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

2011 Supreme(All) 2401

[2011(8) ADJ 189 (DB)(LB)]
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
(Lucknow Bench)
BEFORE : RAJIV SHARMA AND S.C. CHAURASIA, JJ.
HEERA LAL AND ANOTHER .....Appellants
Versus
STATE OF U.P. .....Opposite Party
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 1870 and 1912 of 2003, decided on 30th August, 2011)

Advocates:
Counsel :
Mustafa Khan, Begum Sabiha Kamal and Kaushlendra Tewari for the Appellants; G.A. for the Opposite Party.

Headnote:(A) (Indian) Penal Code, 1860—Sections 147, 148, 149 and 302—Murder—Conviction—Based on ocular testimonies of eye-witnesses—I.O. recovered sample and blood stained soil from place of occurrence—Recovered axe allegedly used in commission of offence—Minor discrepancies in statements of ocular witnesses are most natural—Non-examination of other ocular witnesses of incident—No adverse inference can be drawn—Not essential to mention names of all eye-witnesses in FIR—Particularly when his statement recorded under Section 161 at spot just after registration of case—Recovery of axe at instance of accused, has further corroborated prosecution version—Delay in lodging FIR by itself cannot be sufficient ground to discard prosecution version—Particularly, when it has been reasonably explained—Prosecution cannot be disbelieved—Merely on ground that exact motive of commission of offence has not been fully established by reliable evidence—Place of occurrence has been fully established by evidence available on record—Every member of unlawful assembly is liable, in irrespective of what role played by each member—Injuries inflicted on deceased as a result of common object of unlawful assembly—Appellants are guilty of offence of rioting—Conviction and sentence modified. [Paras 25, 26, 27, 30, 32, 33, 34, 40, 41, 43 and 45]

       (B) (Indian) Penal Code, 1860—Section 149—Common object—Unlawful assembly—Prosecution—Not necessary for prosecution to prove actual role played by each and every member of unlawful assembly in commission of offence—Every member of unlawful assembly is guilty of offence—Committed in prosecution of common object—Irrespective of role played by him in commission of offence. [Para 40]

       

JUDGMENT

Hon’ble S.C. Chaurasia, J.—These appeals have been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 17.11.2003, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/ Fast Track Court No. 32, Barabanki, in Sessions Trial No. 301 of 2001, State v. Heera Lal and others, whereby, he convicted the accused Heera Lal, Jannu, Girdhari, Banwari and Harinam, under Sections 147, 148 and 302 read with Section 149 I.P.C., and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 147 I.P.C., rigorous imprisonment for two years under Section 148 I.P.C. and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- under Section 302 read with Section 149 I.P.C., and in default of payment of fine, further undergo three months additional imprisonment. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. It was further directed that half of the total amount of fine deposited by the accused shall be paid to the legal representatives of the deceased as compensation.

2. Since both these appeals have arisen out from the common judgment, they are being disposed of together.

3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the informant, Sri Ram Bharat, lodged the F.I.R. on 11.3.2001, at 6.30 a.m., at Police Station- Mohammadpur Khala, District-Barabanki, with the allegations that he is resident of village Chiraiya. There was dispute between Dinesh Lodh, son of Badkau and Heera Lal Godia, son of Mahabeer, resident of his village, with regard to sale price of land. His brother Raj Kumar alias Pappu sometimes used to help Dinesh Lodh. On 10.3.2001, in the noon, the sons of Heera Lal had assaulted Dinesh Lodh. At about 8.00 p.m., his brother Raj Kumar alias Pappu reached near their house in order to make complaint about the said incident. He told to Heera Lal that his sons had assaulted Dinesh Lodh without any sufficient ground. On it, Heera Lal armed with LATHI, his sons, Junnu armed with Country made Pistol, Girdhari armed with Axe, Banwari armed with GADASA, Harinam armed with BANKA and Dhani Ram armed with Hand-grenade, came at the spot and caught hold of his brother and told that he should be murdered today. He himself, his cousin brother Yugul Kishore and Ram Autar of his village moved forward to save him, but, Junnu opened fire by Country made Pistol. They were frightened. Heera Lal and his sons carried his brother forcibly to their house. On account of fear, they remained standing at some distance. After about one hour, Heera Lal and his sons came out side their house and after firing, they fled away towards north of the village. They did not enter into the house of Heera Lal for a considerable time on account of fear. When other persons of the village came at the spot, they entered into the house of Heera Lal and saw that the dead-body of his brother was lying in the room. His neck was lacerated completely and his head was lying separately. He had no enmity with Heera Lal and his family members. Due to fear and late hours of night, the F.I.R. could not be lodged immediately. On the basis of F.I.R., the case was registered against all the six accused under Sections 147, 148, 302 read with Section 149 I.P.C. The Investigation was conducted by the then S.O., Sri Onkar Singh.

4. After registration of the case, Sri Onkar Singh, Investigating Officer, recorded the statement of the informant at the Police Station and thereafter, proceeded to the place of occurrence alongwith other police personnel and reached there at about 10.15 a.m. He prepared the inquest report of the dead-body of the deceased Raj Kumar alias Pappu and other relevant papers and after completing legal formalities, he sealed the dead-body of the deceased and sent the same for conducting post-mortem.

5. The Investigating Officer recovered the sample and blood stained soil from the place of occurrence and prepared recovery memo in the presence of witnesses. He also recovered a pair of Chappal of the deceased from the place of occurrence and prepared rec










































































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