Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
S.MURALIDHAR, I.S. MEHTA, JJ.
Upender Singh & Anr. – Appellants
Versus
State – Respondent
CRL.A. 248, 1154 of 2014 & Crl.M.A. 3277, 13215 of 2014, 15795 of 2017, CRL.A. 42, 766 of 2014
Decided On : 08-11-2017
FIR - Criminal Law - IPC Sections 307/34, 302/307/34, 308/34 - The judgment discusses the convictions and sentences of the accused in two separate FIRs, the nature of injuries sustained, and the trial court's findings.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved two separate FIRs, each with its own set of accused and witnesses. The prosecution presented conflicting versions of the incidents, with both sets of complainants not denying their presence at the spot and the resulting injuries.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court found the accused guilty in one FIR and acquitted them in the other, based on the consistency and credibility of witness statements, the nature of injuries sustained, and the absence of evidence supporting the involvement of certain accused.
Issues: The key issues included the reliability of witness accounts, the nature of injuries sustained, and the involvement of the accused in the incidents.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the legal principle that in a free fight between two armed groups, the offence may be altered from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, and the sentences may be reduced accordingly.
Final Decision: The court altered the convictions and sentences of the accused based on the nature of the incidents, the injuries sustained, and the absence of evidence supporting certain convictions.
S. Muralidhar, J.
1. Arising out of the one incident, two FIRs were registered at Police Station (PS) Kalyan Puri. While FIR No. 101 of 2005 was registered under Sections 307/34 IPC, FIR 102 of 2005 was registered under Sections 302/307/34 IPC.
2. Separate trials were conducted in both the FIRs. At the final stages, pursuant to the orders in a transfer petition, both the cases were placed before the same Court which delivered two separate judgments dated 11th December 2013 and orders on sentence dated 18th December 2013 in SC No. 90 of 2012 arising out of FIR 101 of 2005 and SC No. 149 of 2005 arising out of FIR 102 of 2005.
3. (i) Criminal Appeal No. 248 of 2014 is by Upender Singh and Surender Singh challenging their conviction in FIR No. 102 of 2005 under Sections 307/34 and 302/307/34 IPC and the order on sentence whereby for the offence under Section 302/34 IPC both the accused were sentenced to undergo life imprisonment, and for the offence under Section 307/34 IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment (RI) for five years. For both the offences they were further directed to pay fine of Rs. 1,000 each and in default to undergo SI for one month.
(ii) Criminal Appeal No. 42 of 2014 arising from FIR No. 101 of 2005 is by Subhash Chand challenging his conviction under Section 308/34 IPC and the order of sentence whereby for the offence under Section 308/34 IPC he was sentenced to undergo RI for three years with fine of Rs. 1,000 and in default of fine undergo SI for one month.
(iii) Criminal Appeal Nos. 766 of 2014 is by Upender Singh against the judgment dated 11th December 2013 and the order of sentence dated 18th December 2013 in SC 90 of 2012 arising out of FIR No. 101 of 2005 seeking conviction of Subhash Chand for the offence under Section 307/34 IPC enhancement of the quantum of punishment awarded to him.
(iv) Criminal Appeal No. 1154 of 2014 is by Upender Singh against the judgment dated 11th December 2013 and the order of sentence dated 18th December 2013 in SC 90 of 2012 arising out of FIR No. 101 of 2005 questioning the acquittal of Pankaj, Raj Kumar @ Raju, Rajeev Mehta @ Banty and Rakesh of the offences under Section 308/34 IPC. FIR 102 of 2005
4. In the trial arising out of FIR No. 102 of 2005, where the convicted accused are Upender Singh and Surender Singh, there were 28 prosecution witnesses and one defence witness Sunita Kumari (DW-1).
5. The prosecution case stands depicted in the versions of Usha Rani (PW-2) and Subhash Chand (PW-3). Subhash was the owner of a milk diary at Ghazipur. He was 50 years of age at the time of incident. He stated that at about 1.30 pm on 6th March 2005 he was returning home from his diary at Ghazipur for lunch. He stated that he was on the road in front of his house at Block No.8 Khichri Pur. His nephew Sandeep (deceased) was going ahead of him at a distance of 25-30 paces. Sandeep was proceeding to the house of his parents in Block No. 8, Khichri Pur.
6. Subhash suddenly saw that Sandeep had been surrounded by Surender Singh (A-1), his brothers Upender Singh (A-2) and Satinder Singh (A-3) and their friend Manoj Kumar (A-4). Subhash stated that he knew A-1, A-2 and A-3 as they were earlier residing near his house. PW-3 further stated that A-4 was also residing in Block No. 8, Khichri Pur. According to Subhash, all the four accused were armed. A-1 was having knife, A-2 was having a chhuri, A-3 was having a saria and A-4 was having a danda in his hands. Subhash stated states that the four accused started giving blows to Sandeep with their respective weapons. When Subhash rushed forward to save them, Manoj (A-4) gave him a danda blow on his head and Satinder (A-3) gave him a saria blow on his head. He added that he tried to save himself from the knife blow given by A-1 and in the process he received injury on his right hand.
7. Subhash stated that his sister Usha Rani (PW-2) was present there and she shouted for help by saying “Bachao Bachao”. Subhash and Sandeep fell down on the
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
