Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.M. AHMADI, V. RAMASWAMI AND M. FATHIMA BEEVI, JJ.
Bhupendra Singh and others, Appellants
Versus
State of U.P., Respondent.
Criminal Appeal No.512 of 1979
Decided on 14-3-1991.
Result - Modification in conviction & sentence.
Held: While we could accept the case of the prosecution trying to establish corpus delicti through the evidence of PWs 1 to 6 we could not accept the evidence in so far as it referred to the bullet shot hitting on the fore-head of the deceased. The evidence only established that the first appellant shot at the deceased but it is not known where the bullet hit and whether that injury caused by the said bullet shot caused the death. Even in the case of shooting by a rifle unless the evidence show the particular injury caused by the same and that injury is sufficient to cause death the offence under section 302 IPC could not be said to have been made out. In the circumstances, therefore, we are unable to agree with the High Court that the first appellant is guilty of offence under section 302 IPC of causing the death of Gajendra Singh. However, we are of the view that while the first appellant shot at the deceased there could be no doubt that either he had the intention to kill him or at least he had the knowledge that the act could cause the death.
All the witnesses also say that the shot by A-12 brought down the deceased to the ground. There could, therefore, be no doubt that the shot had caused some hurt or injury though we could not predicate what was the nature of the injury and whether that injury could have caused the death. In the circumstances we consider that the offence would come under the second limb or second part of section 307, IPC. Though imprisonment for life also could be awarded as sentence for such an offence on the facts and circumstances we impose a sentence of 10 years Rigorous Imprisonment. Accordingly we alter the conviction under section 302, IPC as one under section 307 IPC and sentence him to a term of 10 years Rigorous Imprisonment. (Paras 9 & 10)
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 201 - Screening of dead body - Evidence that about 15 to 20 people took away dead body - Dead body set on fire. Bones sent to laboratory did not testify it to be human bones - Whether this evidence brings home the offence of screening of evidence? (No) (Para 11) – result - Acquittal.
JUDGMENT
V. RAMASWAMI, J.:— The four appellants along with 15 others were charged for offences punishable under S. 302 read with S. 149 and also S. 201 read with S. 149, S. 379 read with S. 149 and Ss. 147 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code. The charges were that they were members of an unlawful assembly, in prosecution of the common object of namely to deter Ram Sewak (P.W. 2), from filing the nomination paper for the post of Pradhan Gaon Sabha Tikhra and to commit the murder of his-associates including one Gajendra Singh Yadav (deceased), a resident of village Bibiapur and in furtherance of that common object did commit the murder of the said Gajendra Singh Yadav and further committed rioting, theft of the licensed gun of said Gajendra Singh Yadav and live cartridges belonging to the deceased.They were also charged that in furtherance of the said common object and knowing that the murder of the said Gajendra Singh was punishable with death or imprisonment for life had caused the evidence of the said offence to disappear by scrapping the blood stained earth at the scene of occurrence and burning it and taking away the dead body of Gajendra Singh and thereafter burning it with the intention of screening of evidence.
2. The First Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kheri in Sessions Trial No. 264 of 1973 acquitted all the accused persons of all the charges on the ground that there are many infirmities rendering the prosecution evidence unworthy of belief. The State of Uttar Pradesh preferred Criminal Appeal No. 654 of 1974 before the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court. The High Court set aside the acquittal of the first appellant Bhupendra Singh (AI) and convicted him for offence under S, 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to a term of life imprisonment. The High Court also set aside the acquittal of the second, third and fourth appellants (A4, 7. and 8) in part, convicted them under S. 201, I.P.C. and sentenced them to a term of seven years rigorous imprisonment under that section. The acquittal of the appellants under the remaining charges were confirmed. The High Court also acquitted the other 15 appellants of all the charges.
3. The prosecution case was that the deceased and Ram Sewak (P.W. 2) who are residents of village Bibiapur along with Tarun Kumar (P.W. 1) son of the deceased, Ram Avtar Yadav (P.W. 3) and their party people came to the village Padaria Tula in a bullockcart on 25-4-1972 for the purpose of filing the nomination papers of Ram Sewak (P.W. 2) for the election of Pradhan of Gaon Sabha. They reached around 10.30 a.m. the Mela Maidan near the compound of school-cumtemple in village Padaria Tula. They left the bullock-cart and the bullocks in a nearby place to the of west the eastern pathway about 50 paces away from the school where the nomination papers had to be filed. Bhupendra Singh, the first accused was also a candidate for the office of Pradhan of Gaon Sabha. He had also come for filing the nomination along with the other accused who were his supporters. On seeing the party of the deceased arrive Bhupendra Singh enquired Ram Sewak (P.W. 2), whether he had come to file a nomination paper against him. At that time Gajendra Singh, deceased intervened and challengingly told the first accused that he should ask him. This resulted in verbal altercation between the first accused and the deceased. The first accused then fired a shot with his rifle at the deceased and on receiving the bullet injury the deceased fell on the ground. The prosecution case further was that six other accused had also guns and they also fired at the deceased. The other accused who were armed with lathis and ballams physically assaulted the deceased. Thereafter, the accused dragged the deceased to a small mound on the west of the scene of occurrence and then loaded the dead body on the trolley of a tractor belonging to the first accused, which had been used by the accused to reach at the scene and which was driven by
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
