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

2018 Supreme(All) 2567

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), Umesh Chandra Tripathi, JJ.
Munindra Shukla and Ors. – Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 3113 of 2009
Decided On : 29-08-2018

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Jai Singh Parihar, A.K. Yadav, Ajay Vikram Yadav, Akhilesh Singh, Ashfaq Husain, Avinas Mishra, Brijesh Sahai, P.S. Parihar, R.L. Shukla, Tahir Husain Farooqui, V.K. Dwivedi, Ambrish Kumar, B.S. Rathore, Pushpendra Singh Parihar and Rajesh Tiwari
For the Respondent:Government Advocate, P.V. Mishra and A.K. Dubey

The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the charges to be fully proved by eye witnesses and the establishment of motive for the incident.

Headnote:

FIR - Criminal Law - Arms Act, 1959 - Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 504 - Summary: The court convicted the appellants under Sections 147, 148, 302/149, 504 IPC and Sections 25 of Arms Act, 1959. The judgment was partly allowed, setting aside the convictions under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 504/34, IPC and Section 25 of Arms Act, 1959 for some appellants.

Fact of the Case:

The appellants were convicted for their involvement in a triple murder case arising from a dispute over dirt created by a neighbor's pets. The court found the charges against the appellants to be fully proved by eye witnesses and upheld the conviction under Section 504, IPC. The appellants denied the charges and claimed trial, alleging false implication due to enmity.

Finding of the Court:

The court found the charges against the appellants to be fully proved by eye witnesses and upheld the conviction under Section 504, IPC. The court also found the involvement of the appellants in the triple murder case to be proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Issues: The main issues revolved around the credibility of the eye witnesses, the motive for the incident, and the involvement of the appellants in the unlawful assembly and the triple murder.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the charges against the appellants were fully proved by eye witnesses and that the motive for the incident was established. The court also found the involvement of the appellants in the unlawful assembly and the triple murder to be proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Final Decision: The judgment was partly allowed, setting aside the convictions under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 504/34, IPC and Section 25 of Arms Act, 1959 for some appellants. The conviction under Section 504, IPC was upheld, and the conviction under Section 302/149, IPC was modified to Section 302/34 IPC.

JUDGMENT :

Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J.

1. Heard Sri Ambrish Kumar and Sri Tahir Husain Farooqui, for the appellants and Sri Anil Kumar Kushwaha, A.G.A., for State of U.P.

2. Munindra Shukla, Anjani Kumar, Pintoo Shukla, Km. Rubi Shukla and Smt. Madhuri (the appellants) have filed the aforesaid appeals, from their conviction and sentence passed by Additional Session's Judge, Court No. 6, Kanpur Nagar, dated 14.12.2005/16.12.2005, in S.T. No. 9 of 2004, State v. Munindra Shukla and others, (arising out of Case Crime No. 366 of 2003, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 504/34 IPC, P.S. Kotwali, district Kanpur Nagar), S.T. No. 10 of 2004, State v. Anjani Kumar, (arising out of Case Crime No. 372 of 2003, under Section 25 Arms Act, 1959, P.S. Kotwali, Kanpur Nagar) and S.T. No. 11 of 2004, State v. Pintoo Shukla, (arising out of Case Crime No. 371 of 2003, under Section 25, Arms Act, 1959, P.S. Kotwali, Kanpur Nagar), convicting all the appellants under Sections 147, 148, 302/149, 504 IPC and appellants Anjani Kumar and Pintoo Shukla under Section 25 Arms Act, 1959 also and awarding to all the appellants (i) one year rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1000/- each under Section 147, IPC, (ii) one year rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1000/- each under Section 148, IPC, (iii) imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 20,000/- each under Section 302/149, IPC (iv) six months simple imprisonment under Section 504 IPC and (v) one year rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 2000/- to Pintoo Shukla and Anjani Kumar both, under Section 25, Arms Act, 1959, along with default stipulation. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

3. On the complaint (Ex-Ka-11) of Smt. Vineeta Pandey (PW-6), FIR (Ex-Ka-2) of Case Crime No. 366 of 2003, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 504/34, IPC, was registered at P.S. Kotwali, Kanpur Nagar, on 16.10.2003 at 21:55 hours, against Munindra Shukla, Anjani Kumar, Pintoo Shukla, Km. Rubi Shukla and Smt. Madhuri, by Head Moharrir Mukesh Babu (PW-2). It has been stated in the complaint that the informant along with her family, namely her mother-in-law Smt. Kirta Pandey, husband Pankaj Pandey, devar Pawan Pandey and nanad Km. Pooja Pandey were residing at Jail Colony, Kanpur Nagar. Munindra Shukla, who was posted as a Constable at District Jail Kanpur Nagar, was residing in her neighborhood along with his family. Due to creating dirt by the dog and goats of Munindra Shukla in front of her door, some altercation with Munindra Shukla and her family members had taken place, about 20 days ago. Due to that reason, they kept enmity with her family. On 16.10.2003 at about 9:15 p.m., she, her mother-in-law Smt. Kirta Pandey, who was also Constable in Jail, her husband Pankaj Pandey, devar Pawan Pandey and nanad Km. Pooja Pandey were present at her house. Neighbourer Munindra Shukla along with his sons Pintoo and Anjani Kumar began to challenge and abuse her family members, taking their names, standing in front of her house, then her mother-in-law Smt. Kirta Pandey, her husband Pankaj Pandey, devar Pawan Pandey and nanad Km. Pooja Pandey came out from her house and forbade them from abusing and tried to pacify the matter; then at that time Madhuri wife of Pintoo and his sister Rubi also came there. Then Munindra Shukla and his sons Pintoo and Anjani Kumar opened fire from their country-made pistols, which caused injury to her husband and devar. Her mother-in-law fled away from that place then Madhuri wife of Pintoo and Rubi his sister caught hold her mother-in-law Kirta Pandey and began to assault and said that where you were running. They exhorted to shoot her and dragged her. Then they fired upon Smt. Kirta Pandey also, which caused injury to her mother-in-law. Due to gunshot injuries, her husband Pankaj Pandey, devar Pawan Pandey sons of Uma Shankar Pandey and her mother-in-law Smt. Kirta Pandey died on the spot. The incident was seen by herself, her nanad Pooja Pandey and several other persons of mohalla, w

          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 Back to top