Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD BENCH AT LUCKNOW
RAMESH SINHA, SAROJ YADAV, JJ.
Devendra Pandey and others - Appellants
Versus
State ofUttar Pradesh - Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos. 549, 513 and 551 of 2016
Decided on : 15-12-2022
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 120-B, 302, 364, 365, 218, 117, 147, 148, 149, 307, 395, 396, 397, 452, 107, 47, 300 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 207, 161, 313, 197, 107 - Arms Act, 1959 - Section 25, 24, 29 - Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 – Section 3, 4 - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 3 - Police Act, 1861 - Section 7 – Punishment of Criminal conspiracy – Offence Punishable – First Information Report - Punishment for murder - Culpable homicide -Punishment for rioting - Rioting, armed with deadly weapon - Examination of witnesses by police - Kidnapping or abducting in order to murder - Punishment for dacoity - Penalty for giving or taking dowry - House-trespass after preparation for hurt, assault or wrongful restraint - whether genuine passenger is travelling or not – Held, Court are of opinion that case of appellants would be covered by Exception to Section 300 of I.P.C., which provides that culpable homicide is not murder if offender, being a public servant, or aiding a public servant acting for advancement of public justice, exceeds powers given to him - Causes death by doing an act which he, in good faith, thinks to be lawful and necessary for due discharge of his duty as a public servant without ill-will towards person whose death he has caused - In present case, there was no ill-will between appellants and deceased persons – Appellants were public servants and their object was advancement of public justice - No doubt, appellants exceeded powers given to them by law, and they caused death of deceased by doing an act which they, in good faith, believed to be lawful and necessary for due discharge of their duty - In such circumstances, offence that was committed by appellants, was culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under Section 304 of I.P.C. Thus, Court are of view that appellants should have been convicted under Section 304 Part-I I.P.C. instead of Section 302 I.P.C – Appeals partly allowed.
JUDGMENT :
RAMESH SINHA, J.
|
| TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
| A. Introduction |
|
| 3 |
| B. Factual Backgrounds (i) F.I.R. relating to the incident that took place within the jurisdiction of police station Neoria (ii) F.I.R. relating to the incident that took place within the jurisdiction of police station Bilsanda (iii) F.I.R. relating to the incident that took place within the jurisdiction of Puranpur (iv) Background of Entrustment of investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation and filing of charge-sheet against the accused persons. (v) Prosecution Witnesses (vi) Statement of convicts/appellants recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. (vii) Defense Witness (viii) Findings of the Trial Court | 8
9
14
18
22
28 106
107 107 | ||
| C. Arguments on behalf of the convicts/appellants | 108 | ||
| D. Arguments on behalf of the Victim | 133 | ||
| E. Arguments on behalf of the Investigating Agency/C.B.I. | 143 | ||
| F. Analysis | 145 | ||
| G. Conviction | 175 | ||
| H. Conclusion | 178 | ||
A. INTRODUCTION
Forty-seven accused persons, namely, Gyan Giri, Subhash Chandra, Lakhan Singh, Nazim Khan, Harpal Singh, Rajendra Singh, Narayan Das, Krishnveer, Karan Singh, Rakesh Singh, Nem Chandra, Shamsher Ahmed, Satyendra Singh, Badan Singh, Devendra Pandey, Mohd. Anis, Ramesh Chandra Bharti, Veer Pal Singh, Nathu Singh, Dhani Ram, Sugam Chandra, Collector Singh, Kunwar Pal Singh, Shyam Babu, Banwari Lal, Dinesh Singh, Sunil Kumar Dixit, Arvind Singh, Ram Nagina, Vijay Kumar Singh, Vijendra Singh, M.P. Mittal, M.C. Durgapal, R.K. Raghav, Surjeet Singh, Udai Pal Singh, Munna Khan, Durvijay Singh son of Tadinal, Mahaveer Singh, Gaya Ram, Register Singh, Rashid Hussain, Durvijay Singh s/o Dilaram, Syed Aale Raza Rizvi, Satya Pal Singh, Harpal Singh and Ram Chandra Singh, were tried by the Special Judge, C.B.I., Court No. 1/Additional District Judge, Lucknow in Criminal Case No. 1800439 of 2001: State ofUttar Pradesh Through C.B.I. v. Gyan Giri and others, arising out of (i) R.C.1(S)/1993; (ii) R.C.2(S)/1993; and (iii) R.C.3(S)/1993, under Sections 120-B, 302, 364, 365, 218, 117 I.P.C., Police Station C.B.I./S.I.C., New Delhi.
2. Vide judgment and order dated 4.4.2016, the Special Judge, C.B.I., Court No. 1/Additional District Judge, Lucknow convicted and sentenced the accused persons in the manner stated hereinbelow :
Accused Gyan Giri, Subhash Chandra, Lakhan Singh, Nazim Khan, Register Singh, Shyam Babu, Syed Aale Raza Rizvi, Gaya Ram, Narayan Das, Rashid Hussain, Mahavir Singh, Dhani Ram, Sunil Kumar Dixit, Kunwar Pal Singh, Sugam Chandra, Shamsher Ahmad, Krishna Veer, Karan Singh, Dinesh Singh, Nem Chandra, Ram Nagina, Arvind Singh, Badan Singh, Ram Chandra Singh, Harpal Singh son of Munshi Singh, Durvijay Singh son of Tadinal, Banwari Lal, Nathu Singh, Durvijay Singh son of Dilaram, Satyendra Singh, Rakesh Singh, Collector Singh, Vijay Kumar Singh and Munna Khan :
|
| Conviction | Sentence | Fine |
| 01. | Under Section 302 read with 120-B I.P.C.; | Life imprisonment | Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lac) In default of payment of fine to undergo 1½ years additional simple imprisonment |
| 02. | Under Section 364 read with 120-B I.P.C. | 10 years R.I. | Rs.50,000/-. In default of payment of fine to undergo one year additional simple imprisonment. |
| 03. | Under Section 365 read with 120-B I.P.C. | 5 years R.I. | Rs.25,000/-. In default of payment of fine to undergo six months additional simple imprisonment. |
| 04. | Under Section 218 read with 120-B I.P.C. | 2 years R.I. | --- |
| 05. | Under Section 117 read with 120-B I.P.C. | 1 year R.I. | ---- |
Accused Harpal Singh son of Shri Bhim Sen, M.P. Vimal, R.K. Raghav, Veerpal Singh son of Mohindra Singh, Satyapal Singh, Surjeet Singh, Ramesh Chandra Bharti, M.C. Durgapal and Udai Pal Singh
|
| Conviction | Sentence | Fin |
The court upheld convictions for murder and conspiracy despite reliance on circumstantial evidence, finding sufficient connections through uncorroborated testimony and addressing potential political ....
The prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, and inconsistencies in witness testimonies can lead to the acquittal of the accused.
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
