The conviction under Section 307 IPC requires proof of intent to cause death, not necessarily severe injuries; intent can be inferred from circumstances and actions during the incident.

JUDGMENT :

ANISH KUMAR GUPTA, J.

1. Heard Sri Kamal Krishna, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Prakhar Saran Srivastava, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant nos. 1 & 4, Sri K.P.S. Yadav, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant nos. 5, 6 & 9, Sri Vijay Shantam, Amicus Curiae and Sri Satendra Nath Tiwari, learned A.G.A. for the State-Respondent.

2. The instant criminal appeal has been filed by the appellants being aggrieved by the judgement and order dated 16.08.1985 whereby the Appellant No.1, Pargan Singh, Appellant no.2, Ram Murat Singh @ Sheo Murat Singh, Appellant No.3, Doctor Singh, Appellant No.4, Mangala Singh, Appellant No.5, Raj Nath Yadava, Appellant No.6, Sheshnath, Appellant No.7, Naresh, Appellant No.8, Ram Briksh, Appellant No.9, Param Hans, Appellant No.10, Amar Deo, Appellant No.11, Sobran, Appellant No.12, Bhorick and Appellant No.13, Bhukhal were convicted for the offences under Section 30 7 read with Section 149 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo ten years' rigorous imprisonment. The Appellant No. 13, Bhukal was also convicted for the offence under Section 147 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment. The Appellant No.1, Pargan Singh, Appellant No.2, Ram Murat Singh alias Shio Murat Singh, Appellant No.3, Doctor Singh, Appellant No.4, Mangala Singh, Appellant No.5, Raj Nath Yadava, Appellant No. 6, Shesh Nath, Appellant No. 7, Naresh, Appellant No.8, Ram Briksh, Appellant No.9, Param Hans, Appellant No.10, Amar Deo, Appellant No.11, Sobran and Appellant No.12, Bhorick were also convicted for the offences under Section 148 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo two years' rigorous imprisonment. The Appellant No.14, Bhadra Narain Singh, who was found guilty for the offence under Section 30 of the ARMS ACT , was sentenced to undergo two months' imprisonment.

3. During the pendency of the appeal, Appellants No. 3, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 had died and the appeal on their behalf was abated. The Appellant No. 2, Ram Murat alias Shio Murat Singh has also died. An application on behalf of the legal representatives (LRs) of the Appellant No.2 was moved under Section 394 Cr.P.C., which was allowed by this Court vide order dated 19.08.2025 and his LRs were permitted to contest the conviction of the Appellant No.2 and the said LRs were represented by the Amicus Curiae appointed by this Court.

4. Briefly stated prosecution story is that the informant as well as the appellants herein were residents of Village- Barhan, Police Station- Dhina, District Varanasi. The informant, Ram Saneshi Yadav was the owner in possession of a chak in the North of the village. Adjoining the chak of Ram Saneshi there was an Abadi land. As per the allegations made by the prosecution on 28.02.1982, at about 3:00 P.M, the Appellant No.12, Bhukhal and Appellant No.13, Bhorick respectively, were digging the foundation for raising construction of their house. The informant and others stopped Bhukhal and his son Bhorick from raising the construction and asked them to let there be a proper measurement before the construction of the house. Upon this, said Bhukhal and Bhorick stopped their work and went to the village, and thereafter, Lallan Singh, Pargan Singh, Ram Murat Singh armed with guns, Doctor Singh, Mangala Singh, Rajnath, Sheshnath, Naresh Yadava and Ram Briksh, armed with Ballams (spears), and Param Hans, Amar Deo, Sobran and Bhorick armed Gandasaas and Bhukhal with lathi, having formed a common object, reached there and abused them and told that the construction of the house would be raised. Upon which, Chandr