Sukh Lal vs State Of U.P.

1. Heard Shri Rajesh Kumar Sharma, the learned counsel for the appellants and Shri Rajiv Kumar Verma, the learned AGA-I for the State of U.P.

2. All the aforesaid three appeals challenge the validity of a judgment and order dated 25.02.2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.7, Hardoi in Session Trial No.57 of 2010 arising out of Case Crime No.434 of 2009 under Section 304/34 IPC registered at Police Station- Kachhauna, District- Hardoi whereby the appellants, namely, Sukhlal (the appellant in Crl. Appeal No.523/2011), Lallu (the appellant in Crl. Appeal No.602/2011) and Vinod & Manoj (the appellants in Crl. Appeal No.747/2011) have been convicted of the offence under Section 304/34 IPC and all of them were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay Rs.500/- each as fine.

3. As all the appeals arise out of the same judgment and similar allegations have been levelled against all the appellants, all the appeals are being decided by this common judgment.

4. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that in the FIR lodged on 11.07.2009, the informant stated that while his father- Vishram was returning from a peppermint extractor at about 10:30 PM on 10.07.2009, the informant's Uncle Sukhlal hit him from his bicycle. The informant's father objected whereupon Sukhlal and his sons Vinod, Lallu and Manoj started assaulting him with kicks, sticks and fists. Upon hearing the cries, the informant and his brother as well as several villagers reached the spot and they witnessed the incident. Sukhlal was carrying a Baka. The informant's father suffered injuries and he was admitted to the District Hospital, Hardoi where he died.

5. The informant was examined as PW-1, who reiterated the FIR version and he further stated that his injured father was taken to the District Hospital on a cart and he died at 08:00 AM the following morning because of injuries suffered by him in the incident. He stated that earlier a quarrel had taken place between the parties regarding partition of the agricultural land but later on the parties had entered into a settlement.

6. The other son of the deceased was examined as PW-2 and he reiterated the prosecution case. He further stated that it was a moonlit night and he was carrying a torch. He had identified the accused persons. His father had fallen down on the spot. They had taken him to the District Hospital where he died in the morning.

7. The postmortem examination report mentioned the injuries as follows :- (i) a stitched lacerated wound of size 5 cm X 5 cm bone deep, on the right side of the head on the parietal region; (ii) a stitched lacerated wound 6 cm X 1 cm bone deep, on the right side of the head towards the back; (iii) a bluish contusion 3 cm X 2 cm towards the back of the left elbow. (iv) a lacerated wound 2 cm X 0.5 cm, muscle deep, on the left forearm (v) a lacerated wound 1 cm X 0.5 cm, on the right ring finger and middle failings fracture present.

8. On the internal examination, the left occipital bone was found fractured, brain membranes were lacerated, clotted blood was present in the brain, both lungs were congested, the right chamber of the heart was filled and the left was empty. The doctor advised that the victim died due to coma as a result of ante-mortem injuries. The injuries could have been caused by sticks.

9. The appellant- Sukhlal was arrested on 12.07.2009 and the other appellants- Vinod, Lallu, and Manoj were arrested on 15.07.2009. On their pointing out, three sticks and a baka were recovered from a sugarcane field.

10. The accused persons had contended that the incident took place in a dark night and there was no source of light and therefore, the accused persons could not be identified and they have falsely been implicated because of property dispute and that Sukhlal alleged to have carrying a baka but there was no injury caused by baka. The delay of 10 hours in lodging the FIR was also highlighted by the defense. Regarding the delay, the trial Court held that it is mentioned in the FIR that the injured was first taken to District Hospital, was admitted there and FIR was lodged after his death. Therefore, the FIR was lodged within 50 minutes after his death. Therefore, the delay was properly explained. Regarding the incident having taken place in a dark night, the trial Court held that it was fourth day of Krishna Paksha. There was sufficient moon light and the witnesses were carrying a torch. The witnesses and the accused persons belong to the same family (the deceased Vishram was real brother of appellant- Sukhlal) and, therefore, there was no confusion regarding identity of accused persons.

11. After a thorough scrutiny of the entire prosecution evidence, the trial Court held that all the accused persons had assaulted the victim and their common intention was to cause hurt to him. They had voluntarily caused injury on the head, which is a vital part of the body. The victim died on the following day of the incident because of the injuries. The trial Court held the appellants guilty of the offence under Section 304 r/w Section 34 IPC.

12. The learned counsel for the appellant has confined his submission for reducing the sentence of the appellant to the period already undergone by them in custody and he has not advanced submissions to challenge the validity of the conviction order.

13. On the basis of written instructions, the learned AGA-I has informed that the appellant-Sukhlal has spent 1 year, 9 months, and 14 days in custody, the appellants- Lallu, Manoj and Vinod, sons of Sukhlal, have spent 2 years, 9 months, and 9 days in custody.

14. The learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka versus Maddeppa, (1999) 5 SCC 732 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld the order of the High Court whereby the conviction under Section 302 IPC was altered to one under Section 304 Part II IPC and thereafter the appellants were granted the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act.

15. In the present case, the conviction is under Section 304 Part-II of IPC.

16. Accordingly, the present criminal appeals are partly allowed. The sentence of imprisonment for 10 years and payment of Rs.500/- is altered to imprisonment for the period already undergone in custody but the amount of fine is enhanced to Rs.50,000/- per appellant. The amount of fine shall be deposited within two months from today.

(Subhash Vidyarthi,J.)

May 7, 2026

-Amit K-