RAM PAL SINGH Vs. STATE
LAWS(ALL)-1992-11-40
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on November 09,1992

RAM PAL SINGH Appellant
VERSUS
STATE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

G.P.MATHUR, J. - (1.)This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 27-8-1979 of V Addl. Sessions Judge, Bijnor in Sessions Trial No. 144 of 1978. By the aforesaid order the appellant No. 1 Ram Pal Singh has been convicted under Section 302, IPC and has been sentenced to imprisonment for life. Appellants Nos. 2, 3 and 4 namely, Smt. Ram Kali, Smt. Prakshi, and Bhishan have been convicted under Section 323, IPC and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 25.00 each and in default to undergo one month's S. 1.
(2.)The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that Ram Pal Singh accused is son of Bishan accused and Smt. Prakashi is his wife while Smt. Ram Kali is his mother. The houses of the accused and the complainant Smt. Savitri are adjoining to each other in village Pundri Kalan. At about sun set time on 9-10-1977 the accused started constructing a 'Manger' in the open land which is in front of both the houses. Smt. Savitri came out of her house and made a protest. Ram Pal Singh accused abused her and then snatched her six years' old daughter Km. Sarita from her lap and threw her on the ground. The remaining accused beat her by kicks and fists. Smt. Savitri lodged a first information report of the incident at 11.10 p.m. on 9-10-1977 at police station Nagal where a non-cognizable report under Section 323/504/506, IPC was taken down. Km. Sarita was medically examined at 10.30 a.m. on 11-10-1977 in the District Hospital but she succumbed to her injuries at 8.40 p.m. Thereafter the accused case was converted into one under Section 304, IPC on 13-10-1977.
(3.)After investigation chargesheet was submitted only against Ram Pal Singh accused. The case was committed to the court of session by the C.J.M. Bijnor on 29-5-1978 and Ram Pal Singh was charged under Section 302, IPC. After statement of P.W. 1 Smt. Savitri had been recorded, the prosecution moved an application for summoning the remaining three accused, who were summoned by the court under Section 319, Cr. P.C. The Prosecution in support of its case examined 7 witnesses including three eyewitnesses. The accused denied the prosecution case and stated that they had been falsely implicated. They, however, did not lead any evidence in support of their defence. The learned Sessions Judge believed the prosecution case and convicted and sentenced the accused as mentioned earlier.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.