Back
2016 Supreme(All) 3192
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Vijay Lakshmi, J.
Ram Murat and three others - Appellant
Versus
State - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 783 of 1982
Decided On : 28-06-2016
For the Appellant :- M. Kumar, S. K. Kulshrestha, Satish Sanjay Jaiswal, Ramji Singh Patel and Ashok Kumar Misra.
For the Respondent:- A.G.A
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of prior concert and meeting of minds among the accused persons to infer common intention under section 34 I.P.C.
Headnote:
Criminal Appeal - Conviction under section 323 and 307/34 I.P.C. - [section 323, section 307/34 I.P.C.] - The court discussed the application of section 34 I.P.C., the requirement of pre-arranged plan and meeting of minds to infer common intention, and cited relevant case laws to support its decision. The court found that there was no evidence of prior concert among the accused persons to commit murder or cause grievous injury, and acquitted the appellant of the charges under section 307/34 I.P.C. The conviction under section 323 I.P.C. was confirmed, but the sentence was reduced based on the appellant's old age and physical condition.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved an altercation between the complainant and the accused, resulting in injuries to both parties. The accused were convicted under section 323 and 307/34 I.P.C. The appellant, Hari Shanker, appealed against the judgment.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was no evidence of prior concert among the accused persons to commit murder or cause grievous injury, and acquitted the appellant of the charges under section 307/34 I.P.C. The conviction under section 323 I.P.C. was confirmed, but the sentence was reduced based on the appellant's old age and physical condition.
Issues: The issues involved the application of section 34 I.P.C., the requirement of pre-arranged plan and meeting of minds to infer common intention, and the assessment of evidence regarding the appellant's participation in the altercation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the legal principle that for the application of section 34 I.P.C., there must be a pre-arranged plan and meeting of minds among the accused persons to commit the particular crime. The court cited relevant case laws to support its decision.
Final Decision: The appellant, Hari Shanker, was acquitted of the charges under section 307/34 I.P.C. The conviction under section 323 I.P.C. was confirmed, but the sentence was reduced to the imprisonment already undergone.
Vijay Lakshmi, J.
This Criminal Appeal has been preferred by the appellants against the impugned judgment and order dated 20.3.1982 passed by the VII Additional Sessions Judge, Azamgarh, in S.T. No. 362 of 1978, State Vs. Ram Murat and others, whereby the accused-appellants Ram Murat, Hari Shanker and Sheo Murat have been convicted and sentenced to undergo six months' R.I. for the offence under section 323 I.P.C., and two and half years' R.I. for the offence u/s 307/34 I.P.C. and the accused-appellant Jagarnath has been convicted and sentenced to undergo six months' R.I. for the offence under section 323/34 I.P.C., and three years' R.I. for the offence u/s 307 I.P.C. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
2. Briefly described, some background facts of this case are that on 3.11.1974 at about 9.00 A.M. when the complainant Mangla Pathak and his son Shree Niwas were present in their field and their ploughman Kirtu Ram was ploughing the field, the accused-appellants Jagarnath Tiwari, Ram Murat, Sheo Murat and Hari Shanker reached there. The accused Jagarnath Tiwari was armed with spear (ballam) and co-accused Ram Murat, Sheo Murat and Hari Shanker were armed with lathi. Accused Jagarnath Tiwari asked the complainants as to why they were encroaching upon his field. Thereupon some altercation and exchange of hot words took place between them. The accused Jagarnath exhorted the rest of the accused persons with the words "tku ls ekjks lkys dks" and uttering these words he gave a spear blow on the neck of Shree Niwas (the son of complainant) causing injury on the lower side of neck. Hearing alarm Bechan, Kashinath, Mangaroo Ram, Aparwal Rai and several other villagers reached at the scene of occurrence and saw the accused persons running away from the spot. The complainant after arranging conveyance went to the police station and lodged the first information report. The police sent both the injured for medical examination. Both the injured were medically examined on the same day at 7.30 P.M. The doctor found the following injuries on the body of the injured Shree Niwas:
1. Incised wound 3/4" x 1/12" x1/2" at the root of the neck and in front of the neck just above manubrium sterni.
2. Complaint of pain in both buttocks and lower part of the back but no mark of injury.
3. Complaint of pain in the right thigh and legs but no mark of ext. injury.
4. Complaint of pain in left thigh and left leg but no mark of ext injury.
Injury no. 1 was caused by sharp object. Injuries were fresh.
The following injuries were found by the doctor on the body of Mangla Pathak:
1. Lacerated wound 1/4" x 1/4" on the scalp on anterior part of middle part.
2. Abrasion 1/2" x 1" on the front medial lower part of the left forearm.
3. Contusion 1" x 1/2" on the right shoulder.
All the injuries were simple caused by blunt object. Duration fresh.
4. During investigation the I.O. recorded the statements of witnesses, prepared the site plan and after completing other formalities submitted charge sheet against the appellants.
5. The case being triable by the court of Sessions was committed to it where charges under sections 323, 307/34 and 324/34 I.P.C. were framed against the accused-appellants Ram Murat, Sheo Murat and Hari Shanker and charges u/s 307, 324 simpliciter and 323/34 I.P.C. were framed against accused-appellant Jagarnath Tiwari. All the accused persons denied from the charges and claimed to be tried.
6. The prosecution in order to prove its case examined six witnesses in all, out of which three were witnesses of fact and three were of formal character. After conclusion of prosecution evidence, the statements of the accused persons under section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded in which all of them denied from the charges and stated that they have been falsely implicated due to land dispute. The accused Jagarnath stated that Mangla was destroying his crop of peas and when he tried to stop him, he assaulted him and in defence he had to assaul
