Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
RAMESH SINHA, RENU AGARWAL, JJ.
Lalaram – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.2199 of 2019
Decided on : 15-09-2022
Culpable Homicide - Criminal Appeal - Sections 302, 307 I.P.C., Section 3 (2) (v) of the S.C./S.T. Act and Section 3/25 of the Arms Act - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the evidence and convictions under Sections 302, 307 I.P.C., Section 3 (2) (v) of the S.C./S.T. Act and Section 3/25 of the Arms Act. The judgment also referred to a Co-ordinate Bench's decision in Criminal Appeal No. 767 of 2015, which partially allowed the appeal and modified the conviction and sentences of the co-accused Suresh. The court found the appellant guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 I.P.C. and confirmed the conviction and sentence under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved celebratory firing during a marriage ceremony, resulting in injuries and death. The prosecution's case was based on the evidence of witnesses and the recovery of weapons from the accused. The defense denied the allegations and claimed false implication due to enmity.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the appellant guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 I.P.C. and confirmed the conviction and sentence under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act. The court also considered the Co-ordinate Bench's decision in Criminal Appeal No. 767 of 2015, which partially allowed the appeal and modified the conviction and sentences of the co-accused Suresh.
Issues: The issues included the identification of the accused, the nature of the injuries, and the applicability of the Co-ordinate Bench's decision in a similar case involving the co-accused Suresh.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found the appellant guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 I.P.C. based on the evidence and circumstances of the case. The court also considered the Co-ordinate Bench's decision in a similar case involving the co-accused Suresh and applied it to the present appellant.
Final Decision: The court modified the conviction under Section 302 IPC to Section 304 IPC and reduced the sentence to 15 years' imprisonment. The conviction and sentence under Section 3/25 Arms Act were confirmed. The sentences were to run concurrently.
JUDGMENT :
Renu Agarwal, J.
1. Present appeal under Section 374 (2) Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the appellant, Lalaram, against the judgment and order dated 15.5.2015 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.-7, Hardoi in Sessions Trial No. 586 of 2001 : State Vs. Suresh and another arising out of Crime No. 160 of 2001, under Sections 302, 307 I.P.C. and Section 3 (2) (v) of the S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Sandila, District Hardoi; Sessions Trial No. 587 of 2001 : State Vs. Suresh, arising out of Crime No. 162 of 2001, under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act, Police Station Sandila, District Hardoi; and Sessions Trial No. 588 of 2001: State Vs. Lalaram, arising out of Case Crime No. 163 of 2001 under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act, police station Sandila, district Hardoi, whereby the appellant, Lalaram, was convicted and sentenced under Section 302 I.P.C. for life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/-, failing which to undergo additional 18 months' rigorous imprisonment; under Section 307 I.P.C. to undergo additional 8 years’ Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/-, failing which to undergo 9 months' rigorous imprisonment; and under Section Section 3/25 of the Arms Act to undergo one year’s rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/-, failing which to undergo additional 4 months rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, was that on 13.5.2001, in the house of informant, namely, Udan (PW-2), rituals of marriage relating to his son Rajkapoor was going on. On that night, musical programme was also going on at the door of Bhagwandeen Yadav of his village, wherein Munni Lal Arakh son of Baldev came and informed that relative of Somnath had fallen down from the roof. After getting this information, Sukhdeo (P.W.1), Vinod (P.W.2), Sarvesh (P.W.5), Munna Lal (P.W.12), Sunil (deceased, son-in-law of the deceased) and other villagers had rushed to the spot. In the interregnum period, someone fired at 9:30 p.m., as a consequence of which Sukhdeo (PW-1), Vinod (P.W.2), Sarvesh (P.W.5), Munna (P.W.12) and Sunil (deceased, son-in-law of the informant) got shot and were injured. Immediately thereafter, they were brought through Tractor trolley to the Government Hospital, from where Sukhdeo (PW-1), Vinod (P.W.2), Sarvesh (P.W.5) and Munna (P.W.12) were referred for further treatment at Lucknow Hospital, however, Sunil (deceased, son-in-law of the informant P.W.2) died before the start of treatment in the hospital.
Thereafter, informant Udan (P.W.2) got the written report scribed by Ramkumar, who after scribing it read it over to him. He, thereafter, put his signature on it and then, proceeded to Police Station Sandila, District Hardoi and lodged it.
3. The evidence of P.W.8-S.I. Khajan Lal shows that on 13.05.2001, he was posted as Head Moharrir at Police Station Sandila. On that date, on the basis of written report of P.W.2-Udan, a chik F.I.R. No. 73 of 2001 (Ext. Ka. 8) vide Case Crime No. 160 of 2001, under Sections 302, 307 I.P.C. was registered by him against the unknown persons at police station Sandila, District Hardoi.
4. The investigation of the case was conducted by P.W.15-S.I. Ashok Dixit. His evidence shows that after registration of Case Crime No. 160 of 2001, under Sections 302, 307 I.P.C., at police station Sandila, district Hardoi on 13.05.2001, he went to the place of occurrence and collected blood stained soil and plain soil thereon. He also seized two empty cartridges from the place of occurrence under recovery memo (Ext. Ka. 23). He also inspected the place of occurrence and prepared the site plan (Ext. Ka. 24). He further deposed that S.I. Abad Ali, who was posted along with him at police station Sandila, had conducted the ‘panchayatnama’ of the dead body of the deceased Sunil and also sent it for post-mortem.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 304 I.P.C. for culpable homicide not amounting to murder based on the evidence and circumstances of the case.
Act of celebratory firing during marriage ceremonies is an unfortunate yet prevalent practice in our nation and it must be stopped.
Under such backdrop the conviction of the appellant under section 27 of Arms Act is maintained.
Conviction modified - Offence of Murder - Injured witnesses P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3 had received injuries of blunt object, which were caused by accused-appellants with Lathis and Dandas but injuries w....
Point of law: It is evident that proof of grievous or life-threatening hurt is not a sine qua non for the offence under Section 307 I.P.C. The intention of the accused can be ascertained from the act....
The distinction between intention and motive is crucial in determining the nature of the offence, and the duty to separate evidence for each accused is essential in criminal cases.
Murder - Conviction - Appellatn murdered deceased with a deadly weapon i.e. countrymade pistol, which was his individual act and he is responsible for the same, hence, he is convicted for the offence....
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
