IMPORTANT POINT
In an appeal against conviction when the findings of lower courts are concurrent, well-considered, well supported and well-founded, there is no scope for interference either with the conviction or with the enhancement of sentence awarded by the High Court.

Headnote:(i) Indian Penal Code, 1860- Sections 148, 452, 427 and 325 r/ws. 149-Conviction under - Release on probation - Appeal - High Court enhanced sentence of appellants to R1 for 5 years under Section 304 Part II r/ws. 149 IPC-Appeal seeking further enhancement of sentence-Findings are concurrent, wellconsidered, well supported and wellfounded-Courts have carefully weighed the evidence and have not accepted it in its entirety as presented by prosecution-No scope for Interference either with conviction or with enhancement of sentence awarded by High Court.
       Held: The root cause for the incident was the meddling with jeep by the college students. Though the prosecution presented the case as if nothing more than an altercation took place in connection with the jeep incident, the learned Sessions Judge on the basis of evidence of PW 10 was right in finding that the accused Kedar Singh and Rakesh Singha (appellant in Cri. A. No. 185/88) were beaten and humiliated by certain persons belonging to Alfin Lodge. He was also right in observing that as a result of such manhandling of the above said accused, the students later assembled and decided to take revenge. Otherwise there was no good reason for P.W. 2 Dharam Pal to seek police protection during the marriage ceremony that was to take place in the night of 10th May, 1978. Proceeding further, we find that after the main incident at the Alfin Lodge and on the basis of FIR given by P.W. 2 Dharam Pal. 14 boys were arrested out of which one Kaharr Singh Dogra was discharged under Section 227 of Cr. P.C. Later 7 were acquitted under Section 232 Cr.P.C. and only six were called upon to enter on their defence by the learned Sessions Judge. Even among the six, after the trial, the learned Sessions Judge convicted only the two accused appellants before us and acquitted the rest. (Para 12)
       On appeal both by the accused/appellants and the State, the High Court while confirming the conviction of appellants before us and acquittal of four others, enhanced the sentence imposed on the accused appellants. This only shows that the courts have carefully weighed the evidence and have not accepted the same in its entirety as presented by the prosecution. (Para 13)
       (ii) Indian Penal Code, 1860 -Section 304 par 11 r/ws. 149, 325, 452 r/ws. 149, 148-Convictions under-Sentence of RI for five years under Section 304 Part II/149. for three years under Sections 325,452 / 149 and for RI for 2 years under Section 148-Appeal for enhancement of sentences-Eye witnesses Accused appellants along with number of others armed with hockey sticks, iron chains etc. attacked aged, defenceless persons indiscriminately including women and children on marriage occasion-High Court was Justified in enhancing sentence- Death occurred after 24 hours of inflicting injury-High Court right in altering conviction from one under Section 302 to 304 Part II-No case for further enhancing sentence. (Paras 14 to 18)
       (iii) Election Petition-Appellant in criminal appeal filed his nomination paper during pendency of appeal after obtaining suspension of sentence imposed on him-Nomination accepted-Appellant was declared elected-Election challenged High Court held that acceptance of nomination was illegal as suspension of sentence will notautomatically result in suspension of conviction - Appeal against-Criminal Appeals dismissed-Election appeals will also stand dismissed. (Paras 20 & 21)

JUDGMENT

K, Venkataswami. J.-Criminal Appeal Nos. 185 to 187 of 1988 :

The above three Criminal Appeals arise out of a judgment and older in Criminal Appeal No. 42 of 1979 on the file of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh dated 25.9.1979.

2. The appellants in Criminal Appeal Nos. 185 and 187 of 1988 were convicted by the learned trial Judge under Sections 148, 452. 427 and 325 read with Section 149 IPC. However, the learned Sessions Judge dealt with the convicted accused under Section 360 of the Criminal Procedure Code and instead of sentencing them to any punishment directed them to be released on their entering into a bond in the sum of rupees ten thousand with one surety for the like sum in each case undertaking to appear and receive sentence when called upon during a period of 2 years from the date of judgment and in the meantime to keep peace and be of good behaviour. The State aggrieved by the Judgment of the learned Sessions Judge preferred appeal to the High Court. On appeal, the High Court enhanced the sentence of the accused/appellants to rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years under Section 304 Part (II) read with Section 149 IPC. It also awarded sentence of R.I. for a period of three years for offences under Sections 325, 452 read with Section 149 IPC. Still further they were sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years under Section 148 IPC. All the above sentences were directed to run concurrently. The State still aggrieved has filed Criminal Appeal No. 186 of 1988 seeking further enhancement of sentence as well as for conviction of some other accused persons.

3. Briefly stated, the facts are as under:

On May 10, 1978 one Harnam Dass (P.W. 7) celebrated his daughter s marriage at his house (Alfin Lodge) in Simla. A jeep bearing registration No. HPN - 102 belonging to Harnam Dass was parked on the road just ahead of his house. P.W. 3 Shakti Ram was the driver who found two boys (university students) pushing the jeep and third one sitting on the steering trying to start the vehicle. When the driver questioned the boys, they started abusing him and threatened to assault. The driver went down towards Alfin Lodge and returned with Rakesh (P.W. 4)who is the son of Harnam Dass. On questioning the boys for interfering with the jeep, he was also abused and when Rakesh shouted for help, the boys left the jeep and went away. While going they shouted that they would soon teach them a lesson. Rakesh informed about this incident to P.W. 2 Dharam Pal who was then working as Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kangra who brought the matter to the notice of P.W. 7 Harnam Dass and also rang up the Police Station for Police protection. The Station House Officer by name Pritam Singh (R.W. 35) with police party reached Alfin Lodge in a Police Van and police party was also there till about 1.30 A.M. on 11.5.1978 when the marriage party and the bride departed. Thereafter the police party left the place leaving one Head Constable and one Constable at Alfin Lodge on the suggestion of Dharam Pal. About 8 or 9 persons from Bride s side had yet to take their meals which was ordered to be served. At that time Dharam Pal saw about 20-25 boys rushing towards the main gate of Alfin Lodge. The distance between the main gate of the Alfin Lodge and the place where Dharam Pal and others were sitting and waiting for meals to be served was about 50 ft. Dharam Pal on seeing the boys proceeded towards them with the intention to persuade and stop them from entering the Shamiana. He even disclosed his identity thinking that they might show some respect. The boys were armed with various types of weapons like, hockey sticks, iron rods, iron chains, dandas, empty bottles etc. Naresh Kumar, P.W. 9 who is the bride s brother followed Dharam Pal and some other men folk also came there. The appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 187 of 1988 questioned the men folk present then as to who had removed his boys from the jeep. While they were talking, the appellant

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

1996 Supreme(SC) 742

IMPORTANT POINTIn an appeal against conviction when the findings of lower courts are concurrent, well-considered, well supported and well-founded, there is no scope for interference either with the conviction or with the enhancement of sentence awarded by the High Court.

Judicial Analysis

IMPORTANT POINT
In an appeal against conviction when the findings of lower courts are concurrent, well-considered, well supported and well-founded, there is no scope for interference either with the conviction or with the enhancement of sentence awarded by the High Court.