# Ram Ji (In Jail) v. State

- **Citation:** (2020) 7 ILRA 412
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-03-17
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 753 of 1993
- **Bench:** Suresh Kumar Gupta
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ram-ji-in-jail-v-state-45909
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Indian Penal Code, 1860-Section 324,
307/34-challenge
to-appellant
remaining part of his sentence-All the
witnesses of fact PW1 ,PW2 and PW4
clearly specify the role of the appellantmedical report corroborated with the
oral testimony of the PW1 and PW2their evidence has a ring of truth-Hence,
trial

court
rightly
convicted
the
appellant u/s 324 IPC-since incident
occurred
more
than
33
year
agopresently appellant is aged about 60
years and during intervening period, he
had not indulged into any criminal
activity
nor
he
had
any
criminal
background-submission
for
showing
leniency
regarding
sentence
of
the
appellant at this stage, is liable to be
accepted.(Para 2 to 20)

The appeal is dismissed. (E-6)

List of Cases Cited:

## Text

412 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
respondents and the public interest is self
evident from the facts of the case as well as
the orders passed by the respondents.

14. In the instant case the matter has
been thoroughly examined by this Court as
well as the respondent authorities.

15. I am of the considered opinion that
there is no illegality or irrationality in the
impugned transfer order dated 29.06.2019 as
well as the impugned order of rejection of the
representation of petitioner dated 11.03.2020.
The respondents have duly considered the
case of the petitioner and gave adequate
reasons for the same. It is also surprising that
the petitioner having been transferred in June,
2019 is still continuing at Lakhimpur Kheri
without there being any interim order in his
favour.

16. Considering the totality of the facts
and circumstances of the case, no interference
in the case is called for.

17. The petition lacks merit and is
hereby dismissed. The respondents are
expected to relieve the petitioner immediately
so that he can join at transferred place of
posting.

18. However, it is provided that in case
petitioner joins to his the transferred place of
posting within a period of two weeks from
the date of production of a certified copy of
this order, then no coercive action shall be
taken against him.
----------
(2020)07ILR A412
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.03.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SURESH KUMAR GUPTA, J.
Criminal Appeal No. 753 of 1993

Ram Ji ...Appellant(In Jail)
Versus
State ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Appellant:
S.P. Shukla, Sri Rakesh Dubey

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

Indian Penal Code, 1860-Section 324,
307/34-challenge
to-appellant
remaining part of his sentence-All the
witnesses of fact PW1 ,PW2 and PW4
clearly specify the role of the appellantmedical report corroborated with the
oral testimony of the PW1 and PW2their evidence has a ring of truth-Hence,
trial

court
rightly
convicted
the
appellant u/s 324 IPC-since incident
occurred
more
than
33
year
agopresently appellant is aged about 60
years and during intervening period, he
had not indulged into any criminal
activity
nor
he
had
any
criminal
background-submission
for
showing
leniency
regarding
sentence
of
the
appellant at this stage, is liable to be
accepted.(Para 2 to 20)

The appeal is dismissed. (E-6)

List of Cases Cited:

1. Dalip Singh & ors Vs St. of Punj., (1953) AIR
SC 364

2. Masalti & ors Vs St. of U.P., (1965) AIR SC
202

(Delivered by Hon'ble Suresh Kumar Gupta, J.)

1. This appeal has been preferred
against the judgement and order passed by
Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Kanpur
Nagar dated 28.4.1993, in Sessions Trial
No. 567 of 1991 convicting and sentencing
the appellant u/s 324 IPC to undergo two
7 All. Ram Ji Vs. State
413
years R.I. And a fine of Rs. 10,000/- in
default payment of fine one years R.I. all
the sentences shall run concurrently.

2. Brief facts of this case are that the
complainant's cousin Mohd. Haroon s/o
Abdul
Lateef
R/o
44/33
Ajeetganj
Colony, P.S. Babupurva Kanpur has a
shop of repairing of interlocking machine
situated at House No. 109/198 Mohalla
Jawahar Nagar, P.S. Nazirabad. On
6.4.1987, complainant was present in the
shop of his brother Mohd. Haroon and
talking with him; at 7:30 pm, Ramji Nai,
House No. 109/91 Resident of Mohalla
Jawahar Nagar and his brother in law,
Ram Chandar and two unknown people
came
to
the
shop
armed
with
countrymade pistol, threatened and said
to make arrangement of Rs. 1,000/- till
tomorrow, otherwise, you will be no left
alive and also said that immediately give
him Rs. 100/- for wine then Mohd.
Haroon tell him that he had no money.
On this, the companion of Ramji Nai
abusing him said that he would not give
such money, kill him today. On this
pretext Ramji Nai fired by countrymade
pistol on Mohd. Haroon with intention of
killing him. This bullet hits on left hand
of Mohd. Haroon when both of us
shouted then all the miscreants fled from
the spot. Due to terror of this miscreants,
panic caused among the shopkeepers and
they started closing their shop quickly.

