# Ram Lakhan @ Kalloo (In Jail) v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2020) 2 ILRA 669
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-01-29
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 243 of 1993
- **Bench:** Arvind Kumar Mishra-I, Gautam Chowdhary
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ram-lakhan-kalloo-in-jail-v-state-of-u-p-45719
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

670 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
A. Criminal Law-Indian Penal CodeSection 302 .- Appeal against conviction.

The prosecution witnesses have very much
proved the factum of incident and all the
relevant aspects and circumstances have been
consistently established within the four corners
of the provisions of Section - 300 I.P.C. thus
proving the charge for punishment under
Section - 302 I.P.C. In the postmortem
examination report, two injuries have been
found on the skull and combined effect of both
these injuries along with others proved fatal to
the deceased. (Para 13)

It is specific that these injuries on the body of
the deceased have not been challenged
specifically by the defense to the ambit and
magnitude that the same have not been
caused in any such incident as the present one.
(Para 14)

The testimony on the point of occurrence of
both the aforesaid eye-witnesses P.W.1 and
P.W.2 is consistent, truthful and unambiguous.
In view of the evidence on record to claim that
no one saw the occurrence, is an absolutely
misconceived claim and it cannot be sustained
on its face. The trial Judge while considering
the case on its merit, has recorded just and
consistent finding. The same is based on
material on record. (Para 15)

Criminal Appeal rejected. (E-2)

## Text

2 All. Ram Lakhan @ Kalloo Vs. State of U.P.
669
the factum of injury being caused by use
of firearm and the nature of injury as
described in the medical examination
report of the injured / informant, Ext. Ka6, indicates that the case squarely falls
within ambit of Section 324 I.P.C. instead
of under Section 307 I.P.C. Consequently,
the conviction recorded by the trial court
under Section 307 I.P.C. is liable to be
altered
under
Section
324
I.P.C.
Accordingly, the conviction recorded
under Section 307 I.P.C. is altered and
modified to one under Section 324 I.P.C.

26. Insofar as the point of sentencing
the accused-appellant under Section 324
I.P.C. is concerned, learned amicus curiae
for the appellant has urged that the
accused-appellant being a young man and
he does not bear criminal history,
therefore, his case may be considered
leniently and he should be punished with
the minimum sentence prescribed under
Section 324 I.P.C. and fine alone may be
imposed as sentence as that would better
serve the ends of justice under facts and
circumstances of the case.

27. While opposing the aforesaid
plea of leniency on sentencing the
accused-appellant, learned A.A.G. has
brought to the notice of the Court a
decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case
of Ved Prakash Vs. State of Haryana
1996 Supreme Court Cases (Crl.) 1182
whereby he has claimed that on the point
of sentencing under similar circumstances
when the case was found to have been
proved under Section 324 I.P.C., Hon'ble
Apex Court was of the view that sentence
of three years would serve the ends of
justice.

28. We upon careful consideration of
the entirety of the case and considering the
nature of the offence committed and
proved, hereby direct that the accusedappellant be sentenced to three years
rigorous imprisonment under Section 324
I.P.C. Accordingly, sentence awarded by
the trial court is modified to that extent as
aforesaid.

29. Consequently, the instant appeal
succeeds, partly in aforesaid terms and we
order accordingly.

30. In this case, appellant Anant
Singh @ Pappu is on bail. His bail bonds
and sureties are cancelled. He shall be
taken into custody forthwith for serving
out his remaining sentence imposed upon
him.

31. Let a copy of this order/judgment
be certified to the court below for
necessary information and follow up
action.
----------
(2020)02ILR A669

APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 29.01.2020

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA-I, J.
THE HON'BLE GAUTAM CHOWDHARY, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 243 of 1993

Ram Lakhan @ Kalloo
 ...Appellant (In Jail)
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri H.N. Singh, Sri Sukhvir Singh A/C, Sri
Rishabh Srivastava

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
A.G.A.
670 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
A. Criminal Law-Indian Penal CodeSection 302 .- Appeal against conviction.

