Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(All) 744

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN, RAM MANOHAR NARAYAN MISHRA, JJ.
Shankar @ Daddi And Another - Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 2325 Of 2010, Criminal Appeal No. 2295 Of 2010, Criminal Appeal No. 3127 of 2010, Criminal Appeal No. 3013 of 2010
Decided On : 09-05-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : Rakesh Kumar Mishra, Sanyukta Singh A.C., Ashwini Kumar Ojha, Anshul Tiwari, Premnendra Singh.
For the Respondent:Govt. Advocate, A.K. Tripathi.

IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment establishes that mere participation in a crime is not sufficient for conviction under Section 34 IPC; there must be evidence of common intention and active participation in the commission of the crime.

Headnote:
CRIMINAL LAW - MURDER AND CONSPIRACY - IPC SECTIONS 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 379, 411 - The court discussed the provisions of IPC Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, and 307, which pertain to unlawful assembly, rioting, and murder. The interpretation of Section 149 was crucial, as it establishes liability for all members of an unlawful assembly for acts committed in furtherance of a common intention. The court emphasized the need for a pre-arranged plan and common intention among the accused, which influenced the decision to convict some while acquitting others based on the evidence presented.
Fact of the Case:
The case involves the murder of Rajbhan Singh, who was shot and attacked by a group of individuals led by Santosh Singh and Shankar Yadav, stemming from a personal enmity related to a previous murder. The incident occurred when Rajbhan was returning home, and he was ambushed by the accused, resulting in his death and injuries to his wife, Basant Raja.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution had established the guilt of Santosh Singh and Shankar Yadav beyond a reasonable doubt, supported by eyewitness accounts and medical evidence. However, it found insufficient evidence to convict the other accused, Toran Yadav, Bhan Singh, and Ballu alias Balak Das, as their involvement was not proven.
Issues: The main issues were whether the accused were guilty of murder and conspiracy under the IPC, and whether the evidence presented was sufficient to establish their common intention and participation in the crime.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that for a conviction under Section 34 IPC, there must be clear evidence of common intention and participation in the crime. The presence of eyewitnesses and the medical evidence corroborated the prosecution's case against some accused, while the lack of such evidence for others led to their acquittal.
Final Decision: The appeals of Santosh Singh, Shankar Yadav, Kalloo alias Kalyan Singh, and Raghubir Yadav were dismissed, affirming their convictions. However, the appeals of Toran Yadav, Bhan Singh, and Ballu alias Balak Das were allowed, leading to their acquittal due to insufficient evidence of their involvement.

JUDGMENT :

(Arvind Singh Sangwan, J.)

1. These appeals have been filed against the judgment of conviction dated 16.03.2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C. 1st, Lalitpur in Sessions Trial No. 25 of 2009 arising out of Case Crime No. 356 of 2008, under Section 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 379, 411 IPC, Police Station – Poorakala, District – Lalitpul vide which all the appellants namely (1) Santosh Singh (2) Kalloo alias Kalyan Singh (3) Shankar alias Daddi (4) Ballu alias Balak Das (5) Toran Yadav (6) Rabuvir Yadav and (7) Bhan Singh have been found guilty of offence punishable under Section 147, 148, 302/149 IPC read with Section 149, 307/149 IPC and additionally accused Shankar alias Daddi was held guilty under Section 379 and 411 IPC and the order of sentence dated 17.3.2010 vide which, appellants were directed to undergo substantive sentence of life imprisonment under Section 302/149 IPC with fine of Rs. 10,000/- each, further ten years’ rigorous imprisonment under Section 307/149 IPC with fine of Rs.30,000/- each, and one year sentence under Section 147 and 148 IPC each. Shankar alias Daddi was additionally awarded two years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 500/- under Section 379/411 of IPC and in default of payment of fine, they have to undergo two years more rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

2. Trial Court’s record is received and paper books are ready. With the help of all the learned counsels for the appellants Sri Sita Ram Patel and Sri Anshul Tiwari and learned A.G.A. for the State, the entire evidence is re-scrutinized and re-appreciated.

3. As per prosecution version, the informant-Bhoori Raja gave a complaint that she is resident of village Chaubara, Police Station – Poora Kala, District – Lalitpur, Her son, Rajbhan Singh alias Baderaja, was having enmity with Santosh Singh and Shankar Yadav who are residents of the same village. Her son had gone to meet his Advocate at Jhansi on a motorcycle about two years ago and he was returning back from Jhansi at about 3:30 pm and while passing near to the Hanuman Temple of the village, Santosh Singh, Bhan Singh and Kalloo @ Kalyan Singh who were on another motorcycle, driven by Santosh Singh had followed and encircled her son Rajbhan Singh. From the other side of the village, Shankar Yadav, Ballu Yadav, Toran Yadav and Raghubir Yadav, carrying axe and country made pistol, came there. Santosh Singh was carrying rifle and opened fire on her son Rajbhan Singh who fell down. Thereafter Shankar Yadav also opened fire on him with his rifle and other accused, in conspiracy with each other, attacked the son of the complainant with their weapon and gave multiple strokes and her son died at the spot. The informant alongwith her daughter-in-law, Rajju, Mulayam Singh and Mohan, resident of village, reached on the spot. Her daughter-in-law lie down on the body of her husband to save him and Santosh Singh also fired on her and she suffered bullet injury on her thigh. While running away the accused-Shankar Yadav took away the red colour “Apache - motorcycle” of her son. She took her daughter-in-law to the hospital and then came to the police station to register the F.I.R..

4. On the written complaint (Ex-ka-1) , Chick FIR No. 41/08 (Ex-Ka- 7) under Section 147, 148, 149,302, 307, 379 IPC and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, was registered at 17:15 pm on 24.7.2008. The same was entered vide report No. 21 (Ex-Ka-8) on 24.7.2008 at about 17:15 pm. Thereafter the Inquest/Panchayatnama of the dead body was conducted. Sub Inspector Ghasi Ram reached at the spot and completed Panchayatnama and through constables Jai Prakash and Babulal, the dead body was sent for postmortem and From the place of occurrence bloodstained earth was recovered. Near the dead body of Rajbhan Singh, one brass empty cartridge and three cartridges of small size were recovered in presence of the witnesses and taken in possession vide recovery memo the other do