Mahendra Singh @ Chottan VS State of U. P.

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, JJ.
Mahendra Singh @ Chottan – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.1712 of 2013
Decided on : 28-02-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Deepak Dubey, Kartikeya Saran, Om Prakash Dubey, Rajendra Prasad Dubey, Shailendra Singh, Sushil Kumar Dwivedi
For the Respondent:Govt. Advocate, Alok Ranjan Mishra, Arvind Kumar Mishra, Devendra Mishra, Gyan Prakash Mishra, Murtaza Ali

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302, 304, 404, 411; Arms Act - Section 25 - Conviction for murder altered from Section 302 to Section 304 Part I due to lack of motive and evidence of a sudden fight without premeditation - Accused fired revolver owned by the deceased, resulting in the latter's death - Prosecution witnesses, including close relatives, credibly testified the incident, but inconsistencies were noted regarding motive and evidence of grappling before shooting. (Paras 19, 45, 54).

Facts of the case:
The appellant was convicted of murder for killing his cousin who financed his expenses, during an altercation at a brick-kiln.

Issues: The court addressed whether there was a motive for the crime, the reliability of eyewitness testimony, and if the accused acted with premeditation.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the alleged motive was not substantiated, determining that the incident arose from a sudden quarrel.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that absence of motive does not undermine credible eyewitness accounts, affirming the principle that homicide could be classified under Section 304 when committed in a sudden fight.

Result: Conviction under Section 302 IPC modified to Section 304 Part I IPC; sentence adjusted to correspond with the new conviction.

Table of Content
1. overview of the incident leading to appeal (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. details of prosecution evidence and witness statements (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
3. identification and testimonies of eyewitnesses (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
4. court's reasoning on witness credibility and absence of motive (Para 20 , 26 , 30)
5. conclusion on legal standards applied to the case (Para 49 , 54 , 55)

JUDGMENT :

1. This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 30.3.2013, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Room No. 6, District Kaushambi in Sessions Trial No. 614 of 2009, State Vs. Mahendra Singh @ Chottan arising out of Case Crime No. 232 of 2009, under Sections 302 , 404, 411 IPC, Police Station – Pipari, District – Kaushambi and Sessions Trial No. 613 of 2009, State Vs. Mahendra Singh @ Chottan arising out of Case Crime No. 233 of 2009, under Sections 25 ARMS ACT , Police Station – Pipari, District - Kaushambi; whereby the appellant Mahendra Singh @ Chottan has been convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment along with fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default to undergo five months additional imprisonment; for the offence under Section 404 & 411 IPC rigorous imprisonment for three years alongwith fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default to undergo one month additional imprisonment, each, and for the offence under Section 25 ARMS ACT rigorous imprisonment for two years along with fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default to undergo one month additional imprisonment. All the sentences are directed to run concurrently.

2. Prosecution case, in brief, is that the informant’s elder brother Rambhawan Singh (deceased) was running a brickkiln and the accused appellant, who was his wife’s cousin, used to be with him and all his expenses were borne by the deceased. The deceased had a licensed revolver which he carried with him. On 11.8.2009, the deceased and accused both were at the brick-kiln and as it got late the informant (younger brother of the deceased) alongwith his nephew (son of the deceased) came to call the deceased to have his food at about 9.00 pm and saw that the appellant and deceased were grappling with each other. Suddenly the appellant took the licensed revolver of deceased, lying on the plank, and fired twice on the deceased and fled towards the east while hurling abuses. The deceased died on the spot and the incident was seen by chowkidars who were present at the spot. A written report of the incident was given to police by the first informant (Ext.Ka-1).

3. On the basis of the written report a first information report came to be registered (Ex. Ka. 16) and the investigation proceeded. The Investigating Officer reached the spot and recovered empty cartridge, mobile, watch and also collected bloodstained and plain soil. The inquest also followed. The inquest witnesses were of the view that the deceased died due to gunshot injury caused to the deceased. The dead body was sealed and sent to mortuary for postmortem. The postmortem of the deceased was conducted on 12.8.2009. The autopsy surgeon opined the cause of death to be shock and haemorrhage as a result of following ante-mortem gunshot injury:-

"1. Firearm entry wound at right chest 2 cm lateral to mid of sternum and 12 cm superio-medial to right nipple size of wound 0.75 dia meter x chest cavity deep abraded collar (charing) and inverted margin (edges).

2. Firearm exit wound at right side of back of chest at mid scapular line, 6 cm below lower border of scapula size of wound 1 cm in muscle deep margin averted and bleeding to firearm wound no. (1).

3. Firearm entry wound at left chest 3 cm lateral to mid of sternum and 10 cm superio-medial to left nipple size of wound 0.5 cm dia meter to chest cavity deep abraded collar and inverted edge.

4. One metallic cylindrical bullet (1.3 cm length and 0.7 cm dia meter) recovered from right side of back of chest at mid scapular region 2.5 cm below to lower border of scapula, from muscle deep.”

4. The acc