
Sentence
of
four
years
rigorous
imprisonment
ordered
-
Validity
challenged - Held, the learned trial court
has fully discussed the entire evidence
and has properly appreciated it and has
rightly held the accused guilty for offence
under Section 308 IPC - There is no
illegality or perversity in the findings
recorded by the trial court - However,
High Court converted sentence of four
years RI to three and half years RI and
fine of Rs. 20,000 to Rs. 10,000. (Para 15,
16 and 19)
B. Criminal Law - Trustworthiness of
injured
witness
-
Corroboration
by
medical evidence - Held, the statement of
the victim is reliable and trustworthy and
there
is
no
major
discrepancy
or
9 All. Govind Kumar Kureel Vs. State of U.P.
147
contradiction in her statement, which
makes it unreliable - There is no reason to
disbelieve victim's testimony, which is
also corroborated by the medical evidence
and
there
is
no
reason
for
false
implication. (Para 14)
Appeal partly allowed. (E-1)
(Delivered by Hon'ble Syed Aftab Husain
Rizvi, J.)

1. Heard Sri Swetashwa Agarwal,
learned counsel appearing for the appellant
as Amicus Curiae and learned A.G.A.

2. This jail appeal has been filed
against the judgment and order dated
19.07.2018 passed by the Additional
Sessions Judge, court no.17, Kanpur Nagar
arising out of case crime no.97 of 2011 for
offence under Sections 308, 323, 504, 506
IPC Police Station Bidhnu, District Kanpur
Nagar convicting the appellant (accused)
under Section 308 IPC and sentencing him
to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four
years and imposing a fine of Rs. 20,000/-
and in default of payment of fine, three
months simple imprisonment.

3. In brief the prosecution case is that
an application written by Raj Karan under
the thumb impression of victim/informant
Sarita dated 05.03.2011 was given at Police
Station- Bidhnu alleging therein that "
applicant- Smt. Sarita is the wife of Govind
Kureel resident of Pahadpur- Tulsinagar. In
the night of 04.03.2011 in between 11:00 to
12:00 O'clock my husband suddenly
attacked me while I was sleeping and
assaulted me with lathi-danda, bricks and
kick and punches, due to which I suffered
grievous injuries and thereafter he went
away threating me and locking my room
from outside. On the aforesaid, application
case crime no.97 of 2011 under Sections
323, 504, 506, 308 IPC was registered and
the
investigation
commenced.
The
Investigating Officer, visited the place of
occurrence from where he took one blood
stained piece of brick and sealed it, he also
collected blood stained and unstained soil
from the place of occurrence and sealed it
and prepared the memo and site plan,
recorded the statements of scribe victim/
complainant and other witnesses and after
completion of the investigation, submitted
the charge-sheet under Section 308, 323,
504, 506 IPC.

4. The learned trial court framed the
charges
against
the
accused-appellant
Govind Kureel under Sections 308, 323,
504 and 506 I.P.C. The accused denied the
charges
and
claimed
for
trial,
the
prosecution lead its evidence and examined
eight witnesses. Statement of accused
recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in
which he denied all the allegations and
stated that he has been falsely implicated.
No evidence in defence has been produced.
The learned trial court after hearing the
arguments by the impugned judgment has
held the accused-Govind Kureel guilty for
charge under Sections 308 and 323 IPC but
acquitted him from the charges under
Sections 504 and 506 IPC. The learned trial
court has imposed sentence of four years
rigorous
imprisonment
with
fine
of
Rs.20,000/- for offence under Section 308
IPC only.

5. The medical examination of
complainant/ victim namely- Smt. Sarita
was conducted on 05.03.2011 at about
11:05 a.m. by Dr. Y.K. Nigam in Hallett
Hospital, Kanpur Nagar and according to
medical report Ex. Ka-6, the condition of
patient was kept under observation:

Pulse rate - 78 per minute
148 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

B.P. - 126/70 mmHg

Respiratory Rate - 18 per minute

Temperature - normal

Hydration - Indefinite

Chest - clear

Abdomen - Soft

Patient
was
conscious
but
drowsing

Pupils - normal

Injuries:

Lacerated wound on the face
extending from forehead to right side nose
to right side of upper lip measuring 22 cm
X 10 cm X bonedeep. X-Ray Advised.

