DEEPAKversusSTATE OF U.P.

    HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

                 JAIL APPEAL No. - 402 of 2018

Deepak
                                                   .....Appellant(s)
                              Versus
State of U.P.
                                                   .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Appellant(s)         : From Jail, Rashmi Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent(s)        : A.G.A.

Court No. - 93
      HON'BLE MRS. VANI RANJAN AGRAWAL, J.

1. Heard Sri Rashmi Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant
and Sri Krishna Mohan Tiwari, learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. This jail appeal has been filed against the judgment and order
dated 07.09.2017 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Fast
Track Court), Kanpur Dehat in Sessions Trial No.391 of 2014
(State Vs. Deepak), arising out of Case Crime No.236 of 2011,
under Sections 323, 324, 308 I.P.C., Police Station Sajeti, District
Kanpur Nagar by which the appellant has been convicted for the
offences under Sections 323, 324, 308 I.P.C. and awarded
maximum sentence of 5 years with rigorous imprisonment with a
fine of Rs.10,000/- with default stipulations.

3. The prosecution's case, in brief, is that the appellant, Deepak
S/o Guru Soni, R/o Village Chitauli, P.S. Sajeti, District Kanpur
Nagar, assaulted the injured with a knife, causing multiple
injuries, including grievous internal injuries which required
surgical intervention. The injured remained hospitalized for about
ten days and underwent surgery. The incident is stated to have
occurred on account of a sudden altercation between the accused
and the complainant's brother.

4. The First Information Report was registered on the basis of a
written report, and G.D. entries were made. The injured was
medically examined, and after completion of the investigation, a
charge-sheet was submitted.
                                                     JAPL No. 402 of 2018
                          2


5. Charges were framed against the accused under Sections 323,
324, and 307 I.P.C. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

6. The prosecution examined as many as six witnesses to prove
its case beyond reasonable doubt: P.W.-1, Complainant Sonu
Sachaan; P.W.-2, Pradeep Kumar (brother of the complainant);
P.W.-3, S.I. Prem Prakash Dixit; P.W.-4, Dr. Prem Shankar
Sahacharya; P.W.-5, Lalitesh Narayan Tripathi; and P.W.-6, Dr.
A.K. Pandey, who conducted the C.T. scan and operation of the
injured. Documentary evidence, including the written report, First
Information Report, carbon copy of G.D., medical report, and
C.T. scan report (Ext. Ka-1 to Ka-5), are on record.

7. The trial court, after appreciating the oral and documentary
evidence, particularly the testimony of the injured Pradeep
Kumar (P.W.-2) and the medical evidence adduced by Dr. Prem
Shankar (P.W.-4) and Dr. A.K. Pandey (P.W.-6), came to the
conclusion that although the injuries were serious in nature, the
intention to commit murder was not established beyond
reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the charge under Section 307
I.P.C. was not found proved; however, the act of the appellant
was held to fall within the ambit of Section 308 I.P.C., along with
Sections 323 and 324 I.P.C. The accused was therefore convicted
under Sections 308, 323, and 324 I.P.C. and sentenced to five
years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- (in
default, six months' additional imprisonment) under Section 308
I.P.C.; one year's rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.
1,000/- (in default, three months' additional imprisonment) under
Section 323 I.P.C.; and two years' rigorous imprisonment with a
fine of Rs. 2,000/- (in default, three months' additional
imprisonment) under Section 324 I.P.C.

8. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence, the
present appeal has been preferred.

9. During the pendency of the appeal, learned counsel for the
appellant submitted that the appellant has already undergone the
entire sentence awarded by the trial court and does not intend to
press the appeal on merits. It was prayed that the appeal be
                                                        JAPL No. 402 of 2018
                            3


dismissed accordingly.

10. Notwithstanding the aforesaid submission, this Court has
perused the record and examined the evidence to satisfy itself
regarding the correctness, legality, and propriety of the impugned
judgment.

11. The testimony of P.W.-1, the complainant Sonu Sachaan, and
P.W.-2, the injured Pradeep Kumar, is consistent and inspires
confidence. It is a settled principle of law that the testimony of an
injured witness carries great evidentiary value and ordinarily
should not be discarded unless there are strong grounds to do so.

12. The medical evidence fully corroborates the occurrence and
the prosecution version.

13. It is clearly established that the injured sustained multiple stab
injuries on vital parts of the body, including the chest and
abdomen. The medical evidence further indicates that the injured
had to undergo surgery, and in the absence of timely medical
treatment, the injuries could have proved fatal. The internal
injuries, including damage to the lungs, lend strong assurance to
the prosecution case.

14. The nature of the injuries, the weapon used, and the manner
of assault clearly establish that the act of the appellant was done
with the knowledge that it was likely to cause death, though the
intention to commit murder has not been established. The learned
trial court, therefore, rightly convicted the appellant under
Sections 323, 324, and 308 I.P.C.

15. So far as the conviction is concerned, the same is supported
by reliable evidence on record and does not suffer from any
illegality or infirmity.

16. The findings recorded by the trial court are based on proper
appreciation of evidence and do not call for interference by this
Court. The sentences awarded are also proportionate to the nature
and gravity of the offence.

17. It is well settled in the case of Mani Singh and others v.
                                                                                             JAPL No. 402 of 2018
                                                                  4


                                        State of U.P., (1996) 4 SCC 720 by the Hon'ble Apex Court that
                                        even where an appeal is not pressed, the appellate court may
                                        examine the record to ensure that there is no miscarriage of
                                        justice. Further, where the appellant has already undergone the
                                        sentence and does not wish to press the appeal, the same can be
                                        dismissed accordingly.

                                        18. In Abdul Rahman v. State of Kerala, (2011) 8 SCC 65, it was
                                        held that where the appellant has already undergone the sentence
                                        and no illegality or perversity is found in the impugned judgment,
                                        no interference is warranted.

                                        19. The appeal is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal
                                        is dismissed. The judgment and order of conviction and sentence
                                        are hereby affirmed.

                                        April 22, 2026
                                        Pravesh Mishra
                                                                        (Mrs. Vani Ranjan Agrawal,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
PRAVESH KUMAR MISHRA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad