IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Sunita Agarwal, Subhash Chandra Sharma, JJ.
Ram Singh and Others – Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 2111 of 1988
Decided On : 31-05-2022
MURDER - ALTERCATION - UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLY, COMMON OBJECT - SECTIONS 147, 302, 323 I.P.C. - The court found that the incident was a result of a sudden quarrel and fight between both sides, with no evidence of a pre-planned attack or common object to commit murder. The conviction under Section 147, 302 read with Section 149 I.P.C. was modified to conviction under Section 323 I.P.C. The appellants were sentenced to the period already undergone.
Fact of the Case:
The prosecution case involved an altercation between the appellants and the deceased and his companions, resulting in the death of the deceased and injuries to others. The incident arose from a dispute over a pathway, leading to a sudden quarrel and fight between the parties.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the incident was a result of a sudden quarrel and fight, with no evidence of pre-planned attack or common object to commit murder. The conviction under Section 147, 302 read with Section 149 I.P.C. was modified to conviction under Section 323 I.P.C. The appellants were sentenced to the period already undergone.
Issues: The key issues were whether there was an unlawful assembly and common object to commit murder, and whether the appellants were individually liable for their acts.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the incident was a result of a sudden quarrel and fight, with no evidence of pre-planned attack or common object to commit murder. The appellants were held individually liable for their acts, and the conviction was modified accordingly.
Final Decision: The conviction under Section 147, 302 read with Section 149 I.P.C. was modified to conviction under Section 323 I.P.C. The appellants were sentenced to the period already undergone.
JUDGMENT :
Subhash Chandra Sharma, J.
1. Heard Sri N.K. Sharma learned Advocate assisted by Sri Anshul Kumar Singhal learned Advocate on behalf of the appellant nos.3 & 4; Gajraj and Raghuveer; respectively and Sri Mukesh Kumar, learned counsel on behalf of the appellant no.5-Ram Bahadur.
2. This appeal emanates from the judgment and order dated 14.09.1988 passed by the learned VIIth Additional Session Judge, Aligarh in S.T. No.373/1987 (State vs. Rajveer & others) arising out of Case Crime No.26 of 1987 u/s 148, 302, 323 readwith Section 149 I.P.C., Police Station Sikandrarau, District Aligarh whereby appellant Rajveer has been convicted and sentenced for imprisonment for a period of six months u/s 148; with life imprisonment u/s 302 readwith Section 149 I.P.C; for a period of three months simple imprisonment u/s 323 readwith Section 149 I.P.C; and appellant Ram Singh, Roshan, Gajraj, Raghuveer, Ram Bahadur & Roop Kishore have been convicted and sentenced u/s 147 I.P.C. for a period of three months rigorous imprisonment; u/s 302 readwith Section 149 I.P.C. for life imprisonment; and u/s 323 readwith Section 149 I.P.C. for a period of three months simple imprisonment.
3. Co-appellant Rajveer had died during pendency of this appeal, therefore, appeal on behalf of co-appellant Rajveer stands abated.
4. The prosecution case in brief is that informant Ram Khiladi S/o Surat Singh is R/o Nagla Mahari hamlet of Kachaura, Police Station Sikandrarao. There was enmity owing to litigation between the informant Roshan Singh, Ram Singh and the informant and residents of his village relating to the pathway. As per narration in the F.I.R on 22.01.1987 at about 5:30 P.M., Pandit Bakelal resident of the neighbouring village cried near the Pipal tree in the forest under the fear of ghost on which several people reached there. In the meantime, the informant and his brother Rukumpal were coming back to their house from the field with fodder of babul and passed by the Pipal tree while looking at Bakelal Pandit. When they were near the Shiv Temple, Rajbir, Ram Singh, Roshan Singh, Gajraj, Kishorilal, Raghuveer, Ram Bahadur and Roop Kishore called and asked as to who was there and that who was shouting/crying, on which the informant replied that it was Bakelal Pandit who got scared near the pipal tree. On this, they said to him while abusing that he was not telling the truth. On this, the informant told them to keep their tongue under control and asked why were they abusing. An altercation was started between them and at which the accused said “maro salon ko inka dimag bahut kharab hai” and they began to beat all of them with lathi and spear.
5. On hearing their screams, his father, brother Ramji Lal, Ramdeen, Dhyan Singh and Krishnaveer ran to save them. They were assaulted as well. Rajveer was equipped with spear and others were carrying lathi. Rajveer pierced with spear in the abdomen of Rukum Pal who fainted and fell down. In the meantime, Netrapal, Sughar Singh and Foran Singh came there and the accused/appellants ran away. It was stated in the report that in defence, the complainant side also wielded lathi which might have caused injuries to some of the persons of the accused party, but all on the side of the complainant were injured. Rukumpal succumbed to the injuries on the way to the hospital Sikandrarao, and then they reached the police station. Written tehrir stating the above noted facts was prepared by the informant and on the basis of it, F.I.R. was lodged at the police station on the same day at about 21:30 P.M.
6. The inquest of deceased Rukum Pal was conducted by S.I. Baljeet Singh on 22.01.1987 on the same day at about 10:40 P.M. at the gate of the police station and the inquest report was prepared in the presence of the witnesses present there. The dead body was sealed, essential papers were prepared and the body was handed over to constables Prempal Singh and Ram Tirath Singh for the post-mortem. Dr. T.N. Goel conducted autopsy of the d
Abdul Sayeed v. State of Madhya Pradesh
Baitulla and another Vs. State of U.P.
Balraje @ Trimbak v. State of Maharashtra
Bhajan Singh Vs. State of Haryana
Brahm Swaroop and another vs. State of U.P.
Chinu Patel vs. State of Orrisa
Durbal v. State of Uttar Pradesh
Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab
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.