The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the principles of culpable homicide and the interpretation of the provisions of the SC/ST Act to determine the nature of the offence committed by the accused.

P.K. Srivastava, J

1. This appeal has been preferred against the joint judgment dated 15.5.2015 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.-7, Hardoi in ST no. 546 of 2001, State Vs. Suresh and another, Crime No. 160 of 2001, section 302, 307 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) Scheduled Castes or Schedule Tribes (Prevention and Atrocities) Act [ hereinafter referred to as SC / ST Act], ST no. 687 of 2001, State Vs. Suresh, Crime No. 162 of 2001, section 3/25 Arms Act and ST No. 588 of 2001, State Vs. Lala Ram, Crime No. 163 of 2001, Section 3/25 Arms Act related to police station Sandila, district Hardoi by which accused Suresh was convicted for charge under section 302 IPC read with Section 3/25 SC/ST Act for imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 10000/-, for charge under section 307 IPC read with 3/25 SC/ST Act for imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 5000/-, and for the charge under section 3/25 Arms Act for rigorous imprisonment of one year and fine of Rs. 1000/- with direction that sentences would run concurrently. Co-accused Lala Ram was also convicted in this matter but his appeal is not before us.

2. Prosecution case in brief was that on 13.5.2001 in house of complainant namely Udan (PW-2) was one ceremony relating to marriage of complainant's son. On that night musical programmes were going on in the village. At that time it was informed that one person had fallen down from the roof. After getting this information Sukhdeo, Vinod, Sarvesh, Munna, Sunil and other persons had rushed on the spot of incident. Suddenly someone fired at 9: 30 p.m. due to which Sukhdeo (PW-1), Vinod, Sarvesh, Munna and Sunil were injured and rushed to Government Hospital. Sukhdeo (PW-1) and Udan (PW-2) and Sarvesh Kumar (PW-5) and Anuj were referred for further treatment to Lucknow hospital; however Sunil had died due to said fire-arm injury before the start of treatment in hospital. The complainant Udan had lodged the report of this incident.

3. After investigation charge-sheet was submitted against Suresh, Lala Ram for offences under sections 302, 307 IPC and section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act. During investigation fire arms were recovered from both the accused Suresh and Lala Ram and charge sheet were submitted against them for offence under section 3/25 Arms Act also.

4. Both the accused were charged for aforesaid offences, which they denied. Then prosecution side had adduced oral and documentary evidences, after which statements under section 313 Cr.P.C. of accused were recorded. But they had not adduced any oral or documentary evidence. Then trial court had passed impugned judgment dated 15.5.2015 by which accused were convicted for aforesaid charges and after hearing on point of sentence the trial court had sentenced them as stated.

5. Aggrieved by this impugned judgment of conviction, present appeal has been preferred by one accused Suresh.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that from the evidence it is proved that admittedly there was no intention to cause death or any injury to any person. He submitted that firing during celebration (''Harsh Firing') accident had happened causing death of one and injury to other persons. Therefore, conviction may be mitigated with lesser offence. He further submitted that in this incident no overt act was committed against the deceased or injured because of their caste or community, so no case under provisions of SC/ST Act is made out, and conviction in that regard is erroneous; and for such charge appeal should be allowed.These arguments were refuted by learned AGA, who submitted that in present matter although Harsh firing was being carried but in present case it was such a serious criminal negligence which amounts to culpable homicide amounting to murder.

7. From the evidence, it has been proved that in the ceremony relating to marriage of son of informant several persons including the accused were firing in air, but suddenly information spread about the falling of a person from roof. On t