Ram Dhiraj and 7 others vs state of UP and anothers.
Citation– 2022 Latest Case law 3830 ALL
Date of judgement- 23 May, 2022
Court– Allahabad High Court
Case type– CRIMINAL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. – 414 of 2000
Appellant– – Ram Dhiraj And Another
Respondent– State of U.P. and Another
Bench- Umesh Kumar
Referred Section– Sections 161,323, 504, 506 IPC, 323, 325, 504, 506 IPC.
Facts of the case
the police report, the applicant and three other people are accused of using a lathi, a danda, and the back side of a fawra to inflict injuries on the complainant’s father, Jeevan Lal, as well as the complainant’s mother, Ramawati, and grandfather, Jokhu. In the statement of the complainant that was recorded under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code, he made the allegation that the co-accused Bechu was armed with a lathi, that the co-accused Dhani Ram was armed with a kudal, that the co-accused Ganga Ram was armed with a fawra, and that the accused applicant Ram Dhiraj was armed with a tengari. In addition to this, it is stated that the people who were hurt were attacked with a danda, a lathi, and the reverse side of a fawra. All of the individuals were said to have been attacked with a lathi, a danda, and a fawra; however, there was no mention of co-accused Dhani Ram being equipped with a kudal or of the accused applicant being armed with a tengari.
Issues of the case
Do they exhibit error or other kind of illegality, whether procedural or otherwise, and was the criminal revision application, as well as the delay condonation application, rejected?
Arguments
The experienced counsel for the applicant has presented their arguments in the case of Ram Dhiraj and Others vs. the State of Uttar Pradesh and Others. The court hearing took held in Uttar Pradesh, which is also the location of the court itself. The Additional Government Advocate, who is also referred to as the A.G.A. in some situations, provided a response during the court proceeding in response to the arguments that were made by the opposing party. In addition to this, while the court was in the process of determining its verdict, it looked at all of the earlier procedures that had been held on the subject in the past. During the time that the judge was deliberating on what sentence to hand down, this investigation was carried out.
The applicant’s learned counsel claims that the allegations in the First Information Report (FIR) state that the accused applicant and three other co-accused caused injuries to the complainant’s father, Jeevan Lal, mother Ramawati, and grandfather Jokhu by using a lathi, danda, and the backside of a fawra. These injuries were caused by the accused applicant and the three other co-accused. These wounds were brought on by the accused applicant and the three other individuals also charged in this case. These wounds were caused by the accused applicant as well as the three other individuals who have also been charged in connection with this case. The accused applicant, along with the three other individuals who have already been charged in connection with this case, is responsible for causing these wounds. Not only the accused petitioner was guilty for generating these wounds, but the other individual who has been prosecuted in connection with this case is also liable for their production. These wounds were caused by the accused petitioner. This material was submitted to the court by the qualified attorney who is representing the applicant as part of a file so that it could be made available to the judge. The purpose of this was to ensure that the judge had access to the information. Complainant accused co-accused Bechu of being armed with a lathi in his statement, which was recorded in accordance with Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C). In addition to this, the complainant asserted that co-accused Dhani Ram was in possession of a kudal, co-accused Ganga Ram was in possession of a fawra, and applicant Ram Dhiraj was in possession of a tengari. In addition to this, it has been asserted that the individuals who had injuries as a result of the event were attacked with a lathi, a danda, and the back of a fawra. The total number of weaponry utilised in the assault is now up to three as a result of this. As a result of these newly acquired particulars, we are aware that a total of four different kinds of weapons were utilised in the commission of the violent act that resulted in injuries. This is the case because the perpetrator used a knife, a gun, a handgun, and a shotgun.
