Back
2016 Supreme(All) 2020
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Surendra Vikram Singh Rathore, Pratyush Kumar, JJ.
Roop Singh Pandey And Ors.(3) (In Jail) - Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. - 46 of 2002
Decided On : 29-02-2016
For the Petitioner: S.P.Pandey, K.S.Pawar, P.C.Chauhan, Rajiv Mishra, Soniya Mishra, U.P. Singh, V. Shrotia.
For the Respondent:Govt.Advocate, Anurag Shukla, Arvind Shukla, R.P. Misra, V.K.Mishra.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the assessment of the intention of the accused based on the nature of injuries inflicted on the deceased, as well as the application of legal principles from various judgments to determine the culpability of the appellants under Section 302 read with 34 IPC.
Headnote:
Criminal Appeal - Conviction under Section 302 read with 34 IPC - [Section 302, Section 304 Part I IPC, Section 304 Part II IPC, Section 326 IPC] - The court analyzed the evidence and concluded that the injuries were caused with an intention to kill, and the accused acted with brutality and took undue advantage of the sudden quarrel. The court referred to legal principles from various judgments to establish the intention of the accused and the nature of the injuries inflicted on the deceased.
Fact of the Case:
The prosecution alleged that the appellants, at the exhortation of Roop Singh Pandey, killed Krishna Murari Pandey during an altercation over the partition of Babool wood. The deceased sustained multiple incised wounds and contusions, leading to his death. The defense denied the allegations, claiming false implication and suggesting that the deceased had criminal antecedents.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the prosecution's case to be proved beyond reasonable doubt, concluding that the injuries were inflicted with an intention to cause death. The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction of the appellants under Section 302 read with 34 IPC.
Issues: The key issues included the presence and credibility of the prosecution witnesses, the nature of injuries inflicted on the deceased, the defense of false implication, and the applicability of different sections of the Indian Penal Code.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the nature of injuries, the intention of the accused, and legal principles from various judgments to establish the culpability of the appellants under Section 302 read with 34 IPC.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction of the appellants under Section 302 read with 34 IPC was upheld. The court directed the jail authorities to move the Government for commutation of the appellants' sentence, considering their custody for about 16 years.
Surendra Vikram Singh Rathore, J.
1.Mr. Rajiv Mishra and Mrs. Soniya Mishra, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Umesh Verma, learned Additional Government Advocate and Mr. Anurag Shukla, learned counsel for the complainant were heard.
2. Under Challenge in the instant criminal appeal is the judgment and order dated 24.12.2001 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge Court No.4, Hardoi, in Session Trial No.410 of 2000, arising out of Case Crime No.04 of 2000, Police Station Pali, District Hardoi whereby all the appellants were convicted for the offence under Section 302 read with 34 IPC and were sentenced with imprisonment for life.
3. During pendency of the instant appeal, appellant no.1 Roop Singh Pandey died therefore, vide our order dated 22.02.2016 the appeal so far as it relates to appellant no.1 Roop Singh Pandey was abated.
4. Now the appellant no.2 Vijay Singh Pandey, appellant no.3 Chandra Sen and appellant no.4 Surya Sen are before us who are sons of Roop Singh Pandey (since dead).
5. In brief, the case of the prosecution was that the complainant Smt. Usha Pandey lodged an FIR scribed by one Bankey Lal son of Satyadeo and gave it at Police Station-Pali, District Hardoi on 08.09.2000 at about 13.10 hours alleging therein that on 08.01.2000 at about 12.15 p.m. her husband Krishna Murari Pandey and his uncle Roop Singh Pandey had indulged into some altercation on the dispute of the partition of the three logs of Babool wood. On this altercation Roop Singh Pandey the appellants exhorted his sons (surviving appellants) to kill Krishna Murari Pandey then Roop Singh Pandey and his sons started giving blows of axes on the deceased Krishna Murari Pandey. On the alarm raised by the complainant herself and also by her husband, Brahma Prakash son of Ram Niwas and Roop Singh Pandey son of Hakim Singh Pandey and several other persons rushed towards the place of occurrence and witnessed the incident. All the accused persons ran away from there. Because of the injuries sustained by the husband of the complainant he died on the spot. Leaving the dead body at the place of occurrence under the supervision of her family members complainant Smt. Usha Pandey went to police station to lodge the FIR.
6. On the basis of this FIR, the case was registered and investigation proceeded. From the place of occurrence the logs of Babool tree were taken into custody and its memo was prepared on 13.03.2000. Place of occurrence was inspected and its site plan was prepared. Inquest proceedings were conducted and after completing the necessary formalities the dead body was sent for postmortem which was conducted on 09.01.2000 at about 9: 30 a.m. wherein duration of death was reported to be about one day old. According to the postmortem report the following ante-mortem injuries were found on the body of deceased Krishna Murari Pandey: -
i) Incised wound 9 cm x 2 cm x bone deep on the forehead underlying bone fractured (frontal bone).
(ii) Incised wound 4 cm x 1 cm on the right eye brow underlying bone was fractured.
(iii) Incised wound 5 cm x 2 cm x bone deep on the nose and left side of face underlying maxilla and nasal bone were fractured.
(iv) Incised wound 4 cm x 1 cm x bone deep on the left side of head 4 cm above left ear underlying temporal bone found fractured.
(v) Incised wound 6 cm x 1.5 cm on the chin underlying mandible bone was fractured.
(vi) Incised wound 2 cm x 1 cm x muscle deep on the right side of front of neck.
(vii) Incised wound 5 cm x 1 cm x muscle deep on the front of neck.
(viii) Incised wound 2 cm x 1 cm on the top of left shoulder.
(ix) Multiple contusions varying from 3 cm x 2 cm to 6 cm x 2 cm on the left front of thigh.
(x) Multiple contusions on the right thigh varying from 3 cm x 2 cm x 6 cm x 2 cm.
(xi) Contusions 15 cm x 5 cm on the left dorsal of upper arm.
In the opinion of the doctor death occurred due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem injuries.
7. During course of investigation vide order dated 11.02
