# Sri Anant Singh @ Pappu (In Jail) v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2020) 2 ILRA 664
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-01-22
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 236 of 1992
- **Bench:** Arvind Kumar Mishra-I, Gautam Chowdhary
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sri-anant-singh-pappu-in-jail-v-state-of-u-p-45718
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

A. Criminal Law-Indian Penal CodeSection 307 - Appeal against conviction.

The testimony of doctor PW-4 becomes
relevant. He has testified in his testimony
that he medically examined the injured and
found signs of injury.
There was no
blackening, tattooing or scorching present. It
means that the weapon of assault was used
at some distance from the injured. (Para 21)

As per his testimony, the incident took place,
all of a sudden, on account of hot
conversation
between
both
the
sides,
therefore, it cannot be branded to be a well
2 All. Sri Anant Singh @ Pappu Vs. State of U.P.
665
designed crime committed by the accusedappellant. (Para 23)

Nature of injury caused cannot be properly
adjudged to the magnitude to cause death nor
any suggestion has been made by the doctor
witness that injury caused to the injured /
informant would, in normal parlance, might
have caused death. (Para 24)

Considering
the
nature
of
the
offence
committed and proved, hereby direct that the
appellant 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.
(Para 28)

Criminal Appeal partly allowed. (E-2)

List of cases cited:-

1.Ved Prakash Vs. St. of Hary. 1996 SCC (Crl.)
1182

## Text

664 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
locality where the accused lives and where
the place of the commission of offence is
situated. PW-1 is informant with whom
the deceased children were present on the
shop. PW-2 and PW-3 are independent
witnesses of same locality and the
presence of all the three fact witness is
quite natural at the time and place of
occurrence. There is no contradiction,
improvement or discrepancy in their
statement with regards to time, date, place
and manner of commission of offence by
accused. All the three witnesses have
stated that in their presence, accused
Babadeen fired on informant which hit the
deceased children and Rajkumari died
instantly within 2 hours by the time she
was taken to hospital, whereas, Arjun died
after 12 days on the railway station while
coming from Gwaliar. The ocular version
further finds corroboration from the dying
declaration of deceased Arjun. The injury
report
and
postmortem
report
fully
corroborate the time, date and manner of
incident and it has been found that both
died by gunshot injuries. Motive, alleged
has been also proved and absence or
inadequacy of motive is of no avail as the
prosecution case is based on direct
evidence. Thus, the prosecution has
succeeded in proving the charge under
Section 302 IPC beyond shadow of any
doubt. There is no perversity or illegality
in the impugned judgment and the
sentence
awarded
is
the
minimum
prescribed under law for the offence of
murder. Therefore, this criminal appeal
has got no force and is liable to be
dismissed.

47.

The
Criminal
Appeal
is
dismissed.

48. Accused-appellant Babadeen is
on bail during appeal, his bail bonds are
canceled and sureties are discharged. The
accused Babadeen is directed to surrender
before the court concerned forthwith from
where he shall be sent to jail to undergo
the sentence.

49. The office is directed to transmit
back the lower court record along with a
certified copy of this judgment for
information and necessary compliance.
----------
(2020)02ILR A664

APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 22.01.2020

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

Criminal Appeal No. 236 of 1992

Sri Anant Singh @ Pappu
 ...Appellant (In Jail)
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Prabhat Agrawal, Sri H.C. Tiwari (A.C.)

Counsel for the Respondent:
A.G.A.

