SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2013 Supreme(SC) 498

Supreme Court of India
B.S. CHAUHAN & DIPAK MISRA, JJ.
Yogendra @ Yogesh & Others
Versus
State of Rajasthan
Criminal Appeal No. 1946 of 2009
Decided On : 21-05-2013

Headnote:Indian Penal Code,1860-Sections 302/149 IPC and 307/149 r/w Section 3/25 of Arms Act-Prosecution of accused persons for causing death of one person and injuries to several others by assaulting them with lathis, kattas, and farsas and by gun shot injuries- Trial Court convicted 9 accused, including 5 appellants-Appeal- High Court while convicting 5 appellants acquitted 4 accused persons-Appeal- Trial Court had examined the evidence on record very intricately, and after properly appreciating the same, had convicted all 9 accused- High Court, after re-appreciating the evidence had given 4 accused persons the benefit of doubt, in view of the fact that they had not been in possession of any arms- Both the courts below had rejected the theory of self-defence, and had held the appellants to be aggressors- The courts found that the presence of appellants at the place of occurrence stood fully established beyond any reasonable doubt- They had in fact been present at the place of incident, and had been armed with a gun and kattas- The complainant party had in contrast, been entirely unarmed- Even otherwise, the absence of any injury made on part of any of the assailants rendered false, the defence’s version- In light of such a fact-situation, no cogent reason to interfere with impugned judgment-Appeal having no merit, dismissed (Paras 7 to 12)

       Facts of the Case :

        Accused persons were prosecuted herein in the instant case for causing death of one person and injuries to several others by assaulting them with lathis, kattas, and farsas and by gun shot injuries.Trial Court convicted 9 accused, including 5 appellants. On Appeal, High Court while convicting 5 appellants acquitted 4 accused persons.

        B. Present appeal has been filed against said order of High Court.

       Findings of the Court :

        Trial Court had examined the evidence on record very intricately, and after properly appreciating the same, had convicted all 9 accused. High Court, after re-appreciating the evidence had given 4 accused persons the benefit of doubt, in view of the fact that they had not been in possession of any arms. Both the courts below had rejected the theory of self-defence, and had held the appellants to be aggressors. In light of such a fact-situation, there was no cogent reason to interfere with impugned judgment. Appeal having no merit was dismissed.

       Result : Appeal dismissed.

Judgment :-

Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.

1. This appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 3.12.2007, passed by the High Court of Rajasthan (Jaipur Bench), in Criminal Appeal No.583 of 2003, by way of which the High Court has affirmed the judgment and order dated 8.4.2003, passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions (Fast Track) Judge No.1, Bharatpur, so far as the appellants are concerned. The Trial Court therein, had convicted 9 accused, including the present 5 appellants as under:-

SitaRam and Ramveer, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’). Yogendra @ Yogesh, Rattan Singh, Kalwa, Ranveer, Ghambhir Singh, Paras Ram and Balla under Section 302/149 IPC. They have been awarded the sentence of life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1,000/- each has been imposed on them. In default of payment of such fine, they have been directed to suffer further Simple Imprisonment for a period of 2 months. All of them have further been convicted under Section 148 IPC, and punishments of 7 years’ RI, alongwith a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, has been imposed on them, and in default, they have been directed to suffer further SI for 1 month under Section 307/149 IPC. The appellants Sita Ram, Ranveer and Yogendra have further been convicted under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act, 1959, and have been awarded the sentence of 3 years’ RI, alongwith a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, and in default of payment of such fine, they must further suffer SI for a period of 1 month. However, the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

2. The High Court has modified the judgment and order of the Trial Court, dismissing the appeal of some of the appellants and convicting Sita Ram, Ranveer, Yogendra, Ramveer and Balla. Sita Ram and Ramveer have been convicted under Section 302/149 IPC, instead of Section 302 IPC, and the sentences awarded to them have remained the same. Their conviction under Section 307/149 IPC and under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act have remained intact. Conviction and sentence of Yogendra, Ranveer and Balla under Section 302/149 IPC and 307/149 IPC, and of Ranveer and Yogendra under Section 3/25 Arms Act have remained intact. However, they have been acquitted of the charge under Section 148 IPC. The appeals of the other accused persons, namely, Ratan Singh, Kalwa, Ghambhir Singh and Paras Ram were allowed.

3. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are that:-

A. That Karan Singh and Kewal Singh of the same village had purchased some land in village Ajan from Shodan Singh and Raghubir Singh in the year 1979. Since then they have been cultivating the said land. On 18.10.1999, a written report Ex.P-1 was lodged by Shodan Singh (PW.1), at the Police Station Udyog Nagar, Bharatpur, alleging that 7-8 days prior to the incident, Karan Singh and others had sown some mustard on the said land. On 18.10.1999 at about 12 noon, the complainant party was informed by Shiv Singh, that the mustard that had been sown by them was being removed by the appellants alongwith others, with the help of a tractor. On receiving the said information, the complainant party, i.e. Karan Singh, Kewal Singh, Badan Singh, and a few other family members had proceeded to the place of incident. They had seen the accused persons destroying the mustard that had been sown by them. The accused persons had been fully armed with lathis, kattas, and farsas. One of them had been armed with a gun. When the complainant party had tried to stop the accused, Ratan Singh had instigated the other accused persons to assault the complainant party, and thus, the assault began. On hearing the hue and cry raised as a result of the same, Vijay Pal and few others had reached the place of occurrence. Shodan Singh (PW.1), informant, had also witnessed the incident, as he had been coming back from his fields at the relevant time. Some people from the complainant’s side had received firearm injuries. Some of them had also re
























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top