IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
KAUSHAL JAYENDRA THAKER, SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, JJ.
Narendra and Another - Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 6870 of 2007 with Criminal Appeal No. 6869 of 2007
Decided On : 15-05-2023
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 506 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 313 – Criminal Appeal – Default of payment of fine – Offence of murder – Attempt to murder – Challenging judgment – Held, However, taking into account fact that altercation took place between accused-appellants and deceased along with injured P.W.-2 at time of watering field and there was no premeditation or planning of attack, as well as considering medical examination report of injured P.W.-2 and testimony of P.W.-6 who has medically examined him that though P.W. -6 has found 5 injuries on person of P.W.-2 but he has also opined that all injuries sustained by P.W.-2 were simple in nature, meaning thereby that blow of spade from which injury no.1 i.e. Incised wound 6.0 cm x 0.7 cm x muscle on back of left side chest 6.5 cm behind and below of left ear lobule updown, was inflicted was not severe in nature but was on vital part i.e. neck, injured/P.W.-2, custodial sentence undergone by accused-appellants, i.e. four and six months respectively would meet ends of justice – It is ordered accordingly – Fine imposed upon accused-appellants, each under Sections 307 read with Section 149 I.P.C. under impugned judgment is also discharged – Criminal appeals partly allowed.
JUDGMENT :
(Shiv Shanker Prasad, J.)
1. These two criminal appeals have been preferred by the accused-appellants-Raghnath, Satendra, Pappan, Narendra and Pappi challenging the judgment and order dated 25th September, 2007 passed by the Special Judge (E.C. Act), Meerut in Sessions Trial No. 862 of 2002 (State Vs. Narendra & Others), arising out of Case Crime No. 135 of 2002, under Sections 147, 148, 307, 302 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station-Jani, District-Meerut, whereby the accused-appellants, namely, Narendra and Pappi have been convicted under Sections 302, 147, 148 and 149 I.P.C., whereas accused-appellants, namely, Raghunath, Satendra and Pappan have been convicted under Sections 307, 147, 148, 149 I.P.C. and sentenced (i) the accused-appellants, namely, Narendra and Pappi to undergo life imprisonment under Section 302 read with Section 149 I.P.C. with fine of Rs. 10,000/ and further to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment under Sections 147 and 148 I.P.C.; (ii) accused-appellants namely, Raghunath, Satendra and Pappan to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment under Sections 307 read with Section 149 I.P.C. with fine of Rs.5,000/-and further to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment under Sections 147 and 148 I.P.C. with an observations that all sentences were to run concurrently and in default of payment of fine, all the accused-appellants are to further undergo one months additional imprisonment.
2. We have heard Mr. Noor Mohammad and Mr. Irshad Mohammad, learned counsel for the accused-appellants and Mr. N.K. Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State as also perused the material available on record.
3. Since the basic facts and legal question of issues are same in both these appeals, they have been clubbed and heard together and are being decided by means of this common judgment treating the Criminal Appeal No. 6870 of 2007 (Narendra & Another VS. State of U.P.) to be the leading case.
4. Records of the present criminal appeals reveal that on the written report (Exhibit-ka/4) dated 18th May, 2002 of the informant-P.W.-4, namely, Krishna Pal Singh, a first information report ( Exhibit-ka/9) was registered as Case Crime No. 135 of 2002 under Sections 147, 148, 307, 302 and 506 I.P.C. on 18th May, 2002 at 12:30 p.m. against five accused persons, namely, Narendra @ Kallan, Satendra @ Billu, Pappi, Raghunath and Pappan alleging therein that his brothers Ravindra Kumar and Vinod went to their field on tractor at about 6:00 am. in the morning as it was their turn for irrigation. However, when they arrived at their field, they saw that Narendra @ Kallan, Satendra @ Billu, Pappi, Raghunath and Pappan resident of village Bafar, P.S.Jani, District Meerut, were already watering their field. Ravindra asked the accused-appellants to give water because it was his turn on which all accused persons got annoyed and exhorted to finish him as he often disputed for water for the purpose of irrigating his field. The accused-appellants Narendra @ Kallan and Pappi hit the neck of Ravindra Kumar with spades resulting into his instant death. The accused-appellants Raghunath and Satendra caught hold of another brother of the informant, namely, Vinod and the accused-appellant Pappan inflicted one spade injury on the neck of Vinod. This incident was seen by Sheeshpal and Brijpal, who were working on their fields along with other people, who were coming and going from there. This incident took place on 18/5/2002 at about 11:30 a.m.. The dead body of brother of the informant, namely, Ravindra was lying on the spot.
5. After lodging of the said first information report, the inquest (panchayatnama) (Exhibit-Ka/2) of the deceased Ravindra was conducted by P.W.-5 Sub-Inspector Sanjeev Singh Rathaur. In the opinion of the Panch (Inquest) witnesses, the death of the deceased was on account of injuries caused to the deceased on his body. Thereafter the dead body of the deceased was sealed and sent to Mortuary for post-mortem.
6. Dr. Ashok Kumar Dua (P.W.-
Arjun & Another etc. etc. Vs. State of Chhatishgarh reported in 2017 0 Supreme(SC) 152
Ram Kumar Madhusudan Pathak vs. State of Gujurat
Arulvelu & Anr. Vs. State Rep. By the Public Prosecutor & Anr.
Ram Nath Nonia vs. State of Bihar reported in 1999 0 Supreme (Pat) 778
Surinder Kumar Vs. Union Territory of Chandigarh
Arumugam Vs. State, Represented by Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu
The court established that actions taken in a sudden fight without premeditation can lead to a conviction under Section 304 IPC instead of Section 302 IPC.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the application of the Fourth Exception of Section 300 IPC, considering the absence of premeditation, sudden fight, and influence of intoxicatio....
The accused committed murder with the use of deadly weapons and there was no sudden fight or quarrel as envisaged in Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC.
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.