A. Criminal Law-Indian Penal CodeSection 307 - Appeal against conviction.

The testimony of doctor PW-4 becomes
relevant. He has testified in his testimony
that he medically examined the injured and
found signs of injury.
There was no
blackening, tattooing or scorching present. It
means that the weapon of assault was used
at some distance from the injured. (Para 21)

As per his testimony, the incident took place,
all of a sudden, on account of hot
conversation
between
both
the
sides,
therefore, it cannot be branded to be a well
2 All. Sri Anant Singh @ Pappu Vs. State of U.P.
665
designed crime committed by the accusedappellant. (Para 23)

Nature of injury caused cannot be properly
adjudged to the magnitude to cause death nor
any suggestion has been made by the doctor
witness that injury caused to the injured /
informant would, in normal parlance, might
have caused death. (Para 24)

Considering
the
nature
of
the
offence
committed and proved, hereby direct that the
appellant 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.
(Para 28)

Criminal Appeal partly allowed. (E-2)

List of cases cited:-

1.Ved Prakash Vs. St. of Hary. 1996 SCC (Crl.)
1182

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

1. By way of the instant criminal
appeal, challenge has been made to the
validity and sustainability of the judgment
and order of conviction dated 28.01.1992
passed by the VI-Additional Sessions Judge,
Fatehpur, in Sessions Trial No.278 of 1990
State of U.P. Vs. Kalika Singh and another,
arising out of Case Crime No.153 of 1989,
under Section 307 I.P.C., Police Station-
Husainganj, District- Fatehpur whereby the
appellant has been sentenced to undergo life
imprisonment.

2. Heard Sri Harish Chand Tiwari,
learned amicus curiae for the the appellant,
Shri Krishna Pahal, learned Additional
Advocate General assisted by Sri Bhanu
Pratap Singh, Sri Ajay Kumar Singh, Sri
Jitendra Kumar and Sri Nafis Ahmed, learned
brief holders for the State and perused the
record of this appeal.

3. Facts germane as reflected from
perusal of the record and particularly from the
first information report reveal that the
informant Ramanuj son of Ram Singh,
resident of village Jamrawan, Police Station
Husainganj, District Fatehpur, lodged the
written report at Police Station Husainganj, on
16.09.1989 at 9:35 pm to the effect that the
informant was sitting at his doors when his
grand-father Kalika and his son Anant Maan
Singh @ Pappu arrived on the spot and asked
him whether he went on the roof whereupon
the informant said that he never went on the
roof. At this, the assailants were agitated and at
the exhortation of Kalika, Pappu opened fire
on the informant with intent to kill him which
hit him on his skull, thus causing injury. The
incident was witnessed by Rajkali, sister-inlaw of the the informant, Gomti Devi wife of
Ram Singh, mother of the informant and other
villagers. The time of the incident was
described as 8:00 pm. It was requested that
report be lodged and appropriate action be
taken. This written report was scribed by
Hardev Singh and the same is Ext. Ka-1.

4. Contents of the aforesaid
information were taken down in the
concerned Check FIR at Case Crime
No.153 of 1989 under Section 307 I.P.C.,
at Police Station Husainpur, District
Fatehpur, on 16.09.1989 at 9:35 pm.
Check FIR is Ext. Ka-4. On the basis of
entries so made in the check F.I.R., a case
was registered against the accusedappellant in the relevant G.D. at aforesaid
case crime number at Police Station
Husainganj under aforesaid section of
I.P.C. against accused-appellant.

5. Record reflects that the informant /
injured Ramanuj was medically examined
at District Hospital Fatehpur by Dr. Harish
666 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Chandra Sachan, PW-4 on 16.09.1989 at
11:20 pm who found the following injury:-

"Multiple lacerated wound with
abraded collar size variable from 0.2 to 0.4
cm x 0.2 to 0.3 cm, margins inverted.
Blood oozing present on right side of head,
neck front of right side of shoulder and
right side of upper part of chest in an area
of 30 cm x 18 cm. No blackening,
tattooing or scorching was present. X-ray
was advised.

6. In the opinion of the doctor, injury
might have been caused by some firearm.
Injury report is Ext. Ka-6.

7. The investigation ensued and the same
was entrusted to Israr Ahmad Khan,
Investigating Officer PW-3 who after lodging
of the first information report took note of the
contents of the first information report and the
relevant general diary entry and proceeded to
the spot and prepared site plan and after
recording statement of the witnesses filed
charge sheet against the accused-appellant
under Section 307 I.P.C. which is Ext. Ka-3.