The prosecution witnesses have very much
proved the factum of incident and all the
relevant aspects and circumstances have been
consistently established within the four corners
of the provisions of Section - 300 I.P.C. thus
proving the charge for punishment under
Section - 302 I.P.C. In the postmortem
examination report, two injuries have been
found on the skull and combined effect of both
these injuries along with others proved fatal to
the deceased. (Para 13)

It is specific that these injuries on the body of
the deceased have not been challenged
specifically by the defense to the ambit and
magnitude that the same have not been
caused in any such incident as the present one.
(Para 14)

The testimony on the point of occurrence of
both the aforesaid eye-witnesses P.W.1 and
P.W.2 is consistent, truthful and unambiguous.
In view of the evidence on record to claim that
no one saw the occurrence, is an absolutely
misconceived claim and it cannot be sustained
on its face. The trial Judge while considering
the case on its merit, has recorded just and
consistent finding. The same is based on
material on record. (Para 15)

Criminal Appeal rejected. (E-2)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Arvind Kumar
Mishra-I, J.)

1. Heard Sri Sukhvir Singh, learned
Amicus Curiae on behalf of the appellant,
Sri Krishna Pahal, learned A.A.G. assisted
by Sri Bhanu Prakash Singh, learned Brief
Holder for the State.

2. By way of instant criminal appeal,
challenge
has
been
made
to
the
authenticity, veracity and sustainability of
the judgment and order of conviction dated
30.01.1993 passed by the Sessions Judge,
Sonbhadra in Sessions Trial No. 84 of
1990 (State vs. Ram Lakhan alias Kallu
Pal) s/o Khedu, r/o Bakahi, Police Station
- Robertsganj, District - Sonbhadra,
whereby the accused-appellant has been
convicted under Section - 302 I.P.C. and
sentenced to imprisonment for life.

3. Factual chronology of this case,
culminating into lodging of the First
Information Report, as discernible from
perusal of record, is that a written report
(Ex.Ka.1) was lodged at Police Station -
Robertsganj on 02.10.1988, at 11.30 a.m.
by the informant (P.W.1) Rameshwar Nath
Dubey s/o Akshaywar Ram Dubey, r/o
Village
-
Bakahi,
Police
Station
-
Roberstsganj, Mirzapur, to the effect that
the accused - Ram Lakhan alias Kallu Pal
was abusing his (informant's) nephew,
Shobhnath alias Nageshmani s/o Satya
Narayan at 05.30 a.m. in the morning. The
nephew of the informant (Shobhnath)
asked him not to hurl abuses. An
altercation took place on the spot. It has
been described in the F.I.R. that Ram
Lakhan alias Kallu Pal was watering his
field through pumping set in the night and
someone manipulated the flow of water
and mis-directed it towards some ditch.
Ram Lakhan alias Kallu Pal, the accused,
was apprehensive that this mischief has
been done by Shobhnath (the deceased).
Therefore,
on
account
of
aforesaid
altercation, the dispute increased to some
extent, whereupon accused Ram Lakhan
alias Kallu Pal took 'khanti' (a tool for
digging mud) from his house and tried to
assault Shobhnath (deceased), whereupon
co-villagers Babu Lal, Banshdhari, Hari
Nath,
Yadunath,
Badrinath
and
the
informant arrived on the spot. They
snatched away the 'khanti' from the hand
of the accused and the matter was patched
up for the time being. After some time,
when Shobhnath alias Nageshmani was
2 All. Ram Lakhan @ Kalloo Vs. State of U.P.
671
going to the field for grazing his buffaloes,
at around 6.15 a.m. in the morning, the
accused - Ram Lakhan alias Kallu Pal
possessing 'lathi' (wooden stick) in his
hand, appeared outside the village all of a
sudden and caused 'lathi' blows on him,
thus
causing
grievous
injuries.
The
aforesaid persons rushed to his rescue, but
by that time, the accused had made his
escape good. The saviours tried to
apprehend the accused, but they did not
succeed. It has been further described that
the incident was witnessed by a number of
villagers. The injured was taken to the
District Hospital, Kakrahi, where the
doctor, after giving first aid treatment and
considering the condition of the injured
Shobhnath serious, referred the matter to
B.H.U., Varanasi. The injured was taken
to the Government Hospital, Robertsganj,
where
Shobhnath
alias
Nageshmani
succumbed to his injuries. The dead body
of Shobhnath alias Nageshmani was lying
in the hospital when the informant
Rameshwar Nath Dubey went to lodge the
report at the police station. This report was
taken down in the Check F.I.R. concerned
(Ex.Ka.4) and relevant entries were made
in the relevant G.D. of the aforesaid date
and time on 02.10.1988 at 11.30 a.m. at
Police Station - Robertsganj and a case
was registered against the accused at Case
Crime No. 537 of 1988, under Section -
304 I.P.C. The investigation of the case
ensued
and
it
was
entrusted
to
Hridayanand
Mishra
(P.W.5),
who
proceeded to the spot after noting the
contents of the F.I.R. and the relevant
G.D.; recorded statement of various
persons and prepared Inquest Report
(panchayatnama) at Government Hospital,
Robertsganj and which is marked as
Ex.Ka.2.
He
also
prepared
relevant
documents, while preparing the inquest
report and has proved the same as
Ex.Ka.6,
Ex.Ka.7,
Ex.Ka.8,
Ex.Ka.9,
Ex.Ka.10 and Ex.Ka.11. Besides, he also
recorded
statement
of
informant
-
Rameshwar Nath Dubey at the hospital
itself and the statement of the inquest
witnesses. Thereafter, he arrived on the
spot and prepared the site-plan of the
occurrence (Ex.Ka.12). He also collected
simple earth and blood stained earth from
the spot and kept it in two separate
containers and prepared a memo of the
same
(Ex.Ka-13).
Subsequently,
the
weapon of assault 'lathi' was also
recovered at the pointing out of the
accused Ram Lakhan alias Kallu Pal. A
recovery memo (Ex.Ka.14) was also
prepared.