3. On this allegation injured as well
as complainant rushed to the police
station and lodge the written report
(Exhibit Ka 1) against Ramji Nai, Ram
Chandar and two unknown miscreants.
Chik FIR (Exhibit Ka 2) registered at
8:05 pm under Section 307 IPC. The case
was entered by means of General Diary.
By Head Constable Moharir Shiv Awtar
Pandey who proved the chik FIR as
Exhibit Ka 2 and G.D. Srl. No. 61 at 8:05
pm is proved as Exhibit Ka 3.

4. On the request letter of the
S.H.O. Nazirabad, Mohd. Haroon was
examined by the Doctor G.V. Saxena
(PW-4) who has medically examined
Mohd. Haroon.

On
medical
examination
following injuries were found on PW 2
Mohd. Haroom:-

Lacerated wound 4cmX2cmX
muscle deep, bone exposed on left hand
and wrist back. Bleeding profusely.

Injury kept under observation.
Advised x-ray, caused by hard and blunt
object, Duration about fresh.

PW 4 proved the injury report
as Exhibit Ka 4.

5. Investigation of this case is
conducted by Investigating Officer during
investigation, the investigating officer
recorded the statement of witness and
also prepared site plan and collect the
injury report and collect the relevant
papers. Investigating officer was not
examined by prosecution during trial.
During trial, learned counsel for the
appellant accepted the genuineness of the
police papers under Section 294 Cr.P.C.
viz charge sheet against Prem Shankar as
Exhibit Ka 5 and Ramji Nai & Ram
Chandra as Exhibit Ka 6. Recovery
memo
of
Blood
Stained
&
Plain
Cemented Floor as Exhibit Ka 7, Spot
map as Exhibit Ka 8.

6.

After
conclusion
of
the
investigation,
charge
sheet
submitted
414 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
against Ramji Nai, Ram Chandar and
Mohd. Hasoon under Section 307 IPC. The
charge framed against Ram Chandar, Prem
Shankar on 12.9.1991 under Section 307/34
and against Ramji Nai under Section 307
IPC on 12.9.1991 charge read over and
explained to the accused in hindi. They
pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried.

7. In order to substantiate the charge
levelled against the appellant, prosecution
examined four witnesses PW 1, Abdul
Jabbar complainant of this case and cousin
of the injured. PW 2 Mohd. Haroon
injured, PW 3 Shiv Autar Pandey, Head
Constable and PW-4 Dr. G.V. Saxena.

8. After the conclusion of trial
statement of appellants was recorded under
Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which he has stated
that witnesses giving false statement due to
enmity. No defence witness was examined
by appellant.

9. Learned trial court after hearing
both the parties acquitted Prem Shanker
and Ram Chandar against the charge
levelled u/s 307/34 IPC. Only Ramji Nai is
convicted under Section 324 IPC as
aforesaid.

10. Being aggrieved with the order of
sessions court, sole appellant Ram Ji Nai
preferred this appeal. No appeal preferred
by the prosecution against the acquittal of
accused Ram Chandar and Prem Shankar.

11. I have heard learned counsel for
the appellant, Sri J.P. Tripathi the learned
AGA for the State-respondent and perused
the record.

12. Learned counsel for the appellant
submitted that the incident took place in
crowded place in Kanpur city but no any
independent witness examined by the
prosecution only interested and related
witnesses
were
produced
by
the
prosecution which belies the prosecution
case and further submitted that the witness
PW 1 and PW 2 examined before the court
below, in which, PW 2 injured witness
declared hostile and learned trial court
without appreciating the evidence in proper
perspective,
wrongly
convicted
the
appellant and it is also submitted that as per
medical report Exhibit Ka 4, Doctor clearly
opined that the single injury which is
caused by hard and blunt object which
means a case of the prosecution is shattered
as per injury report no gun shot injury
found on the hand of the injured Mohd.
Haroon. Lastly, the appellant counsel
submitted that the date of incident is
6.4.1987. More than 33 years had already
been elapsed in such a long time, no useful
purpose shall be served to again sending
the appellant to serve out the sentence.

13. Learned AGA submitted that the
witness produced by the prosecution
clearly established the case against the
appellant. Doctor G.V. Saxena (PW 4) in
his statement clearly stated that the injury
inflicted to the injured Mohd. Haroon
may also be caused by gun shot injury.
Although, the doctor was not assured
about the nature of injury but PW 4 in his
statement clearly deposed that it could
not be said that this injury is not inflicted
by fire arm. This is a clear cut bullet
injury and injured witness is most reliable
witness and the testimony of the injured
witness PW 2 cannot be doubted at strech
of imagination. Statement of PW 2
regarding implication of appellant is clear
and cogent. Prosecution has established
its case beyond any shadow of doubt
against the appellant as such appeal is
liable to be dismissed.
7 All. Ram Ji Vs. State
415

14. On perusal of the case, it
transpires that the FIR is very prompt and
there is no delay in lodging the FIR which
already
strengthen
the
case
of
the
prosecution and due to spontaneity, there is
no occasion of any embellishment or due
deliberation. So the prosecution case in this
aspect is credible and believable.

15. One of the argument of the
learned counsel for the appellant is that no
independent witness examined by the
prosecution and only related & interested
witnesses
were
examined
by
the
prosecution so no reliance has been placed
on the testimony of these two witnesses.