Dr. has opined that the injury is kept
under observation, fresh, due to blunt and
hard
object,
X-Ray
advised,
police
informed, patient admitted under care of
doctor
Harendra
Gautam
vide
BHT
No.5035 of 2011 department of E.N.T. for
expert treatment and management.

6. The Complainant Smt. Sarita P.W.-
1 is the injured and main witness. In her
examination in chief, she has said that the
accused- Govind Kureel is her husband.
The incident is of 04.03.2011 in between
11:00 to 12:00 p.m., she and her husband
Govind Kureel were present in the house.
She ought to prevent her husband from
wrong doing and due to this her husband
Govind Kureel attacked her with a brick
and assaulted many times on her face and
on her noise, Govind Kureel ran away
locking the door from outside. In the
morning, the uncle of her husband
(Chachiya Sasur), came to know about her
condition which was serious and he took
her to the police station where he wrote an
application on her dictation on which she
put her thumb impression. Thereafter she
was taken to the Hallett Hospital where she
was medically examined and got treatment
and admitted in the said hospital for 17 to
18 days. Her face and nose is permanently
disfigured in this incident.

7. Razol Saini (P.W.-2) is the formal
witness who has proved the memo of
taking into possession of blood stained
brick and blood stained and unstained soil
from the place of occurrence by the
Investigating Officer.

8. Chandra Pal (P.W.-3) is the father
of the accused. From his testimony, it
appears that he is not an eye-witness and at
the time of incident he was at his native
village while complainant and accused
were at Pahadpur Tulsinagar and he has
also stated that on information he reached
Hallett Hospital where her daughter in law
Sarita was admitted in injured condition but
he does not know who has committed the
alleged incident.

9. Raj Karan (P.W.-4) is the scribe of
the FIR. In his examination in chief he has
said that Govind Kureel is his real nephew
and he lives with his wife Smt. Sarita in his
neighbourhood. In the morning when he
came from his duty, he saw that his elder
brother Chote Lal, wife Ram Wati were
carrying Smt. Sarita in a tempo to hospital,
he also accompanied them to the hospital,
there were serious injuries on the face of
Smt. Sarita and she was under treatment for
several days in the Hallett Hospital. The
witness further stated that Sub-Inspector
got his signatures on a plain paper and he
has not written anything on it. He has not
written any application and also not written
any report on behalf of Sarita. This witness
is close relation of accused and it appears
that due to this he has disowned his writing
the application on which the FIR has been
lodged. In his cross-examination he has
9 All. Govind Kumar Kureel Vs. State of U.P.
149
admitted this fact that Ex.Ka-1 is in his
hand writing and earlier he has giving false
statement that the application is not in his
hand writing. He has also admitted this fact
that Smt. Sarita have a good character.

10. Learned counsel for the appellant
further contended that the incident is of
midnight and it was darkness. The witness
herself has admitted that she has not seen
who assaulted her, so there is no evidence
against the accused and his identification is
also doubtful. This argument has no
substance. Although the incident occurred
in the midnight and darkness and P.W.-1
Smt. Sarita in her cross-examination has
admitted that at the time of occurrence, it
was dark and she was sleeping, she has also
said that she has not seen who assaulted her
but she has further stated that when the
accused
pressed
her
neck
then
she
recognized him from his voice. The victim
is the wife of the accused and from the
record it is also clear that only victim and
the accused were present in the house at the
time of occurrence and after assaulting the
victim, the accused went away from the
place of occurrence locking the door from
outside. In these circumstances, there is no
ground for making suspicion about the
identity of the accused. The accused has
also not put up any case in defence and
there is no suggestion that any outsider has
entered and committed the incident.

