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) 814

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta, Hon'ble Shiv Shanker Prasad, JJ.
Nanhak And Ors. – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. -467 of 1983, Government Appeal No. -1361 of 1983
Decided On : 17-05-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Palok Basu, Saurabh Basu, A.G.A.
For the Respondent: A.G.A., S.P. Singh, Saurabh Basu

The court clarified that participation in an unlawful assembly does not require each member to commit an overt act, and distinguished between intention and knowledge in culpable homicide cases.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 147, 302, 304, 325, 323, and 426 - Criminal appeal and government appeal against conviction and acquittal - Conviction under Sections 147, 325/149, 323/149, and 426/149 IPC upheld, while acquittal under Section 302/149 IPC reversed - Court found that the accused formed an unlawful assembly and assaulted the victim, leading to his death from a single fatal injury - The trial court's finding of conviction under Section 325/149 IPC was deemed incorrect, and the offence was reclassified under Section 304 (Part II) IPC. (Paras 36, 45, 81)

(B) Unlawful assembly - Definition and implications - The court emphasized that it is not necessary for each member of an unlawful assembly to have committed an overt act to be convicted under Section 149 IPC. (Paras 49, 50)

(C) Intention vs. Knowledge - The court distinguished between intention and knowledge in the context of culpable homicide and murder, concluding that the accused acted with knowledge likely to cause death but without intent to kill. (Paras 78, 79)

Facts of the case:
The appellants were convicted for assaulting the victim Ramdev, who died from injuries sustained during the incident involving a dispute over mangoes. The trial court acquitted them of murder charges, which the government appealed.

Findings of Court:
The court found the appellants guilty of unlawful assembly and culpable homicide not amounting to murder, altering their conviction from Section 325/149 IPC to Section 304 (Part II)/149 IPC.

Issues: The main issues included whether the trial court's acquittal under Section 302/149 IPC was justified and the nature of the injuries inflicted.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the appellants acted as part of an unlawful assembly with a common object to assault, and the single fatal injury did not negate their culpability under Section 304 IPC.

Result: Appeals dismissed; conviction altered to Section 304 (Part II)/149 IPC.

JUDGMENT :

Hon’ble Rajiv Gupta, J.

1. Heard Shri Saurabh Basu, learned counsel for the appellants, Shri Purshottam Upadhyay, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

2. The instant criminal appeal as well as government appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 18.02.1983 passed by 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Mirzapur in Sessions Trial No. 134 of 1981 (State of U.P. Vs. Nanhak and 4 Others), arising out of Case Crime No. 109 of 1979, Police Station Kotwali Dehat, District Mirzapur, by which the appellants have been convicted for the offence under Section 147 IPC and awarded the sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment, under Section 325/149 IPC and awarded the sentence of five years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.500/-, under Section 323/149 IPC and awarded the sentence of six months imprisonment with a fine of Rs.500/-and under Section 426/149 IPC and awarded the fine of Rs.50/-with default stipulations.

3. Apart from the aforesaid criminal appeal, State of U.P. has also preferred a government appeal against the said judgment and order with the prayer to reverse the acquittal of the accused-appellants under Section 302/149 IPC and convict them for the said offence.

4. During the pendency of the aforesaid appeals, accused-appellants Purshottam and Hira Lal have passed away and as such, criminal appeal as well as government appeal, qua the said accused persons, has been dismissed as abated.

5. Since both the appeals arise from the same judgment and order, they are being taken up together and disposed of by a common judgment.

6. Shorn of unnecessary details, the prosecution case is unravelled in the written report lodged by one Ramdev, which was registered vide Case Crime No. 109 of 1979, under Sections 147, 149, 307, 325, 426 IPC, Police Station Kotwali Dehat, District Mirzapur registered vide G.D. Report No. 21. The written report, on the basis of which, chik FIR has been registered, has been marked as Exhibit Ka-1, prepared by PW-10 Juit Ram at the relevant date and time.

7. The allegations made in the FIR are that first informant Ramdev is a permanent resident of Village Mahkuchhwa, Police Station Kotwali Dehat, District Mirzapur. It is further stated that on 08.05.1979, accused Nanhak had cut the Bamboo belonging to Khetal and this fact was disclosed to Khetal by the first informant Ramdev, consequent to which, Nanhak got angry with Ramdev and threatened to teach him a lesson.

8. It is further stated that on 09.05.1979 at about 6:00 PM, when the first informant Ramdev was guarding his mango crop, which he had purchased from one Ram Khelawan, accused persons Nanhak, Purshottam, Hira Lal, Baul and Bihari, armed with lathi danda, reached there and started, felling mangoes and further hurled abuses to Ramdev. On being resisted not to abuse and pluck the mangoes, Hira Lal exhorted the accused persons to assault and kill the first informant Ramdev. On his exhortation, all the assailants with a common object, started assaulting Ramdev with lathi danda. On alarm being raised, Khetal, Sukhdev, Shiv Kumari and many other persons rushed to rescue Ramdev, however, the assailants started assaulting them also, consequent to which, Khetal, Sukhdev and Shiv Kumari received injuries. On alarm being raised, the assailants made their escape good.

9. On the basis of the said allegations, the first informant/ injured Ramdev got a written report scribed by one Lallan (PW-4) and reached the Police Station and handed over the said written report to the Head Moharrir Juit Ram (PW-10), who, on the basis of the said written report, lodged the chik FIR, which has been proved and marked as Exhibit Ka-18. Corresponding G.D. Report No.21 was also drawn, which has been proved and marked as Exhibit Ka 21. Khetal, Sukhdev and Shiv Kumari, who also received injuries in the said incident, had reached the Police Station alongwith Ramdev, who was also an injured and their Chitthi Majroobi was prepared, which has been proved and mark

    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