IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Siddhartha Varma, Anish Kumar Gupta, JJ.
Rakesh Singh And Another - Appellant
Vs.
State of U.P. - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 4854, 4607, 5209, 5734 of 2016
Decided On : 11-04-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the prosecution case and injuries sustained. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 2. defense arguments against the prosecution's case. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 3. court's analysis on unlawful assembly and common object. (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34) |
| 4. prosecution evidence supports conviction. (Para 36) |
| 5. conclusion affirming conviction and sentencing. (Para 37 , 38 , 39) |
JUDGMENT :
Anish Kumar Gupta, J.
1. Heard Sri Ashok Kumar Tripathi and Sri Shashank Singh, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri Shubham Kumar holding brief of Sri Ashish Goyal, learned counsel for the informant and the learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. All these appeals have been filed by the appellants being aggrieved by the judgement and order dated 11.08.2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 5, Shahjahanpur in Sessions Trial No. 548 of 1997 & Sessions Trial No. 222 of 1998, whereby all the appellants herein have been convicted for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149/307 and 149/302 I.P.C. For the offence under Section 147 I.P.C. they were sentenced for two years of imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each, for the offence under Section 148 I.P.C., three years imprisonment with fine of Rs. 5,000/- each, for the offence under Sections 149/307 I.P.C., all the appellants were sentenced for life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 25,000/- each and for the offence under Sections 149/302 I.P.C. all the appellants were sentenced for life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 30,000/- each. In case of non payment of fine for the offence under Sections 147 and 148 I.P.C., they were directed to undergo six months’ additional imprisonment in addition to the sentence already awarded.
3. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that the informant- Narendra Pal Singh s/o Fakire Singh, had submitted a written report on 18.05.1997 at around 1:00 A.M. at P.S.- Nigohi, District- Shahjahanpur, stating therein that on 17.05.1997 at around 6:30 P.M., the accused Jangbahadur Singh, Rajkumar Singh, Devendra Singh who were equipped with guns, accused Jaipal Singh who was armed with a single barrel gun, Anil Kumar Singh who was armed with a double barrel gun, Vijay Kumar Singh who was armed with a countrymade pistol, Omprakash Singh, Nanku Singh, Rajkumar Singh, Rakesh Singh, Rajendra @ Gajendra Singh, Dangal Singh who were all armed with single barrel gun and Veer Singh was again having a gun, were drinking liquor and abusing each other while passing through the informant’s chaupal. When the informant and his family members objected to their behaviour, the aforesaid persons opened fire because of which Fakire Singh, Smt. Hira Kunwari Devi, Jhinak Singh, Nepal Singh, Rajkumar Singh, Prem Pal Singh sustained fire arm injuries. The informant- Nagendra Pal Singh had stated in the written report that he brought the injured persons in a tractor trolley to the police station and requested for lodging the report and taking appropriate legal action.
4. On the aforesaid written report submitted by the informant- Nagendra Pal Singh s/o deceased- Fakire Singh, an F.I.R. was registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 504 I.P.C. and also under Section 27 of the Arms Act against the accused appellants, namely Devendra Singh s/o Jangbahadur Singh, Omprakash Singh s/o Jagdish Singh, Rajendra @ Gajendra Singh s/o Kanhai Singh, Rakesh Singh s/o Rameshwar Singh, Rajkumar s/o Nanku Singh, Rajkumar s/o Jangbahadur Singh, Anil Kumar Singh s/o Jaipal Singh, Vijay Kumar Singh s/o Jagdish Singh, Nanku Singh s/o Mangoo Singh, Kanhai Singh s/o Pulander Singh, Dangal Singh s/o Visni Singh, Jaipal, Veer Singh and Jangbahadur s/o Zoravar Singh. On the basis of the letter of reference of the police station, medical examination of the injured persons was conducted at Government Hospital, Nigohi, District- Shahjahanpur.
5. As per the medical examination report dated 19.05.1997 at 10:30 A.M. the following injuries were
Haramant Laxmappa Kukkadi v. State of Karnataka
The court affirmed the conviction of the appellants under sections 147, 148, 149/307, and 149/302 IPC, establishing that they formed an unlawful assembly with a common object to cause harm, leading t....
The prosecution must prove the formation of an unlawful assembly and the shared common object beyond reasonable doubt, and essential witnesses must be produced to unfold the narrative.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 149 IPC to determine the common object of the unlawful assembly and the vicarious liability of the accused, as well as t....
The evidence must establish a premeditated intent to commit murder and the existence of an unlawful assembly with the common object of committing murder to support a conviction for murder under Secti....
Point of Law : Unlawful assembly – Common object - No doubt section 149 IPC is wide in its sweep but in fixing the membership of the unlawful assembly and in inferring the common object various circu....
Prosecution must establish shared common object and active participation of accused in unlawful assembly for conviction under IPC; mere presence is insufficient.
The prosecution must establish a common object for unlawful assembly under Section 149 IPC; absence of motive and specific allegations can lead to acquittal.
The court established that in cases of unlawful assembly, all members can be held vicariously liable for the actions taken in furtherance of a common object, and that the prosecution's failure to exp....
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.