IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Siddhartha Varma, Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi, JJ.
Rajjan - Appellant
Vs.
State of U.P. - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. - 2135 Of 1983
Decided On : 19-05-2025
JUDGMENT :
Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi, J.
1. This criminal appeal has been preferred on behalf of the accused namely Rajjan against the judgment and order of conviction and of sentence dated 06.09.1983 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge IV, Court No.1, Etawah, in Sessions Trial No. 341/1981 (State of U.P. versus Rajjan), arising out of Case Crime No.75/1978 Police Station- Dibiyapur, District Etawah, whereby the appellant was convicted for offence punishable under Section 302 /149 of Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life, 323/149 of Indian Penal Code for causing simple hurt and was also convicted for offence punishable under Section 147 Indian Penal Code.
2. The accused was challaned by the police of Dibiyapur police station for committing the offence punishable under sections 302/149, 323/149 & 147 of IPC . The case was committed to the Sessions Court for trial.
3. The allegation against the accused is that Rajjan along with Babu Ram, Vedprakash, Balveer and 7/8 other companions formed an unlawful assembly at Brahmadev fair in village Jamauli, Police Station Dibiyapur, District Etawah on 23.4.78, with their common object to murder Murli Prasad and to injure other persons namely Ramprakash, Horilal, Kanhaiyalal and Rampratap. In furtherance of their common object, they caused several injuries by Lathi on Murli Prasad, as a result of which he died. They also caused injuries to Ramprakash, Rampratap, Horilal, Kanhaiyalal with Lathi. Thus, case under the varioius provisions of Indian Penal Code was registered against the accused/appellant-Rajjan. Thereafter, charges were framed for committing punishable offence under Sections 302 /149, 323/149 & 147 of the Indian Penal Code.
4. The co-accused Balbir, Ved Prakash and Babu Ram were separately tried, convicted and punished vide the judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, dated 08.06.1981, against which they filed separate appeal having Criminal Appeal No.1346 of 1981.
5. The present appellant namely Rajjan was tried for the same offence in a separate sessions trial being Sessions Trial No. 341 of 1981 that resulted into conviction vide the impugned judgment and order dated 06.09.1983 giving rise to the present appeal.
6. The prosecution's case was initiated by one Ummed Prasad, resident of village Deo Rai Ka Purwa, police station; Dibiyapur, District- Etawah, who was the informant of the incident. Smt. Jal Devi and Maan Singh, are niece and nephew, respectively, of the informant. Smt. Jal Devi was married to Ved Prakash who deserted her and was not maintaining her. On the day of incident, i.e, 23.4.1978 Smt. Jal Devi alongwith her brother Man Singh had gone to see a fair held in village Jhamauli at about 2.00 P.M. When they reached near a mango orchard, they found Ved Prakash, Balbir, Babu Ram and 8/9 other persons present there. All of them were armed with lathis and short staffs, and they surrounded them. They, in fact, caught hold of the hand of Smt. Jal Devi and tried to drag her. Finding them in peril both of them shouted. Resultantly, Ram Prakash, Hori Lal, Ram Pratap, Kahaiya Lal, Murli Prasad and the informant (Ummed Prasad) who too had gone there to see the fair reached to the scene of occurrence. When they tried to intervene, they were also assaulted by Ved Prakash and others. Murli Prasad became unconscious due to the injuries sustained by him. However, when the accused persons tried to flee away from the spot the villagers caught hold of Babu Ram on the spot. However, his other accomplices succeeded in escaping their arrest. Thereafter, Murli Prasad was sent to the police station on a bullock cart while the informant- Ummed Prasad, Ram Prakash, Hori Lal, Kanhaiya Lal and Ram Pratap alongwith apprehended accused Babu Ram followed him on foot to the Police Station Dibiyapur where Ummed Prasad got a report scribed with the assistance of one Hari Babu and thereafter lodged the same at the police station at 6.05 P.M. on 23.04.197
The distinction between intention and knowledge is critical in determining culpability for homicide, impacting the charge from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
The court held that the accused committed culpable homicide not amounting to murder due to the absence of premeditated intent to kill amidst a sudden quarrel, justifying a conviction under Section 30....
(1) Intention of a person cannot be proved by direct evidence but is to be deduced from the facts and circumstances of a case – ‘Intent’ and ‘knowledge’ cannot be equated with each other – They conno....
The court clarified that in cases of mutual fights, absence of premeditated intent necessitates a conviction under Section 304 Part-II, reflecting knowledge rather than intent to kill.
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.