4. After completing the investigation,
charge-sheet (Ex.Ka.15) was filed under
Section 304 of I.P.C.

5. Pursuant thereto, the committal
proceeding took place and the case was
committed to the Court of Sessions,
where it was registered as Sessions Trial
No. 84 of 1990 (State vs. Ram Lakhan
alias Kallu Pal). From there, it was made
over for trial and disposal to the court of
Sessions Judge, Sonbhadra. Accused was
heard on point of charge and the trial
court was prima facie satisfied with the
case against the accused, therefore, it
framed charge against the accused - Ram
Lakhan alias Kallu Pal, under Section
302 of IPC. Charge was read over and
explained to the accused in hindi, who
pleaded not guilty and claimed to be
tried.

6. The prosecution, in order to
prove
guilt
of
the
accused
and
substantiate
charge
against
him,
produced in all seven witnesses, brief
sketch of the same is ut infra :-
672 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

Rameshwar
Nath
Dubey
(P.W.1), the informant and Hari Nath
Dubey (P.W.2) both claim themselves to
be the eye-witnesses of the fact of
occurrence. Dr. J.S. Gogia (P.W.3) has
conducted postmortem examination on the
dead body of the deceased on 2.10.1988 at
4.30 p.m. and he has noted seven antemortem injuries at the time of the
postmortem examination, which injuries
are detailed as herein below :-

(1) Lacerated wound 5 cm x 1
cm x bone deep on right side of scalp 10
cm from right ear.

(2) Contusion 5 cm x 3 cm on the
left side of scalp 8 cm from left ear.

(3) Contusion 9 cm x 11⁄2 cm on
left thigh 10 cm below hip joint.

(4) Contusion 8 cm x 1 cm on left
thigh 2 cm below injury no.3.

(5) Contusion 6 cm x 11⁄2 cm on
left thigh 1 cm below injury no.4.

(6) Contusion 10 cm x 2 cm on
left thigh 2 cm below injury no.5.

