IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
SANDEEP MEHTA, FARJAND ALI, JJ.
Shankar Lal S/o Shri Kashi Ram – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan through Public Prosecutor – Respondent
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 582 of 2013
Decided on : 17-11-2022
Conviction - Murder - 302 IPC, 341 IPC, 3/25(1-B)(A) Arms Act, 27 Arms Act - The court affirmed the conviction of accused Shankar Lal for the offences under 302 IPC, 3/25(1-B)(A) Arms Act, and 27 Arms Act, but overturned the conviction of accused Mahender Pal and Hanuman Prasad for the offences under 341 IPC and 302/34 IPC.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were convicted for their involvement in a fatal shooting incident following a quarrel. The prosecution alleged that the accused appellants Mahender Pal and Hanuman Prasad caught hold of the deceased Shailendra, while the accused Shankar Lal fired the gunshot, resulting in the death of Shailendra.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses regarding the involvement of Mahender Pal and Hanuman Prasad in holding the victim while the gunshot was fired was inconsistent and unreliable. The court upheld the conviction of Shankar Lal based on consistent evidence and forensic findings.
Issues: The issues revolved around the credibility of the prosecution witnesses and the consistency of their testimony regarding the involvement of the accused appellants in the fatal shooting incident.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses regarding the involvement of Mahender Pal and Hanuman Prasad in holding the victim while the gunshot was fired was inconsistent and unreliable, leading to the overturning of their conviction.
Final Decision: The court affirmed the conviction of accused Shankar Lal for the offences under 302 IPC, 3/25(1-B)(A) Arms Act, and 27 Arms Act, but overturned the conviction of accused Mahender Pal and Hanuman Prasad for the offences under 341 IPC and 302/34 IPC.
JUDGMENT :
MEHTA, J.
1. The appellants herein have been convicted and sentenced as below vide judgment dated 11.07.2013 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Sri Ganganagar in Sessions Case No.95/2012:-
| Appellant :- Shankar Lal | |||
| Offence under Section | Sentences | Fine | Sentence in lieu of default of payment of fine |
| 302 IPC | Life Imprisonment | Rs.2,000/- | 6 Months’ Additional S.I. |
| 341 IPC | 1 Month’s SI | - | - |
| 3/25(1-B)(A) Arms Act | 1 Year’s RI | Rs.1,000/- | 3 Months’ Additional SI |
| 27 Arms Act | 3 Years’ RI | Rs.2,000/- | 6 Months’ Additional SI |
| Appellants :- Mahender Pal and Hanuman Prasad | |||
| Offence under Section | Sentences | Fine | Sentence in lieu of default of payment of fine |
| 302/34 IPC | Life Imprisonment | Rs.2,000/- | 6 Months’ Additional SI |
| 341 IPC | 1 Month’s SI | - | - |
2. They have preferred the instant appeal under Section 374 (2) Cr.P.C. for assailing the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentences passed against them by the trial court.
3. Briefly stated facts relevant and essential for disposal of the instant appeal are noted hereinbelow:-
4. PW.15 Shri Ramswaroop lodged a typed report (Ex.P/41) at the Police Station Padampur on 03.09.2012 at about 10:30 PM alleging inter alia that ten days ago, a quarrel had taken place between Mahender S/o Shri Brijlal Tarad, resident of Balrajpura on one side and Shailendra and Sunil, sons of Sultan Ram, Sandeep son of the complainant owing to the issue of giving side to a motorcycle. Slaps and fist blows had been exchanged between the parties in this process. Bearing the said enmity in mind, on 03.09.2012 at about 6 O’ Clock in the evening, the accused party comprising of Mahender Tarad and Shankar Tarad, sons of Kashi Ram Jat came to the bus stand nearby their house and hurled abuses that the members of the complainant party would have to be taught a lesson. The complainant, his brother Sultan Ram, his son Sandeep and nephews Shailendra and Sunil Kumar all proceeded to the bus stand and requested the accused to refrain from using profane language on which, a fight broke out between the two parties. The complainant and his brother Sultan Ram intervened and pacified the quarreling parties. Mahender Pal and Shankar lal left the spot threatening that they were coming back and the complainant party should wait for the consequences. At about 7:15, Mahender and Hanuman, sons of Brij Lal, Shankar and Rameshwar Lal, sons of Kashiram, Mohanlal son of Dayalram, and Arjun Jat came around in a white jeep. The accused Shankar Lal was carrying a pistol and others were armed with lathis and swords. The complainant and his family members were sitting on a platform outside their house near the bus stand. The accused made exhortations and started beating Shailendra, son of Shri Sultan Ram, complainant’s nephew. Shailendra started running towards his house on which, the accused Mahender Pal and Hanuman Prasad caught him and told Shankar Lal to fire the gunshot. Shankar Lal fired his weapon from close range and the resultant gunshot hit on the left side of Shailendra who fell down.
5. Thereafter, the accused started assaulting the complainant and Shailendra by lathis. In this melee, the complainant’s son Sandeep Kumar, nephew Sunil Kumar and brother Sultan Ram also received injuries. The assailants fled away in their jeep. The injured persons were boarded on to a jeep and were taken to the Government Hospital, Padampur where the doctor declared that Shailendra had expired. Sandeep Kumar and Sunil Kumar were admitted into the hospital. It was further alleged that the assailants hurled caste based abuses towards the complainant party and beat them. The complainant’s nephew Shailendra was shot at and was k
The consistency and reliability of witness testimony are crucial in establishing the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.
The significance of corroborative eyewitness testimony in criminal cases, with minor discrepancies not undermining evidence credibility, unless they affect core facts established beyond reasonable do....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the assessment of intent behind firearm injuries and the credibility of witness statements in determining the appellant's guilt for murder and a....
Reliable eye-witness testimony of natural witnesses, consistent with medical evidence and prompt FIR, sustains murder conviction under 302/34 IPC despite alleged enmity.
To attract the applicability of section 34 of the IPC the prosecution is under an obligation to establish that there existed a common intention which requires a prearranged plan.In the absence of a p....
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.