Back
1999 Supreme(All) 399
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
B. K. SHARMA
MADAN PAL - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH - Respondents
Criminal Appeal 1744 Of 1980
Decided On : 03/31/1999
Arvind Vashiani, D.N.VALI
The intention to commit murder can be inferred from the circumstances of the case, including the nature of the injuries inflicted and the distance from which the shot was fired.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL APPEAL - SECTION 307, 308, 324, 299, I. P. C. - FACTUAL MATRIX - INJURY CAUSED - INTENTION TO COMMIT MURDER - REDUCTION OF SENTENCE - COMPROMISE BETWEEN PARTIES - SECTION 308, I. P. C. - INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION.
Fact of the Case:
Accused-appellants fired at the victim, Anoop Singh, with the intention to kill him. Anoop Singh sustained injuries, including a grievous injury to his chest. The accused-appellants were convicted under Section 307, I. P. C. and sentenced to seven years of rigorous imprisonment.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the accused-appellants had the intention to commit murder, but since further shots were not fired at the victim, the offence committed was under Section 308, I. P. C. (attempt to commit culpable homicide). The court reduced the sentence of the accused-appellants to the period of imprisonment already undergone.
Issues: 1. Whether the accused-appellants had the intention to commit murder? 2. Whether the offence committed by the accused-appellants was under Section 307 or 308, I. P. C.? 3. Whether the sentence of the accused-appellants should be reduced considering the compromise between the parties?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the accused-appellants had the intention to commit murder based on the fact that the shot was fired from a close range and that shooting from such a close range imports an obvious intention of causing death of the victim. 2. The court held that the offence committed by the accused-appellants was under Section 308, I. P. C. since further shots were not fired at the victim. 3. The court held that the sentence of the accused-appellants should be reduced considering the compromise between the parties and the period of imprisonment already undergone.
Final Decision: The conviction of the accused-appellants under Section 307, I. P. C. was set aside and they were convicted under Section 308, I. P. C. The sentence of the accused-appellants was reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone.
( 1 ) THIS is a criminal appeal against the judgment and order dated 6-8-1980 passed by Sri Ikramul Bari, the then 17th Additional Sessions Judge, Bijnor in Session Trial No. 301 of 1979 State v. Madan Pal and another, whereby he convicted the accused appellant No. 1 Madan Pal of the offence under Section 307, I. P. C. and convicted Mahi Pal accused appellant No. 2 of the offence under Section 307 read with Section 34, I. P. C. and sentenced each one of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500. 00 and in the default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months.
( 2 ) I have heard learned counsel for the parties. I have also gone through the record.
( 3 ) THE prosecution story is that Anoop Singh P. W. 2 and the accused-appellants who are his nephews lived in Village Hempur, P. S. Chandpur, that about an year before the occurrence the accused-appellants had stolen cash and a watch belonging to the daughter of Anoop Singh, that the relatives had decided that the accused would return the watch and the money but the accused-appellants did not carry out that direction till the date of the occurrence, instead they nurtured animosity towards Anoop Singh since then and used to threaten him with dire consequences, that they used to tell Anoop Singh that on getting an opportunity they would finish him. It is the further case of the prosecution that in the night of 23/24-5-1979 Anoop Singh and his wife Phool Wati P. W. 3 were sleeping at their Baithak, that Arjun Singh was covered from neck to foot by rug, that a lantern was burning, that at about mid night the accused-appellants came to the Baithak of Anoop Singh, that the sound of their steps woke up Anoop Singh, that Mahipal accused-appellant exhorted Madan Pal accused-appellant to shoot, that Anoop Singh screamed, that Madan Pal, accused-appellant at once fired his postol and shot at him, that he was injured in the chest and in the finger by that shot, that the accused-appellants were recognised by Anoop Singh and Phool Wati in the light of the lantern, that the alarm and the report of the shot attracted the neighbours who rushed to the place of the occurrence and saw the accused-appellants running away.
( 4 ) AN oral FIR of the occurrence was dictated at the police station on 24-5-1979 at 8. 00 A. M. by Anoop Singh injured against both the accused-appellants. The case was registered against them and investigation proceeded.
( 5 ) DR. Ram Kumar Gupta medically examined Anoop Singh injured on 24-5-1979 at 9. 00 A. M. He found the following injuries on his body :-1. Abrasion 2" x 1 3/4" in the middle of chest along with surrounding contusion of 1" beneath around this abrasion, 2 1/2" inner to left nipple, 2" below the inner and of left collar bone. The margins were irregular in shape. There was clinical fracture of sternal end of left 3rd and 4th ribs. The chest wall was bulging and dropping down on each inspiration and expiration. X-ray was advised for treatment and confirmation. Anoop Singhwas coughing and spitting phlegm with blood. 2. Lacerated wound 1 1/2" x 1/2" on the left little finger, front and outer aspect, bone was shining, Margins were irregular. It was tatooed with black powder. 3. Lacerated wound 1/5" x 1/5" with a flap of skin intact in the middle or left hand palm, 1 3/4" above the root of left little finger, the surrounding skin was scorched (bluish in colour), margins irregular. 4. Lacerated wound 1/10" x 1/10" on the front of left 2" above the root of thumb. Margins of surrounding skin scorched (bluish) in colour, X-ray was advised, in respect of injuries Nos. 2, 3 and 4 in left hand.
( 6 ) INJURIES 1 and 2 were kept under observation.
( 7 ) INJURY No. 1 was opined by the doctor as grievous in nature and nature of injury No. 2 was left to be assessed. In his opinion, other injuries were simple. He was further of the opinion that the injury No. 1 was caused by some bl