11. Learned counsel for the appellant
further contended that the FIR has been
lodged on the next day after 12 hrs of the
incident and there is considerable delay in
lodging the FIR, casting doubt on the
prosecution
story.
The
learned
AGA
submitted that the delay has been reasonably
explained as the accused has locked the
injured in the room and she was detected in
the morning by the family members of her
husband then she was taken to the police
station and hospital. The incident occurred in
the mid-night and the FIR has been lodged on
the next day i.e. 05.03.2011 at about 12:45
p.m. The reasons for delay is fully explained,
the victim was alone in her house and after
committing the crime the accused locked her
from outside and she was in badly injured
condition and when the matter was detected
by her Chachiya Sasur then the FIR was
lodged.

12. The remaining witnesses S.I.-
Mohan Lal Dixit (P.W.-5) and S.I.- Yadu
Nath Singh (P.W.-6) and head constable
Manoj Kumar (P.W.-8) are formal, the
Investigating Officer and chick/ G.D. writer.

13. The only eye witness account is that
of Smt. Sarita (P.W.-1) the injured. The
incident has occurred inside the house of
complainant/ injured and she has implicated
her husband. The victim/ complainant Smt.
Sarita has supported the prosecution case
from her oral testimony. The medical
evidence on record also corroborates the
ocular version of the complainant/ victim
P.W.-1. Dr. Y.K. Nigam (P.W.-7) in his
examination in chief has said that the injury
was fresh and was caused by hard and blunt
object, so the medical evidence fully
corroborates the ocular version and there is
no contradiction between the two.

14. The statement of the victim- Smt.
Sarita is reliable and trustworthy and there
is no major discrepancy or contradiction in
her statement, which makes it unreliable
and there is no reason to disbelieve her
testimony which is also corroborated by the
medical evidence and there is no reason for
false implication.

15. From the evidence on record, it is
also established that injury has been caused
150 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
on the face and due to which her face and
nose were disfigured, injured was admitted
to the hospital and she remained in hospital
for 17-18 days. The discharge slip of
Medical College, Kanpur Nagar is also on
record, according to which injured Smt.
Sarita was admitted in the hospital on
05.03.2011
and
was
discharged
on
22.03.2011.The injury report also shows
that injury was extended from forehead of
right side of nose to right side of upper lip,
her entire face was damaged.

16. The learned trial court has fully
discussed the entire evidence and has
properly appreciated it and has rightly held
the accused guilty for offence under
Section 308 IPC. There is no illegality or
perversity in the findings recorded by the
learned trial court and the finding of
conviction is upheld.

17. The learned Amicus Curaie Mr.
Shwetashwa Agarwal submitted that it is a
matter of quarrel between husband and
wife and the incident is 10 years old,
appellant-accused
is
in
jail
since
19.07.2018 he also remained in jail at the
time of his arrest for more than two months
and has completed more than three years
and three months imprisonment. Learned
counsel prayed that the sentence of
undergone may be imposed.

18. The learned trial court has
sentenced the accused for four years
rigorous imprisonment and a fine of
Rs.20,000/- and in default of payment of
fine three months simple imprisonment.

19. Considering the nature of the
offence, nature of the injuries and all other
attending facts and circumstances of the
case, it appears to be just to sentence the
accused with three years and six months
rigorous imprisonment and a fine of
Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of
fine three months simple imprisonment. If
the fine is deposited the victim- Smt. Sarita
will get half of the fine amount.

18. The appeal is partly allowed in the
aforesaid terms.

19. Copy of this judgment along with
lower court record be transmitted to the
learned trial court immediately. The copy
of the judgment be also served on accused
through Superintendent of Jail, concerned
so that he may be able to deposit the fine, if
he so desires.
----------
(2021)09ILR A150
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 31.08.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SYED AFTAB HUSAIN RIZVI, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 508 of 1988

Mainpal ...Appellant (In Jail)
Versus
State ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Anil Malik, Sri Kulveer Singh, Sri
Deepesh Kumar Ojha

Counsel for the Respondent:
A.G.A.

(A)
Criminal
Law
-
appeal
against
conviction - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Section 376 - rape - The Code of criminal
procedure, 1973 - Section 313 - absence
of injury on the prosecutrix may not be a
factor that leads the court to absolve the
accused - mere delay in lodging the FIR
does not adversely affect the prosecution
case unless it is proved that delay in