IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Naheed Ara Moonis, Vivek Varma, JJ.
Raj Singh alias Jagta & others - Appellant
Vs.
State of U.P. - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 940 of 2010
Decided On : 01-03-2021
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 147, 148, 302/149, 300, 307/149 and 304- Arms Act - Section 25 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 161 – Offence of Murder - Firearm wound - Testimony of prosecution witnesses - Common intention - Nature of injuries – Appeal against conviction - Whether case against accused-appellants falls within ambit of Section 302 IPC or 304 IPC - The land of complainant and his family members is situated at bank of river Hindon, which used to shift in rainy season by edge of river. When he was removing grass from his mustard field along with his nephew deceased son, and other persons armed with illegal weapons came there and started hurling abusive and vituperative words to informant and others and said that edge of river has shifted his land to this side and exhorted that they should be killed. With common intention to kill, all of them fired with their respective firearms, which hit chest of deceased, neck of Ragveer, chest of Inam and hand of Sikandar due to which all of them have been seriously injured - Held, The nature of injuries sustained by deceased and the injured persons and circumstances as enumerated above, conclusion is irresistible that the death was caused by the acts of all accused appellants done with intention of causing such bodily injury as would likely to cause death and therefore offence would squarely come within the ambit of Section 304 part-I I.P.C instead of Section 302 IPC for an offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder - Conviction of surviving appellants under Section 302 IPC cannot be sustained. This Court is reluctant in endorsing life imprisonment. Accordingly, conviction of appellants under Section 302 IPC is set aside, instead, they are convicted under Section 304 Part-I IPC - Appeal is partly allowed.
Key Points: - The death was held to be 304 Part I IPC (not 302 IPC) as the acts were done with intention to cause such bodily injury likely to cause death (!) (!) (!) - Convictions under Section 302 IPC with aid of Section 149 IPC were set aside for Vikram, Kushal Pal Singh, and Jasveer and substituted with 304 Part I IPC with ten years’ rigorous imprisonment and fine; reparation paid to deceased’s family (!) (!) (!) - Court discusses existence of common intention and unlawful assembly under Section 149 IPC and upholds conviction/sentence with proper legal framework (!) (!) (!)
JUDGMENT :
Naheed Ara Moonis, J.
1. The instant criminal appeal has been preferred on behalf of the appellants against the consolidated judgement and order dated 08.2.2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court No. 3, Saharanpur in S.T. No. 360 of 2006 (Raj Singh alias Jagta and others Vs. State of U.P.) arising out of Case Crime No. 49 of 2006, under Section 147, 148, 302/149, 307/149 IPC, PS Nagal, district Saharanpur, ST No. 361 of 2006 arising out of Case Crime No. 50 of 2006, under Section 25 of the Arms Act, PS Nagal district Saharanpur, ST No. 362 of 2006 arising out of case crime No. 56 of 2006, under Section 25 of the Arms Act, PS Nagal, district Saharanpur and ST No. 367 of 2006, arising out of case crime No. 57 of 2006, under Section 25 of the Arms Act, PS Nagal, district Saharanpur convicting and and sentencing the appellants Raj Singh alias Jagta, Vikram, Kushal Pal Singh and Jasveer to life imprisonment under Section 302/149 IPC and a fine of Rs. 20,000/-each and in case of default they were further directed to undergo imprisonment of one and a half year; ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000/-each under Section 307/149 IPC and in case of default, the appellants were directed to further undergo one and a half years imprisonment; two years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000/-each under Section 147 IPC and in default the appellants were directed to further undergo six month imprisonment and two years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 3,000/-each under Section 148 IPC and in default the appellants were further directed to undergo six months imprisonment. Appellants Vikram Singh and Kushalpal were also convicted and sentenced to three years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 3,000/-each under Section 25 of the Arms Act and in case of default, they were further directed to undergo imprisonment of six months. However, all the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
2. Accused Omveer died during the pendency of trial, hence trial stood abated against him on 13.6.2007.
3. Since, appellant No. 1, Raj Singh alias Jagta left for his heavenly abode on 30/31.5.2012, the appeal filed on his behalf abated vide order dated 09.12.2019 and now this appeal survives only on behalf of remaining appellants namely Vikram, Kushal Pal and Jasveer.
4. The emanation of facts giving rise to the case of the prosecution are that a written report was handed over by the first informant Saleem Ahmad son of Maqsood Ahmad, resident of Sohan Chida at the police station Nagal, district Saharanpur to the effect that the land of the complainant and his family members is situated at the bank of river Hindon, which used to shift in the rainy season by the edge of river. Today (12.3.2006) at about 9.00 AM, when he was removing grass from his mustard field along with his nephew Fayyaz son of Mohammad Riyaz, Raghveer alias Veera son of Jawahar Garediya, Sikandar son of Irfan and Inam son of Latif, at that time Raj Singh alias Jagta son of Bharat along with his nephew Vikram Singh son of Kishan Pal, Uday’s son, Jasveer and Rajveer sons of Hardeva, resident of Tapri armed with illegal weapons came there and started hurling abusive and vituperative words to the informant and others and said that the edge of river has shifted his land to this side and exhorted that they should be killed. With common intention to kill, all of them fired with their respective firearms, which hit the chest of Fayyaz, neck of Ragveer, chest of Inam and hand of Sikandar due to which all of them have been seriously injured. On hearing the sound of fire, Yakoob, Sajid, Mahboob, Nisar and Ayyub all resident of Sohan Chida, who were working in the field, rushed to the spot and witnessed the incident. On arrival of the witnesses, all the accused persons fled away by unleashing reign of terror towards their village crossing the river. Fayyaz and Ragveer, who were seriously injured were brought to the Government Hospital,
Hari Obula Reddy and others Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh
Ramashish Rai Vs. Jagdish Singh
Shiv Ram Vs. State of U.P. 1998(1) SCC 149
Kartik Malhar Vs. State of Bihar
Rana Pratap and others Vs. State of Haryana
Yunis alias Kariya Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Gurcharan Singh Vs. State of Punjab
Vineet Kumar Chauhan Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
Pulicherla Nagaraju @ Nagaraja Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2006) 11 SCC 444
V. Sreedharan Vs. State of Kerala
K. Ramakoteswara Rao Vs. State of A.P.
Surinder Kumar Vs. Union Territory, Chandigarh
Ghapoo Yadav Vs. State of M.P. (2003) 3 SCC 528
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.