Back
2022 Supreme(All) 1022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD AT LUCKNOW BENCH
Ramesh Sinha, Saroj Yadav, JJ.
Mahesh and Ors. – Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. - 296 of 1990
Decided On : 06-09-2022
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Brij Mohan Sahai
For the Respondent:Mr. Chandra Shekhar Pandey, Additional Govt. Advocate
Headnote:
Criminal Appeal - Indian Penal Code - Sections 302/34, 307/34 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the application of Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, particularly Exception 4, and cited relevant case law to establish the absence of premeditation and the act being committed in a heat of passion. The court also emphasized the direct evidence of the crime, the sustained injuries of the witnesses, and the corroborating medical evidence. The recovery of the weapon of offence was deemed unnecessary in the presence of direct evidence. The judgment confirmed the conviction and sentence of the accused under Sections 302/34 and 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a feud over alleged damage to a field boundary, resulting in the death of one person and injuries to seven others. The accused persons were found guilty of firing upon the victims with deadly weapons, leading to the death of one person and injuries to others.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the witnesses of facts reliable, established the presence of the accused persons armed with deadly weapons, and confirmed the guilt of the accused under Sections 302/34 and 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Issues: The issues revolved around the nature of the incident, the application of Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, and the credibility of the recovery of the weapon of offence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code to establish the absence of premeditation and the act being committed in a heat of passion. The court also emphasized the direct evidence of the crime, the sustained injuries of the witnesses, and the corroborating medical evidence.
Final Decision: The criminal appeal was dismissed, and the impugned judgment and order dated 03.05.1990 were confirmed. The appellants' bail bonds were canceled, and they were ordered to surrender before the trial court within two weeks to serve out the sentence awarded by the trial court.
JUDGMENT :
Saroj Yadav, J.
1. This criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellants against the judgment and order dated 03.05.1990 passed by Special Judge, Unnao in Sessions Trial No.602 of 1985 (State vs. Mahesh and Others) arising out of Case Crime No.183 of 1985, under Sections 302/34, 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code, (in short I.P.C.), Police Station Fatehpur Chaurasi, District Unnao and Sessions Trial No.67 of 1985 (State vs. Santosh) arising out of Case Crime No.184 of 1985, under Sections 25/27 of Arms Act, Police Station Fatehpur Chaurasi, District Unnao.
2. The appellant No.1 Mahesh died during the pendency of the appeal and his appeal was abated vide order dated 04.04.2022, now this appeal survives only for the appellants Santosh and Ashok.
3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are as under:-
A First Information Report (in short F.I.R.) was registered at Case Crime No.183 of 1985 on 03.11.1985 at 22:30 hours at Police Station Fatehpur Chaurasi, District Unnao on the basis of written report submitted by the complainant Ganga Ram. It was stated in the written report that on 03.11.1985 at about 3 O'Clock during the day, the complainant and his uncle Dayal were standing at front door of their house. His uncle Dayal came back after ploughing his field. Mahesh, Santosh and Ashok came there and said to Dayal that he (Dayal) had ploughed the boundary of their field. On this his uncle Dayal replied that he did not plough over their boundary and if they had any doubt then they can get it measured. Adjoining to the field of the complainant there is a field of Devi Charan and these people (accused persons) were ploughing the field of Devi Charan and they were complaining about the boundary of the same field. Thereafter these persons asked to accompany them to the field. On this the complainant and his uncle Dayal accompanied these persons to the field and all were inspecting the boundary. At the same time, these people started hurling abuses, and the complainant and people of his side also hurled abuses as a retort. Then Mahesh, Ashok and Santosh left the place challenging them (complainant' side) to wait and they (accused) would come back and see them. Saying this they started running towards their village. After sometime, at about 4 O'Clock Mahesh, Ashok and Santosh armed with country made short-guns came there and all the three persons fired upon them (complainant and his uncle). The pellets of those fires hit the complainant and wife of one Bihari who was working in her field nearby. His uncle Dayal lied down in the field and when they raised alarm and the villagers heard the sound of firing, then to save them the mother of the complainant Sukhrani, Bahadur, Jiya Lal, Lallu Mallah, Shyam Lal Gadariya and nephew of the complainant namely Rakesh, aged about 6 years, rushed to the spot. As soon as they all reached near the complainant the accused persons fired upon them also 6-7 times with the intention to kill them. They all suffered pellet-injuries. Many persons came there raising noise on which the accused persons ran away. The condition of the mother of the complainant was serious so he was carrying her and also other injured persons on two bullock-carts for treatment but his mother died on the way. He reached the police station with the dead body and other injured persons for lodging the F.I.R.
4. After investigation, charge sheet was submitted against Mahesh, Santosh and Ashok. The Magistrate concerned took cognizance and committed the case for trial to the Sessions Court. The Sessions Court framed the charges against all the three accused persons under Sections 302/34 and 307/34 of I.P.C. All the accused persons denied the charges and claimed to be tried.
5. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined 15 witnesses which are as under:-
(i) P.W.1- Ganga Ram;
(ii) P.W.2- Shyam Lal;
(iii) P.W.3- Jiya Lal;
(iv) P.W.4- Dr. R.K. Sachan;
(v) P.W.5- Head Constable Ram Asre Tiwari;
(vi)