(7) Contusion 7 cm x 1 cm on left
thigh 1 cm below injury no.6.

Opinion :- In the opinion of the
doctor, the cause of death was due to
shock and haemorrhage as a result of the
ante mortem injuries.

7. Head Moharrir - Shitla Prasad
(P.W.4) has proved entry being made in
the Check F.I.R. concerned (Ex. Ka-4) on
the basis of the written report (Ex.Ka.1)
and
relevant
G.D.
entry
(Ex.Ka.5),
whereby the case was registered against
the accused at Case Crime No. 537 of
1988, under Section - 304 I.P.C. Hridaya
Nand Mishra (P.W.5) is the Investigating
Officer. He conducted investigation and
filed the charge-sheet (Ex.Ka.15). Dr. S.C.
Rai (P.W.6) is the person before whom the
deceased was brought in injured position,
while he was alive and he has proved fact
that considering the condition of the
injured to be serious, he referred him
immediately to the District Hospital or
B.H.U. for treatment. He also proved fact
that he informed the S.H.O. concerned in
writing regarding the condition of the
injured, which fact has been proved as
Ex.Ka.17. Constable 228 Shiv Nath Yadav
is P.W.7.

8. Except as above, no other
testimony
was
adduced,
therefore,
evidence for the prosecution was closed
and statement of the accused was recorded
under Section - 313 Cr.P.C., wherein the
charge was denied and it was claimed that
the informant has acted in collusion with
the Investigating Officer and the case has
been registered on account of enmity.

9. The defence did not lead any
evidence, whatsoever.

10. The learned trial judge after
hearing both the sides and considering the
evidence on record found the charge
proved, thus convicting the accusedappellant under Section - 302 I.P.C. and
sentenced him to imprisonment for life.

11. Resultantly, this appeal.

12. It has been vigorously claimed
by Sri Sukhvir Singh, learned Amicus
Curiae on behalf of accused-appellant
that the incident in question cannot be
said to have been the outcome of any
pre-meditation. The fact is that the first
information report is ante-timed. In fact,
no one saw the occurrence. As per
testimony, the prosecution witnesses
arrived on the spot only after hearing the
noise. That very much shows and
establishes fact that they did not witness
the occurrence.
2 All. Ram Lakhan @ Kalloo Vs. State of U.P.
673

13. Sri Krishna Pahal, learned
A.A.G. assisted by Sri Bhanu Prakash
Singh, learned Brief Holder for the State,
have retorted to the aforesaid argument
and have submitted that the prosecution
witnesses have very much proved the
factum of incident and all the relevant
aspects and circumstances have been
consistently established within the four
corners of the provisions of Section - 300
I.P.C. thus proving the charge for
punishment under Section - 302 I.P.C. In
the postmortem examination report, two
injuries have been found on the skull and
combined effect of both these injuries
along with others proved fatal to the
deceased.

14. We have considered the rival
submissions and also considered the facts
and evidence on record. Obviously, as per
the first information report, the incident
took
place
around
06.15
a.m.
on
02.10.1988 and prior to this, some
altercation/dispute had occurred at 05.30
a.m., the same morning, when the dispute
was initially reconciled by the interference
of the informant and co-villagers, but the
crime was committed by the accused after
that at a time when the matter was pacified
and
the
deceased
Shobhnath
alias
Nageshmani was proceeding along with
his buffaloes for grazing them on the field,
when
the
accused
possessing
'lathi'
suddenly appeared on the scene and dealt
several 'lathi' blows on him, which blows
resulted in seven injuries being caused to
him (the deceased). It is specific that these
injuries on the body of the deceased have
not been challenged specifically by the
defense to the ambit and magnitude that
the same have not been caused in any such
incident as the present one. Obviously, the
incident took place around 6.15 a.m. and
the injured was taken to the hospital,
where he was examined by Dr. S.C. Rai
(P.W.6), who without making a note of the
injuries and considering the condition of
the victim to be serious, immediately
referred the injured to District Hospital or
the B.H.U. for treatment. Besides, he also
informed the S.H.O. concerned about the
condition of the victim. It so happened that
the victim, while being taken to the
hospital,
succumbed
to
his
injuries,
whereupon a report was written and
lodged at the Police Station - Robertsganj.

