Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Sudhir Agarwal, Om Prakash-VII, JJ.
Ramesh Singh & Others - Appellants
Vs.
State of U.P. - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. - 2029 of 1983
Decided On : 04-09-2018
CRIMINAL APPEAL - [SECTION 302 IPC R/W 149 IPC] - [SECTION 323 IPC R/W 149 IPC] - [SECTION 147 IPC] - Conviction and sentence for the offence under Section 302 IPC read with Section 149 IPC is liable to be altered and modified to Section 304 (Part-I) IPC. Conviction and sentence imposed upon accused appellants vide impugned judgment and order on other counts are affirmed.
Fact of the Case:
On 28.10.1982 at about 02:00 p.m. Ramesh Singh son of Ghanman Singh along with his associates, namely, Satyendra Singh, Awadhesh Singh, Jitendra Singh @ Dharmendra Singh, Rajwant Singh armed with lathi tried to have forcible possession over the land situated in front of his house. When informant objected, they started hurling abuses. In the meantime, Ram Vrat Singh, brother of informant and Barrister Singh, son of informant reached on the spot and when they forbade them for abusing, Rajwant Singh exhorted to kill. On his exhortation, Ramesh Singh, Jitendra Singh @ Dharmendra Singh, Awadhesh Singh and Satyendra Singh with common intention started beating with lathi and danda. On raising alarm, Murli Shyam Singh, Shiv Murat Singh and other villagers reached on the spot and witnessed the incident. Informant, his son Barrister Singh and his brother Ram Vrat Singh received several injuries caused by them. By chance, a doctor resident of Bihar reached on the spot and gave first aid to Ram Vrat Singh but after some time Ram Vrat Singh succumbed to his injuries.
Finding of the Court:
The prosecution was able to establish date, time and place of incident. Appellants' side were illegally occupying land belonging to informant's side and when they were objected, injuries were caused by them upon informant's side in furtherance of common object of unlawful assembly. Informant's side were not armed with any weapon at the place of occurrence. Although altercation between parties regarding possession of disputed land took place before actual incident yet appellants' side were aggressor in the matter. Accused appellants have not acted in exercise of their right to self-defence. Medical evidence fully supports prosecution case. Injuries said to have been found on the body of Bisram Singh were manufactured. Appellants' side did not receive injury in the said incident. Motive attributed, though severe in nature, yet was established by prosecution. Pleas taken by appellants are not believable as they were aggressor in the matter.
Issues: Whether the appellants were the aggressors in the incident?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the appellants were the aggressors in the incident and that they had not acted in exercise of their right to self-defence. The court also held that the medical evidence fully supported the prosecution case and that the injuries said to have been found on the body of Bisram Singh were manufactured.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal in part and altered and modified the conviction and sentence imposed upon the accused appellants vide impugned judgment and order dated 30.8.1983 for the offence under Section 302 IPC read with Section 149 IPC to Section 304 (Part-I) IPC for ten years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rupees Five Thousand each. The court affirmed the conviction and sentence imposed upon the accused appellants vide impugned judgment and order on other counts.
JUDGMENT :
Om Prakash-VII, J.
1. This criminal appeal has been preferred by accused appellants against judgment and order dated 30.8.1983 passed by District & Sessions Judge, Ghazipur in Session Trial No. 50 of 1983 (State vs. Ramesh Singh and others) convicting and sentencing appellants Ramesh Singh, Satyendra Singh, Jitendra Singh @ Dharmendra Singh, Rajwant Singh and Awadhesh Singh for the offence punishable under Sections 302 IPC read with Section 149 IPC for imprisonment for life, for the offence under Section 323 IPC read with Section 149 IPC for six months rigorous imprisonment and for the offence under Section 147 IPC for one year's rigorous imprisonment. All sentences have been directed to run concurrently.
2. Facts of case, in nutshell, as unfolded by informant Ram Bachan Singh son of Amar Deo Singh in the First Information Report (in short 'F.I.R.'), are that on 28.10.1982 at about 02:00 p.m. Ramesh Singh son of Ghanman Singh along with his associates, namely, Satyendra Singh, Awadhesh Singh, Jitendra Singh @ Dharmendra Singh, Rajwant Singh armed with lathi tried to have forcible possession over the land situated in front of his house. When informant objected, they started hurling abuses. In the meantime, Ram Vrat Singh, brother of informant and Barrister Singh, son of informant reached on the spot and when they forbade them for abusing, Rajwant Singh exhorted to kill. On his exhortation, Ramesh Singh, Jitendra Singh @ Dharmendra Singh, Awadhesh Singh and Satyendra Singh with common intention started beating with lathi and danda. On raising alarm, Murli Shyam Singh, Shiv Murat Singh and other villagers reached on the spot and witnessed the incident. Informant, his son Barrister Singh and his brother Ram Vrat Singh received several injuries caused by them. By chance, a doctor resident of Bihar reached on the spot and gave first aid to Ram Vrat Singh but after some time Ram Vrat Singh succumbed to his injuries. Dead body of Ram Vrat Singh, was brought to police station concerned on a cot for necessary action.
3. On the basis of the written report (Ext. ka-3) scribed by one Kameshwar Singh, chik First Information Report (Ext. Ka5) was registered at Police Station concerned on 29.10.1982 at 12:30 a.m. mentioning all details as had been disclosed in Ext. Ka-3. G.D. entry Ext. Ka-6 was also made at the same time.
4. Investigation of the matter was taken into his hand by Narendra Prasad Tripathi, who was posted as Station Officer of police station concerned. He recorded statement of Ram Bachan Singh and injured Barrister Singh then and there. Head Moharrir Surya Deo Pandey prepared reports (Ext. Ka-7 and Ka8) for medical examination and both injured were sent to P.H.C. Zamania. Dr. Vijay Pratap Narayan Singh examined Ram Bachan Singh at the same night at 03:00 a.m. and prepared injury report (Ext. Ka-1). Following injuries were found on the person of Ram Bachan Singh.
“(i) Lacerated wound 4 cm X 1 cm X scalp deep over occipital region of the scull 15 cm above the left ear. Soft blood clot present.
(ii) Contusion 7 cm X 2 cm over back of the trunk on right side in lower part. Colour red.
(iii) Abraded contusion 7 cm X 2 cm over outer surface of the right forearm near elbow. Colour red.
(iv) Contusion with swelling 14 cm X 8 cm over dorsum of the left foot. Colour red.
(v) Complains of pain in both palms and other parts of the body.”
5. In the opinion of doctor, injuries were simple, caused by blunt object and were about half day old.
6. Injured Barrister Singh was examined at 03:15 a.m. at the same night. Injury report is Ext. Ka-2. Following injury was found on the body of Barrister Singh.
“Lacerated wound 2 cm X ¼ cm X .5 cm deep over middle of the fore-head. Soft blood clot present.”
7. In the opinion of doctor, injury was simple, caused by blunt object and was about half day old.
8. Injury reports were provided to the Investigating Officer at the same night at 03:30 a.m.. On the following morning i.e. 29.10.1982 at about 06:30 a.m. In
AI
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
