SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(All) 908

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
HON'BLE ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN, HON'BLE RAM MANOHAR NARAYAN MISHRA, JJ.
Subedar - Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 2798 of 1988
Decided On : 30-05-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Malik Sayeed Uddin, C.K. Jha, Dilip Kumar Kesharwani, Prem Prakash.

IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that under Section 302 IPC, a conviction for murder can be sustained when there is clear evidence of a premeditated attack by multiple individuals acting in concert, even if one individual did not inflict the fatal injury.

Headnote:

MURDER - CONVICTION UNDER IPC - Section 302, Section 34 IPC - The court discussed the provisions of Section 302 IPC, which pertains to punishment for murder, and Section 34 IPC, which addresses acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention. The court interpreted these sections to establish that both accused acted with a premeditated intention to kill, with one using a firearm and the other using a blunt weapon, thus justifying the conviction under these sections.

JUDGMENT :

(Arvind Singh Sangwan, J.) :

1. Present appeal is filed challenging the judgment of conviction dated 3.12.1988 vide which accused-Subedar and Buddhu were convicted for offence punishable under Section 302/34 of IPC and the order of sentence dated 5.12.1988, vide which they were sentenced to life imprisonment.

2. It is worth noticing that this Court vide judgment dated 6.4.2017 dismissed the appeal of appellant-Subedar noticing that appellant-Buddhu had died somewhere in the year 1999 and no one represented appellant-Subedar. The appeal was heard without affording opportunity of hearing to the appellant. Thereafter, appellant-Subedar filed SLP (Criminal ) No.6684 of 2020 which was later on converted into Criminal Appeal No.886 of 2020 in which, noticing the fact that the appellant was not afforded opportunity, the case was remanded back to this Court by the Supreme Court with a direction to dispose of the appeal expeditiously.

3. Heard Sri Shravan Kumar Yadav, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant and learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent.

4. With the assistance of learned counsel for the parties, the entire evidence is re-scrutinized and re-appreciated.

5. The facts as stated by the informant in the complaint given on 4.4.1987 are as under:

    “In the night, I along with my wife-Roopdevi and children was sleeping in the house. At about 2.00 am, on hearing the voice of barking dog, I woke up and found that from the side of a broken door, 3-4 persons were standing. When in the light of the torch, I asked them, one Buddhu resident of Kasumara and Subedar resident of Murab were seen. They were carrying country made pistol. Buddhu fired upon me which hit on my stomach and other accused gave me lathi blows. On raising voice, my neighbour Rameshwar Singh and Kallu Singh came and on seeing them, these persons ran away by challenging me.”

6. On the basis this complaint, Chik F.I.R. was registered by Head Moharrir-Israr Ali at Case Crime No.80, under Section 307 IPC at Police Station- Aonla, District-Bareilly on 04.04.1987 at 04.30 A.M. The chik report is Ex.Ka.7. On the basis of chik report, a case was registered at G.D. No.3 on 04.04.1987 against the accused. Copy of GD entry is Exhibit Ka-8.

7. The case was initially registered under Section 307 I.P.C. The injured was sent to Primary Health Centre at Aonla for treatment and medical examination. Dr. Raj Kumar P.W.4 M.O. examined the injuries of Vedpal Singh on 4.4.1987 at 5.45 A.M. and prepared his injury Ex.Ka.4 The doctor found the following injuries on the person of the injured:-

    1. A gunshot wound 1 cm x 1 cm x cavity deep left side of chest 14 cm below left nipple. This wound is surrounded by gunshot burns in an area of 5 cm x 4 cm. This injury is kept under observation and x-ray advised.

2. Lacerated wound 1.5 cm x 0.1 cm x muscle deep left side forehead 5 cm above left eyebrow.

3. Contusion 1 cm x 1 cm on right side skull 6 cm above right ear.

4. No any other visible injury seen but only complaint of pain all over the body.

8. In the opinion of the doctor, Injury no.1, could be caused by firearm, was kept under observation. X-ray was advised. The injury nos.2 and 3 were simple and could be caused by blunt weapon.

9. The injured Vedpal Singh was referred to District Hospital, Bareilly for conducting x-ray of his injury no.1 and further treatment where Dr. S.P. Singh M.O. District Hospital, Bareilly P.W.6 attended to him. But in the meantime, Vedpal Singh succumbed to his injuries on 4.4.1987 at 8.45 A.M. in the District Hospital, Bareilly.

10. The postmortem on the dead body of the deceased was conducted by Dr. S.P. Singh P.W.6 vide postmortem report Ex.Ka.6 The Doctor found the following ante-mortem injuries on the dead body of the deceased:-

    1. Lacerated wound 1 cm x 1 cm x scalp left side forehead 8 cm above eyebrow.

2. Three abrasions in an area of 8 cm x 6 cm on the back of left shoulder joint upper part.

3. Abrasion 3 cm x ½ cm on the top of the right shoulder joint.

    Click Here to Read the rest of this document
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    11
    SupremeToday Portrait Ad
    supreme today icon
    logo-black

    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

    qr

    Scan Me!

    India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

    For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

    whatsapp-icon Back to top