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

2012 Supreme(All) 2855

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
BEFORE : RAKESH TIWARI AND ANIL KUMAR SHARMA, JJ.
KALLU AND ANOTHER ....Appellants (In Jail)
Versus
STATE OF U.P. ....Opposite Party
(Criminal Appeal No. 199 of 2008, decided on 30th October, 2012)

Advocates:
Counsel :
Narendra Singh, Sanjay Kumar and R.S. Shukla for the Appellants; S.A. Murtaza, R.B. Gaur and A.G.A. for the Opposite Party.

Headnote:(A) (Indian) Penal Code, 1860—Sections 302/34 and 307—Arms Act, 1959—Section 25—Evidence Act, 1872—Section 114 (g)—Murder—Attempt to murder—FIR does not suffer from any infirmity—Merely because independent witnesses were not examined—A criminal Court would not lean to draw an adverse inference—Illustration (g) in Section 114 is only a permissible inference and not a necessary inference—Not a mechanical process to draw adverse inference—Related witness does not affect prosecution story at all—In present case all accused acted in further of their common intention—Testimony of injured witness not inconsistent—Entire incident of firing by accused persons on deceased fully proved—Empty cartridge were also recovered from spot—Conviction upheld. [Paras 14, 15, 17 and 20]

       (B) (Indian) Penal Code, 1860—Section 34—Intention—Substantive offence—Non-creation of—Section 34 does not create a substantive offence—It means that if two or more persons intentionally do a thing jointly—It is just the same as if each of them has done it intentionally. [Para 15]

       (C) (Indian) Penal Code, 1860—Section 34—Constructive liability—Arising of—It would arise if two conditions satisfied—There must be common intention to commit a criminal act—And there must be participation of all persons in doing of such act in furtherance of that intention. [Para 15]

       (D) (Indian) Penal Code, 1860—Section 34—Common intention—What amounts to—Common intention requires a prior concert or pre-planning. [Para 15]

       

JUDGMENT

Hon’ble Anil Kumar Sharma, J.—The appellants have challenged the judgment and order dated 18.12.2007 passed by Additional Sessions Judge Court No. 1, Shahjahanpur in S.T. No. 282 of 2002 State v. Kallu and another (crime No. 6 of 2002) under Sections 302 and 307 IPC, and S.T. No. 976 of 2002 State of Kallu under Section 25 Arms Act (crime No. 31/2002) whereby all the three accused-appellants aforesaid, have been found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302/307 IPC and each appellant has been sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 5,000/- each under Section 302/34 IPC and 10-years R.I. under Section 307/34 IPC and fine of Rs. 2000/- each with default stipulation. Accused Kallu had been further found guilty under Section 25 Arms Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years and fine of Rs. 1,000/- with default imprisonment for 15 days. All the sentences were to run concurrently.

2. Succinctly stated the prosecution story is that on 4.1.2002 at 7.00 p. m. Dragpal Singh s/o Nanhey Singh r/o village Barua Khurd P.S. Kant, District Shahjahanpur submitted a written report at P.S. Kant stating that about nine months ago his brother Surnedra singh lodged a report of theft against Nanhaku Singh @ Dinakku Singh of his village and they were challaned. They bore enmity with the complainant on this count. On 2.1.2002 his animals entered in the field of Dinakku Singh and then he came to his brother for protest and then hot words and abuses were exchanged. Dinakku Singh threatened Surendra Pal Singh to see him very soon and due to this enmity Dinakku Singh, his son Kallu and associate Jageshwar s/o Sivraj Singh wanted to eliminate Surendra Pal Singh. The report stated that today at about 5 p.m. Surendra Pal Singh and Ram Gopal brothers of complainant and his nephew Shyam Singh and his son Avanish were returning from their fields and when they reached in front of the house of Dinakku Singh, he with licensed SBBL gun, Jageshwar with licensed gun and Kallu with country made pistol in order to kill them opened fire. His brother Surendra Pal and Ram Gopal sustained injuries. Surendra Pal instantaneously died at the spot. At the time of incident co-villagers Ram Pher s/o Nawab Singh and Bade Singh s/o Vishram Singh and several others arrived at the scene of occurrence and challenged the accused who making fires and threatening to kill if any body depose against them he would also be killed, made their escape good. Alongwith injured brother Ram Gopal, the complainant reached at the police station and submitted report, on the basis whereof case at crime No. 6/2002 under Section 302/307 IPC was registered. S.O. Purshottam Sharan took over the investigation and after interrogating the complainant he reached at the spot and collected samples of simple and blood stained earth. Two empties were also recovered from the spot. These articles were sealed through memo Ex. Ka-3 and Ka-4. Thereafter he prepared inquest of the cadaver of the deceased and alongwith usual papers sent the dead body for autopsy in sealed condition.

3. Injured Ram Gopal was examined by Dr. Sudhir Kumar Yadav, E.M.O. District Hospital, Shahjahanpur on 4.1.2002 at 8.00 p.m. and he found the following injuries on his person:

1. Multiple fire-arm wounds of entry on the whole of abdomen and inguinal area on the front in an area of 37 cm x 28 cm. Size of individual wounds varying from 0.3 cm x 0.25 cm x depth not probed to 0.4 cm x 0.3 cm x depth not probed. Fresh blood is oozing on the wounds. No exit wound seen. Edges inverted. No blackening/tattooing seen. Wounds are oval to round shape.

2. Multiple fire-arm wounds on the dorsum of left hand in an area of 18 cm x 10 cm in size. Depth not probed but size varying from 0.3 cm x 0.25 cm to 0.4 cm x 0.3 cm. Oozing of blood seen. No blackening/tattooing seen.

3. Multiple fire-arm wounds of entry on dorsum of right hand in an area of 8 cm x 6 cm size varying from 0.3 cm x 0.25 cm to 0.4 cm x 0.3 cm. Oozing of






















































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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top