16. As far as evidentiary value of and
interested witnesses are concerned, in the
case of Dalip Singh and others vs. State of
Punjab, (AIR 1953 SC 364), it has been laid
down as under by the Hon'ble Apex Court:-

"A witness is normally to be
considered independent unless he or she
springs from sources which are likely to be
tainted and unless the witness has cause, such
as enmity against the accused, to wish to
implicate him falsely. Ordinarily a close
relation would be the last to screen the real
culprit and falsely implicate an innocent
person. It is true, when feelings run high and
there is personal cause for enmity, that there
is tendency to drag in an innocent person
against whom a witness has a grudge along
with the guilty, but foundation must be laid
for such a criticism and the mere fact of
relationship far from being a foundation is
often a sure guarantee of truth. However, we
are
not
attempting
any
sweeping
generalization. Each case must be judged on
its own facts."

In the case of Masalti and others
vs. State of U.P., (A.I.R. 1965 SC 202), it
transpires that the evidence of related
witness could not be rejected on the sole
ground of interested or related witness. In
this case, evidence of the interested and
related witness shall be scrutinized with
due care and caution.

17. Learned counsel for the applicant
submitted that the PW-1 in his cross
examination stated that he could not see the
face of the assailant-accused due to
darkness around the spot. In this regard, the
statement of the PW 1 firstly examined on
6.1.1992 but on the second day when he
cross examined then he take U-turn and
stated that he could not see the occurrence.
But after perusing the entire statement, it is
clearly established that the PW-1 was
present on the spot. In his statement, he
fully
narrated
the
version
of
the
prosecution,
injured
witness
(PW
2)
corroborated the version of the FIR but he
clearly denied the role of the co-accused
Ram Chandra, on this point, he already
declared hostile and on the basis of this
statement, Ram Chandra was acquitted by
the learned trial court but with regard to the
evidence against Ram Ji Nai, concerned
PW 2 clearly shows that Ram Ji Nai
inflicted injury by firing gun shot by
countrymade pistol. Although, the medical
examination
report
does
not
fully
corroborate the oral evidence of PW 1 and
PW 2 but during examination of PW 4, he
clearly stated that if the bullet hit on hand
then such type of injury may also occur so
it cannot be said that injury inflicted on the
hand of the injured witness did not cause
by the countrymade pistol.

18. So after considering rival
submissions of the parties and perusal of
the record, identity of the appellant could
not be disputed. Role of the appellant is
clearly established. All the witnesses of fact
416 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
PW 1 and PW 2 clearly specify the role of
the appellant. Presence of the appellant is
fully
established.
Medical
report
corroborated with the oral testimony of the
PW 1 and PW 2. Their evidence has a ring
of truth. Hence, learned trial court rightly
convicted the appellant under Section 324
IPC resultantly, conviction of the appellant
under Section 324 IPC is hereby affirmed.
Coming to the sentence to be imposed on
the appellant since incident occurred more
than 33 years ago and presently, the
appellant is aged about 60 years and during
intervening period, he had not indulged into
any criminal activity nor he had any
criminal
background
and
presently,
appellant is well rooted in society.
Submission of the learned counsel for the
appellant for showing leniency in this
matter regarding sentence, is liable to be
acceptable.

19. Considering the entire possible
conspectus of circumstances, in my
opinion sending appellant back to serve
out remaining part of his sentence will
not be in the interest of justice. It is also
pertinent to mention that during trial
appellant was in jail for more than 9
months so the end of justice would be
served, if the appellant is sentenced for
period undergone by him and fine
enhanced from Rs. 10,000/- to 20,000/-.
Out of which, the compensation of Rs.
15,000/- is awarded to the injured Mohd.
Haroon, in case of his death, to the legal
heirs of the injured Mohd. Haroon. The
appellant is permitted to deposit the fine
within period of one month from the date
of the judgement. Failing to deposit the
same, appellant shall surrender or he be
taken in custody to serve out one year
rigorous
imprisonment
as
default
sentence.

20. So the appeal is 'dismissed' on
the point of conviction and partly allowed
on the point of sentence as above.
Appellant is already on bail. He need not
to surrender but his personal and surety
bond shall be discharged only after he
had deposited the fine or has been
arrested to serve out the default sentence
imposed hereinabove.

21. Let a copy of this judgement and
order be sent to the learned trial court
alongwith the lower court record, for its
intimation and compliance.
----------
(2020)07ILR A416
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.07.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANOJ MISRA, J.
THE HON'BLE PANKAJ BHATIA, J.

Criminal Appeal No.1748 of 1991

Harnam Singh & Ors. ...Appellants(In Jail)
Versus
The State of U.P. ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri K.D.Tripathi, Sri Rakesh Pati Tiwari

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
G.A.

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860- Sections
302/149, 307/149 and 148-the testimony
of PW1 attributing specific role to all the
five appellants, it was duly established
that the accused constituted an unlawful
assembly whose object was to finish off
the victims and with that avowed object
they open indiscriminate fire at the
deceased,
PW1
and
PW2-hence,
prosecution
has
been
successful
in
establishing
the
charges
against
the