Back
High Court Of Himachal Pradesh
KAMLESH SHARMA,LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH - Appellant
Versus
MAHESHI ALIAS MAHESH - Respondent
Murder Reference No. 1 of 1994, with Criminal Appeal Nos. 275 of 1994, 151 of 1994, 152 of 1994, 153 of 1994 and 154 of 1994
Decided On : 08/07/1995
The Court upheld the conviction of the accused persons under sections 449, 120-B, 302, and 307 read with section 34, IPC, except section 149, IPC. The Court also upheld the sentence awarded to the accused persons by the Sessions Judge in respect of their conviction under sections 449, 120-B, and 302 as well as 307 read with section 34, IPC. The Court modified the death sentence awarded to accused Maheshi alias Mahesh for the offense under section 302, IPC, to a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for life. The Court held that the extreme penalty of death need not be inflicted except in the gravest cases of extreme culpability and that before opting for the death penalty, the circumstances of the offender also require to be taken into consideration along with the circumstances of the crime.
Fact of the Case:
On 13-3-1992 at about 8.30 p.m. in furtherance of their common object accused Maheshi alias Mahesh armed with revolver, Ghunghru alias Madan Lal armed with Drat, Sarvan and Jaind alias Chandermohan armed with knives, went to the house of deceased Pritam Singh at village Majra, Tehsil and District Una. At that time wife of deceased Pritam Singh, namely, Piar Kaur PW 4 along with her son-in-law Surjit Singh PW 1 had just arrived from hospital at Nangal, where children of Surjit Singh were admitted. She went to the kitchen, whereas, Surjit Singh went to the adjoining room for changing his clothes. In the kitchen deceased Pritam Singh and his son deceased Kashmir Singh were taking their meals, which was being cooked by deceased Kashmir Kaur one of the daughters of deceased Pritam Singh Another son, namely, Narinder Singh and another daughter, namely, Kulwant Kaur PW 5 were also sitting in the kitchen. At that time on hearing knock at the main gate of the house, deceased Pritam Singh went to the main gate and asked as to who he was, and on receiving the reply that caller wanted to see Banta (the nick name of deceased Kashmir Singh), deceased Pritam Singh opened the main gate. Accused Maheshi alias Mahesh, who was armed with revolver, rushed from the main gate and fired at deceased Pritam Singh, who fell on the ground and started shrieking with pain On hearing the gun shot, deceased Kashmir Singh, deceased Kashmir Kaur, Kulwant Kaur and Piar Kaur also came out of the kitchen to courtyard of their house and found accused Maheshi alias Mahesh standing there with the revolver.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the prosecution had proved the charges for offenses punishable under sections 120-B, 302, 307, and 449, IPC, and section 27 of the Indian Arms Act beyond reasonable doubt against the accused persons. The Court also found that the Sessions Judge had correctly read, inferred, and interpreted the evidence on record to come to his findings.
Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution had proved the charges for offenses punishable under sections 120-B, 302, 307, and 449, IPC, and section 27 of the Indian Arms Act beyond reasonable doubt against the accused persons? 2. Whether the Sessions Judge had correctly read, inferred, and interpreted the evidence on record to come to his findings?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the prosecution had proved the charges for offenses punishable under sections 120-B, 302, 307, and 449, IPC, and section 27 of the Indian Arms Act beyond reasonable doubt against the accused persons. 2. The Court also held that the Sessions Judge had correctly read, inferred, and interpreted the evidence on record to come to his findings.
Final Decision: The Court upheld the conviction of the accused persons under sections 449, 120-B, 302, and 307 read with section 34, IPC, except section 149, IPC. The Court also upheld the sentence awarded to the accused persons by the Sessions Judge in respect of their conviction under sections 449, 120-B, and 302 as well as 307 read with section 34, IPC. The Court modified the death sentence awarded to accused Maheshi alias Mahesh for the offense under section 302, IPC, to a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for life. The Court dismissed the other appeals of accused persons No. 151 of 1994 to 154 of 1994 against their conviction and sentence and of State of Himachal Pradesh No. 275 of 1994 for enhancement of sentence.
Miss Kamlesh Sharma, J.—In Sessions Case No. 8 of 1992 under sections 120-B, 302, 307, 149, I. P. C. and section 27 of Indian Arms Act, Ghunghru alias Madan Lal, Maheshi alias Mahesh, Sarvan and Jaind alias Chandermohan were the accused. In another Sessions Case No. 38 of 1993 under sections 120-B, 302, 307, 149, I. P. C. and section 27 of Indian Arms Act Anil Kumar and Prem Pal were the accused. Both these Sessions Cases were consolidated and joint trial was held by order dated 18-8-1993 passed by Sessions Judge, Una District Una. Both the Sessions Cases were decided by common judgment dated 19-10-1994.
2. By the judgment dated 19-10-1994 accused Anil Kumar and Prem Pal are acquitted. Accused Maheshi alias Mahesh is convicted for the offences punishable under sections 120-B, 449, 302, 307, I. P. C. and section 27 of Indian Arms Act, 1959 and after hearing on the quantum of sentence on 21-10-1994, he is sentenced as under ;—
1. Sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and fine of Rs. 1,000 for the offence punishable under section 449, Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine he shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months;
2. Sentenced to death for the offence punishable under section 302, Indian Penal Code ;
3. Sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and fine of Rs. 2,000 for the offence punishable under section 307, Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine he shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months;
4. Sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 3 years for the offence punishable under section 120-B, Indian Penal Code;
5. Sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and fine of Rs 1,000 in an offence punishable under section 27 of Indian Arms Act, 1959. In default of payment of fine he shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. The other accused Ghunghru alias Madah Lal, Sarvan and Jaind alias Chandermohan are convicted for the offences punishable under sections 120-B and 449, I. P. C. and under sections 302 and 307,1. P. C. with the aid of section 149, I. P. C. They are sentenced as under:—
1. Each of them is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and fine of Rs. 1,000 each for the offence punishable under section 449, Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine each shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months.
2. Each of them is sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years for the offence punishable under section 120-B, Indian Penal Code
3. Each of them is sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 2,000 each for the offence punishable under section 302 read with section 149, Indian Penal Code In default of payment of fine each shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.
4. Each of them is sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and to a fine of Rs. 1,000 each for the offence punishable under section 307 read with section 149, Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine each of them shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. Since the Sessions Judge has awarded sentence of death to accused Maheshi alias Mahesh, the proceedings have been submitted to this Court for confirmation, as provided under sub-section (1) of section 366, Cr. P. C, which is registered as Murder Reference No. 1 of 1994. The State of Himachal Pradesh has also filed Criminal Appeal No. 275 of 1994 against all the four accused Ghunghru alias Madan Lal, Maheshi alias Mahesh, Sarvan and Jaind alias Chandermohan under section 377, Cr. P. C. on the ground that the sentence awarded to them is inadequate. These four accused have also filed separate Criminal Appeals No, 153 of 1994, 151 of 19M, 154 of 1994 and 152 of 1994 respectively challenging their conviction and sentence. Since the Murder Reference as well as all these five Appeals arise out of the common judgment, these were connected, heard and are being disposed of by a common judgment
3. The prosecution case in brief is
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