15. Contention is that the incident
was result of provocation on the spot, but
nothing of the sort finds the support from
the prevailing facts and circumstances of
the case, in the light of the development of
the incident which took place at 5.30 a.m.
and subsequently, at 6.15 a.m. on
02.10.1988.
The
testimony
of
the
informant regarding the occurrence is
straight and unambiguous. Rameshwar
Nath Dubey (P.W.1) has been examined as
an eye-witness. He has detailed the various
aspects of entire incident that took place
on 02.10.1988. He has specifically stated
that some altercation took place with the
deceased and the accused, prior to the
incident ( at 5.30 a.m.) and the matter was
pacified by the interference of others and
himself and the accused left the scene. But
the incident occurred at a time when the
nephew of the informant - the victimproceeded with his buffaloes for grazing
them on the field, when on way the
accused appeared on the scene all of a
sudden possessing 'lathi' in his hand and
dealt a number of lathi blows on the
victim, due to which, he fell down. The
incident was witnessed, apart from P.W.1,
by others including the another eyewitness - Harinath Dubey (P.W.2). They
retrieved the situation and took the victim
to the hospital before the doctor (P.W.6),
674 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
who referred the matter for further
treatment to District Hospital/B.H.U. The
testimony on the point of occurrence of
both the aforesaid eye-witnesses P.W.1
and P.W.2 is consistent, truthful and
unambiguous. No suggestion, whatsoever,
has come forth, which may cast any
shadow of doubt on the veracity of these
two
eye-witnesses.
These
two
eyewitnesses have given a detailed account of
the occurrence and they are worthy of
credit. Their position on the spot is found
to be natural. The postmortem examination
report also tallies with the ocular version
that several 'lathi' blows were given by the
accused to the victim. Upon careful
perusal, we found seven ante-mortem
injuries to have been noted by Dr. J.S.
Gogia
(P.W.3)
in
the
postmortem
examination and has proved these antemortem injuries, due to which the accused
died
on
account
of
shock
and
haemorrhage. In view of the evidence on
record to claim that no one saw the
occurrence, is an absolutely misconceived
claim and it cannot be sustained on its
face. The trial Judge while considering the
case on its merit, has recorded just and
consistent finding. The same is based on
material on record.

16. Consequently, the conviction
recorded under Section - 302 I.P.C. and
the sentence imposed on the accused is
justified. We hereby affirm the conviction
and sentence imposed upon the accused as
no good ground is made out for
interference.

17. Consequently, this appeal sans
merit and the same is hereby dismissed.

18. The appellant is on bail. He be
taken into custody forthwith to serve out
the remaining part of the sentence imposed
on him by the trial court. His personal
bonds and bail bonds are cancelled and
sureties stand discharged.

19. Let a copy of this judgment/order
be certified to the court concerned for
necessary information and follow up
action. The lower court record be remitted
to the lower court concerned.
----------
(2020)02ILR A674

APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.02.2020

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE B. AMIT STHALEKAR, J.
THE HON'BLE ALI ZAMIN, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 442 of 2001

Jagannath & Ors. ...Appellants (In Jail)
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Kamal Krishna, Sri R.K. Tiwari, Sri
Anshul Tiwari, Sri Ghan Shyam Das, Sri
Sanjeev Yadav

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

A. Criminal Law-Indian Penal CodeSection 302 I.P.C. read with Section 34 -
Appeal against conviction.

In
cross-examination
nothing
has
been
extracted by the defence from this witness also
so that his testimony can be doubted regarding
firing of shots by accused persons at the
deceased. In view of the above discussion,
contention of the appellant has no force that
presence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 is doubtful. (Para
34)

Informant has specifically stated that a day
before the incident in the evening the accused
persons had dismantled his medh regarding