Allahabad High Court Pappu @ Sohanvir vs State Of U.P. on 21 June, 2022 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Reserved on: 07.04.2022 Delivered on: 21.06.2022 Court No. 32 Case : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 4260 of 2009 Appellant : Pappu @ Sohanvir Respondent : State of U.P. Counsel for Appellant : Mahipal Singh,Akhilesh Singh,Akhilesh Srivastava,Lokesh Kumar Mishra,M.P. Yadav,S.K. Dubey,Shivajee Srivastava,Srikant Yadav Counsel for Respondent : Govt. Advocate,R.K. Gupta,Ram Jatan Yadav Alongwith Case : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 5022 of 2009 Appellant : Pappu @ Sohanvir Respondent : State of U.P. Counsel for Appellant : Mahipal Singh Counsel for Respondent : Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Vikas Kunvar Srivastav,J. (Delivered by Justice Sunita Agarwal) 1. Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar Mishra learned Amicus Curiae on behalf of the appellant in both the connected appeals and Sri Roopak Chaubey learned AGA for the Staterespondent. 2. These two connected appeals are directed against the judgement and order dated 13.07.2009 passed by the Sessions Judge, Meerut in S.T. No.1686 of 2008 under Section 302 and 307 IPC arising out of Case Crime No.222 of 2008, P.S. Hastinapur, District Meerut and S.T. No.1687 of 2008 under Section 25 Arms Act arising out of Case Crime No.224 of 2008 P.S. Hastinapur, District Meerut, whereby the sole appellant Pappu @ Sohanvir has been held guilty of the offence under Section 302 IPC for causing grievous murder of his father Dehsraj and Section 307 IPC for causing grevious injuries to his mother Smt. Maya Devi with the intention to cause her murder. The appellant has also been convicted under Section 25 Arms Act for keeping a country made pistol of 315 bore and live cartridges without license. The sentence awarded to the appellant for the aforesaid offence is imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.10,000/ under Section 302; the default punishment is rigorous imprisonment for six months in addition to the above sentence. For the offence under Section 307 IPC, the appellant had been convicted to undergo ten years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.5000/; the default punishment is three months rigorous imprisonment in addition to the above sentence. Under Section 25 Arms Act, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo one year imprisonment with fine of Rs.1000/; the default punishment for which is one month rigorous imprisonment in addition to the aforesaid default punishment of six months. All the punishment are to run concurrently. 3. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is in jail for about 14 years. 4. The prosecution story starts with the first information report lodged by Krishnapal Singh brother of the accusedappellant Pappu @ Sohanvir. As per the written report submitted by Krishnapal (examined as PW1) proved as Exhibit Ka1, the appellant was five brothers out of whom one Rajvir had died about 14 years prior to the incident. As per the narration in the FIR, the family of Rajvir was living separately for about 3 months prior to the incident and the appellant Pappu @ Sohanvir was also living separately. However, first informant Krishnapal, Jaivir, Ajab Singh, three brothers were living jointly with their parents. The incident had occurred on 22.08.2008 at about 09.00 AM. The first informant stated that his brother, the appellantherein was arguing with his father Deshraj about the share in the joint residential property/family house. The dispute was about 6th share of the father and while arguing the appellant started breaking the 'Khor' of the cattle by hammer. His father, mother and wife of the informant namely Kavita Devi stopped the appellant from breaking the 'Khor' and at that time, another brother Ajab Singh had reached the spot. At that point of time, the appellant Pappu @ Sohanvir took out a Tamancha stuck in his body and fired at his father Deshraj and mother Maya Devi. Deshraj had died on the spot and injured Maya Devi was taken to the Hospital (Divya Jyoti Nursing Home) in serious condition by his brother Ajab Singh. It was stated by the informant that leaving the body of his father on the spot he came to the police station to lodge the report. 5. The informant PW1, in examinationinchief, stated that the written report was scribed by Jasveer Pradhan and it was read over to him then he signed the same. PW1 had identified his signature on the written report which was marked as Exhibit Ka1. 6. The factum of preparation of the check report and G.D. was proved by PW4 and the check report and the G.D. were marked as Exhibit Ka3 & 2; respectively. PW4 was put to cross about the late sending of the special report of the incident to the Magistrate. A suggestion was also given to PW4 that appellantaccused Pappu @ Sohanvir also went to lodge the written report but his case was not re