SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
N.L. UNTWALIA AND S. MUTRAZA FAZAL ALI, JJ.
Birpal Singh and others, Appellants
Versus
State of U.P., Respondent.
Criminal Appeal No. 73 of 1976,
D/- 22-7-1977.
Advocates Appeared
Mr. G. P. Goyal, Advocate, for Appellants: Mr. D. P. Uniyal Sr. Advocate, (Mr. O. P. Rana, Advocate with him), for Respondent.
Indian Penal Code,1860 - Section 147 and Section 148 - Criminal Procedure Code,1973 - Section 145 - SC (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1970 - Section 2 (a) - Causing injury - Report - Appellant Mathura Singh and Ram person killed in occurrence in question - Appellants Pal Singh are sons of Mathura Singh - Mathura Singh had filed declaratory suit on Section Abolition Act imp leading Ram others as defendants in that suit - During pendency of said suit however proceeding Section Code of Criminal Procedure was eventually decided in favor - He was declared to be in possession of plot and continued to be so thereafter - On morning and his sons went to that field to harvest crop – Held, Appellant Pal Singh is said to have snatched gun of Singh since acquitted - Latter was also gun licensee - His gun was seized - Ballistic Expert could not connect any of empty cartridges as having been fired from this gun - As admitted by one of prosecution witnesses - Singh was ill and confined to bed at time of occurrence - His presence therefore at place of occurrence was not only doubtful but perhaps false as noticed by High Court - That being so prosecution story Singh having used gun became very doubtful - If prosecution evidence was correct as to firing of gun short by Pal Singh then wound of entry ought to have been found on inner side of left arm of Ram because he had raised his arm before shot hit it - But it was just reverse - Wound of entry was on outer side of left arm - Prosecution case therefore against appellant Pal Singh was very doubtful and High Court was not justified in convicting him - Appellant Singh has been convicted of Penal Code for attempting to murder Ram - An order of acquittal was recorded by trial Court in this regard too - High Court without discussing prosecution evidence and without finding whether it was reliable in regard to this part of occurrence has reversed order of acquittal and recorded an order of conviction against appellant Singh - This is not at all justified - Appellant Mathura Singh according to prosecution story was carrying spear - No spear injury was found on any person on prosecution side - Case against this appellant also was sufficiently doubtful and High Courts interference with order of acquittal recorded in his favors by trial Court cannot be justified - In result court allow appeal of appellants Pal Singh and Mathura Singh and set aside their convictions and sentences under all counts - Order of acquittal recorded in their favor by trial Court is maintained - Appeal of appellant Singh is dismissed but with this modification only that his conviction and sentence Section obviously cannot be upheld - It is accordingly set aside - Order accordingly
Judgment
UNTWALIA, J. - This is an appeal under Section 2 (a) of the SC (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1970 by four persons. After setting aside the order of acquittal recorded in their favour by the trial Court, the Allahabad High Court has convicted them under the various sections of the Penal Code.
2. There is a field bearing plot No. 271 known as Patiawala field in village Gudera in the District of Farrukhabad. In relation to this field there was a dispute between appellant Mathura Singh and Ram Lal the person killed in the occurrence in question. Appellants Birpal Singh Kunendrapal Singh and Suraj Pal Singh are sons of Mathura Singh. Mathura Singh had filed a declaratory suit on 13-6-1968 under Section 229-B of the U. P. Zamindar Abolition Act impleading Ram Lal and others as defendants in that suit. During the pendency of the said suit, however, a proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 was eventually decided in favour of Ram Lal on 13-8-1969. He was declared to be in possession of the plot and continued to be so thereafter. On the morning of 10-4-1970 Ram Lal and his sons went to that field to harvest the crop. The appellants wanted to obstruct them from doing so. On the intervention of certain persons, the appellants left the spot with a threat that they would kill Ram Lal and his sons and would take away the crop from the Khalyan. The harvesting was, however, completed by Ram Lal on the 10th of April and the crops were stored in the fields of P. W. Prahlad and others .
3. The prosecution case further was that on the 11th of April, 1970 Ram Lal and his sons went to the Khalyan and started the thrashing of the harvested crop. One of the sons of Ram Lal named Ram Bharosey went to Amritpur Out Post and lodged a report at about 11.00 A. M. on the 11th of April regarding the incident which occurred on the 10th April. He returned to the Khalyan after lodging the report. At about 12.30 P. M. the appellants in the company of four others - one of whom was Sheo Mangal Singh formed an unlawful assembly and came with a bullock-cart to the Khalyan of Ram Lal. Mathura Singh is said to be carrying a spear. Appellants Birpal Singh and Kunendrapal Singh as also Sheo Mangal Singh (since acquitted) were carrying guns. The story of the main occurrence is that appellant Suraj Pal Singh took the gun of Sheo Mangal Singh and aimed it at Ram Lal whereupon he raised his left arm. Thereafter, he fired a shot causing injury on the outer side of the left arm. Appellant Birpal Singh fired another shot on the chest of Ram Lal, the injury caused by which proved to be fatal. Appellant Kunendrapal Singh is said to have fired the gun which he was carrying on P. W. Ram Chander (son of Ram Lal) and P. W. Prahlad causing injuries to them. The other members of the mob are said to be carrying lathis. All the 8 persons were put on trial for having committed various offences under Section 302, Section 302/34, Section 307, S. 307/34, Section 147 and Section 148 of the Penal Code. Finding very many discrepancies and improbabilities in the prosecution case, the trial Judge doubted the whole case and acquitted all the accused. The State preferred an appeal before the High Court which was allowed against the four appellants but dismissed against the other four. Appellant Birpal Singh has been convicted under Section 302 simpliciter and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. Each of the three other appellants has been given life imprisonment with the aid of Section 34 for causing the death of Ram Lal. Appellant Kunendrapal Singh has been awarded a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 5 years under Section 307. Section 34 has been applied in relation to this count in case of the other appellants. Since the acquittal of the other four was maintained by the High Court, no conviction could be recorded against any of the appellants under Sec. 147 or Sec. 148 of the Penal Code.
4. We are of the opinion that the convic
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.