There is a significant discrepancy, in the opinion of the seasoned legal counsel who is working on behalf of the applicant, between the FIR and the statement of the complainant that was recorded in accordance with Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code. This is according to the legal counsel who is working on behalf of the applicant. This is the perspective of the individual who is working on the applicant’s behalf at this time. The petitioner’s application, which was being presented at the time, received support from this argument, which was put forward in favour of the petitioner’s application. According to the First Information Report (FIR), each and every person had been assaulted with a lathi, a danda, and a fawra. This information was gleaned through the police investigation that took place after the incident. This information was collected through the investigation that was conducted by the police after the occurrence of the incident. This information was included in the packet that each victim received, so they all got it. These numbers were provided by the local law enforcement agency that was contacted for more information. However, there was no mention made of co-accused Dhani Ram owning a kudal, nor was there any mention made of accused applicant Ram Dhiraj holding a tengari in his hands. Neither of these facts were brought up over the course of the investigation. Neither of these specifics was brought up in the conversation. Neither of these pieces of information emerged over the course of the investigation that was being carried out. During the course of the conversation, neither of these two pieces of information were brought up for discussion. The FIR that was turned in did not in any way, shape, or form include either of these pieces of information in any capacity whatsoever. According to the statement that was provided by the complainant, the applicant who is suspected of being armed with a tengari does not appear to have played any substantial role in the events that were recounted. This is shown by the fact that the complainant provided this statement. This is in accordance with the information that was supplied by the individual who filed the complaint. This assertion is supported by the fact that the complainant presented this remark as evidence. Because the information that was supplied by the individual who filed the complaint is consistent with this, there is no reason to believe that there is any basis for worry in this regard.
In addition to this, there is a popular belief that the First Information Report (FIR) was initially filed in compliance with the Indian Penal Code (IPC), particularly with the conditions of Sections 323, 504, and 506. This is another misconception that has gained considerable support. On the other hand, when Jokhu had passed away as a result of the injuries he had sustained, it was proven that a breach of the Indian Penal Code had taken place. More specifically, it was established that a violation of Sections 304, 323, 325, 504, and 506 had taken place. These portions are relevant to the crime of causing death by causing injury, which was discussed in the section that came before this one and is referred to as the preceding section. After Jokhu had already left this realm before to the incident in question, it took place after it did so. The argument draws attention to the fact that the First Information Report (FIR) and the complainant’s statement that were filed under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code do not contain any specific accusations regarding who was responsible for the injuries that Jokhu endured before he passed away. These documents were filed in accordance with the provisions of Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code. In compliance with the requirements outlined in Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code, these documents were submitted for filing. These documents were offered up for filing in order to demonstrate that conformity with the prerequisites established in Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code. These documents were handed over as required by Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which was followed to the letter and ensured that all requirements were met. These documents were turned over as required by Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which was followed to the letter and ensured that all requirements were met. Section 161 was followed to ensure that all requirements were met. The fact that those individuals who were harmed were attacked with a lathi, a danda, and the back side of a fawra is the only item of information that is included in the statement that the complainant has provided. This is the only piece of information that the complainant has provided. This is the only piece of information that is provided to the reader at this time. This one particular piece of data is the only one that will be covered in the discussion. Regarding the incidence, there has been no new information made public as of this moment in time that has been provided.
Judgement
According to paragraph 26 of the bail application, it is of the utmost importance to take into consideration the fact that the applicant has no history of involvement in any type of criminal activity. This is a very important factor to take into consideration. This is something that needs to be taken into account, so keep that in mind. This decision was reached as a result of the case. This conclusion was arrived at after giving the complete body of pertinent evidence thorough study and after thinking carefully about it. The complaint was lodged with the appropriate authorities at the police station in Khargupur, which can be found in the Gonda district. After it had been initially reported somewhere else, the incident report was initially filed at the Khargupur Police Station as its second location of record. It was alleged that the petitioner had violated many provisions of the Indian Penal Code, including sections 304, 323, 325, 504, and 506. Within the application that was turned in, this information could be accessed and read by the appropriate parties. The applicant was given the instruction to submit a personal bond and produce two sureties, each in the same amount, in order to satisfy the requirements of the court that was involved. This instruction was issued in order to satisfy the requirements of the court that was involved. This instruction was given in order to fulfil the prerequisites set forth by the court that was involved in the proceeding. This instruction was provided so that the prerequisites outlined by the court that was engaged in the process might be satisfied. This directive was given so that the conditions established by the court that was involved in the process could be satisfied and the process could move forward. This directive was issued in order to ensure that the conditions imposed by the court that was participating in the process could be satisfied and that the process could proceed.
WRITTEN BY ASHITTA ARORA,OP JINDAL GLOBAL UNIVERSITY,AN INTERN UNDER LEGAL VIDHIYA.
0 Comments