8. Pursuant thereto, proceedings
were committed to the court of Sessions
from where it was transferred for
conduction of trial and disposal of the
case to the aforesaid trial court of VIIAdditional Sessions Judge, Fatehpur
who in turn heard both the sides on point
of charge and was prima-facie satisfied
with case against the accused-appellant,
accordingly,
framed
charge
under
Section 307/34 I.P.C. Charge was read
over and explained to the accusedappellant who abjured charge and opted
for trial.

9. In furtherance of the proceedings
the prosecution produced in all 4
witnesses. A brief sketch of witnesses is
ut-infra:-

10. Ramanuj PW-1 is the injured /
informant who lodged the first information
report. Gomti Devi PW-2 is eyewitness of the
occurrence. Israr Ahmad Khan PW-3, the
Investigating Officer, has detailed the various
steps, he took in completing the investigation
and has stated to have submitted charge sheet
against the accused-appellant. Dr. Harish
Chandra Sachan PW-4 has examined the
injured informant. Except as above, no other
evidence was adduced by the prosecution.

11. Therefore, evidence for the
prosecution was closed. The statement of the
accused-appellant was recorded under Section
313 Cr.P.C. wherein he has claimed his
innocence and stated that he has been falsely
implicated in this case on account of enmity
and the fact that two years prior to the incident,
there was no interaction between the informant
side and the accused appellant, therefore, false
case has been thrusted upon the accusedappellant.

12. No evidence, whatsoever, was
adduced by the defence.

13. The case was heard on merit by
the learned trial Judge who after appraisal
of facts and evaluation of the evidence and
circumstances of the case, returned finding
of conviction against appellant under
Section 307 I.P.C. and sentenced the
accused-appellant
to
undergo
life
imprisonment vide judgment impugned in
the instant appeal.

14. Consequently, this appeal.

15. Learned amicus curiae for the
appellant has succinctly submitted that in
this case, the very allegations levelled
2 All. Sri Anant Singh @ Pappu Vs. State of U.P.
667
against the accused-appellant are vague
and on account of enmity, false case has
been cooked up against him. Assuming it
to be that any such incident took place
even then origin of the incident has been
concealed by the informant himself. It so
happened that the informant himself was
preparing some gun powder which in
process got exploded, thus causing injury
to him. The cause shown for firing is not
sufficient and it is trivial and petty one.

16. It has been further contended that
admittedly, there was no prior motive for
committing the offence. If any incident
like the present one suggested by the
informant took place, if assumed to be
correct even then the case does not fall
within periphery of Section 307 I.P.C., for
the reason that 'intent to kill' was missing.
In case intent to kill is missing then it
being a vital ingredient of Section 307
I.P.C., no conviction can be recorded
under Section 307 I.P.C., may be that
considering the nature of injury caused to
the injured, that too is dubious whether it
was caused by use of any gun, pistol etc.
or any other means then simplicitor, it is a
case of voluntary causing hurt by some
weapon. That way, the case of the
accused-appellant shall be covered under
Section 324 I.P.C. instead of Section 307
I.P.C. The trial court wrongly recorded
finding of conviction under Section 307
I.P.C. and imposed harsh punishment on
the
accused-appellant
which
is
not
justified under facts and circumstances of
the case.

17. It has been lastly added that the
accused-appellant does not bear any
criminal antecedent and he promises that
he will not repeat the same offence in
future. Therefore, his case may be
considered leniently.

18. While retorting to the aforesaid
submissions,
learned
A.A.G.
has
contended that testimony of the injured /
informant Ramajun PW-1 is flawless on
the point of causing injury on the vital part
of his body namely skull, head and chest
etc. and injury was found to be scattered in
an area of 30 cm x 18 cm. which very
much reflects intent to cause injury to the
injured, may be weapon and pellets faulted
because of its own demerit but intent
cannot be minimized as it was one to cause
death. Had the pellets not faulted and not
scattered, it would have aimed perfectly
with precise execution, the result is
obvious death. Merely because injury
caused to the injured was not found to be
grave putting the injured in minimum
dangerous position but that alone would
not minimize by any stretch of imagination
the degree of intent which is as obvious as
to cause death. The trial Judge not only
took note of testimony of the injured /
informant PW-1 but also took note of
surrounding
facts
and
prevailing
circumstances of the case and rightly
convicted the accused-appellant under
Section 307 I.P.C. and imposed just
sentence upon him.

19. We have also considered the
above rival submissions and taken into
consideration rival claims. In view of
above, the point for determination of this
appeal specifically relates to fact whether
the prosecution has been able to prove
charge under Section 307 I.P.C. beyond
reasonable doubt and has sentenced
condignly?

20. In this case, as per description
contained in the first information report,
the incident was allegedly caused around
8:00 pm when the injured / informant was
sitting in front of his doors. It was stated
668 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
that two accused arrived on the spot and
started conversation on the spot. It so
happened
that
the
accused-appellant
opened fire upon the injured / informant
which as per injury report Ext. Ka-6 was
in the shape of abraded collar size variable
from 0.2 to 0.4 cm x 0.2 to 0.3 cm,
margins inverted. Blood oozing present on
right side of head, neck front of right side
of shoulder and right side of upper part of
chest in an area of 30 cm x 18 cm. No
blackening, tattooing or scorching was
seen.

21. In view of the aforesaid injury,
testimony of Dr. Harish Chandra Sachan
PW-4 becomes relevant. He has testified
in his testimony that he medically
examined the injured / informant Ramanuj
on 16.09.1989 at 11:20 pm and found
aforesaid signs of injury. There was no
blackening, tattooing or scorching present.
It means that the weapon of assault was
used at some distance from the injured /
informant. However, the doctor has opined
that injury might have been caused by use
of firearm. He has proved injury report
Ext.
Ka-6.
He
was
cross-examined
wherein he has confirmed to fact that
firearm was used from 5-6 paces away
from the injured / informant. A suggestion
was made that injury might have been
caused by fall, however, that was refused
by the doctor.

22. In this view of the matter,
obviously injury caused to the injured /
informant by use of firearm cannot be
doubted at this juncture. Now, point
relevant for consideration is what was the
intent to commit crime in question whether
to cause death or not to cause death.

23. We have perused testimony of
the injured / informant PW-1 who has
categorically stated that there was no
previous
enmity
and
no
interaction
between both the sides. As per his
testimony, the incident took place, all of a
sudden, on account of hot conversation
between both the sides, therefore, it cannot
be branded to be a well designed crime
committed
by
the
accused-appellant.
Consequently, very much possibility to
cause injury to the injured-informant by
the accused-appellant with intention to
commit murder stands ruled out under
prevailing facts and circumstances of the
case.

24. We have no hesitation in
observing that though Dr. Harish Chandra
Sachan
PW-4
had
advised
x-ray
examination of the injury sustained by the
injured
/
informant,
however,
no
supplementary report in the shape of any
x-ray examination has been brought before
us. It appears that the same was not
produced before the trial court as well.
Therefore, nature of injury caused cannot
be properly adjudged to the magnitude to
cause death nor any suggestion has been
made by the doctor witness that injury
caused to the injured / informant would, in
normal parlance, might have caused death.

25. That way, intention to commit
murder is found to be missing which
finding recorded by the trial court is on its
face not based on any material on record.
That way, we after careful consideration of
the entirety of the case and primarily
considering the nature of the injury caused
and the statement of the injured /
informant
Ramanuj
PW-1
and
the
attendant facts and circumstances of the
case, are of the considered opinion that the
conviction recorded by the trial Court
under Section 307 I.P.C. is not justified
and cannot be sustained as such. However,
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.