SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

MONU – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF U.P – Respondent
CRLA 1813/2014



Advocates:
['VIKRANT RANA', '', 'PRADEEP KUMAR', 'GAJENDRA KUMAR GAUTAM', 'GOVT ADVOCATE']

1.

Reserved

AFR

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1813 of 2014

Appellant :- Monu

Respondent :- State of U.P.

Counsel for Appellant :- Vikrant Rana, Gajendra Kumar Gautam,

Pradeep Kumar

Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate

Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.

Hon'ble Om Prakash Tripathi, J.

(Per Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.)

The accused appellant has filed the instant appeal assailing the

judgment and order dated 7.04.2014 and 11.04.2014, passed by

Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No.4, Ghaziabad in S.T.

No.1408 of 2006 convicting him under Section 302 IPC and awarding

rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.50,000/- and in default in

payment thereof, to three years additional simple imprisonment and

under Section 506 IPC to seven years rigorous imprisonment and fine

of Rs.20,000/- and in default in payment thereof, to ten months

additional simple imprisonment and in Sessions Trial No.1409 of 2006

under Section 25 (1) (b) of the Arms Act, to three years rigorous

imprisonment and fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default in payment

thereof, additional simple imprisonment of six months.

According to the prosecution case, on 13.6.2006 at about 10:30

p.m., accused Monu (appellant) and Khalid, neighbours of the victim

Manju Sharma came to her house while she was sitting on a cot

2.

alongwith her daughter Komal (PW-1) on the open terrace. Her mother

Sheela and brother Yogesh and Nitin were in the courtyard. Monu had

some talk with her. After about five minutes, he took out pistol

(tamancha) from his pocket and fired at the victim from the back side.

While his accomplice co-accused Khalid, who was carrying some

object made of iron, hit her on the head and hand several times. Her

daughter Komal (PW-1/complainant), who had witnessed the incident,

raised alarm and whereupon both of them escaped through the staircase

brandishing the tamancha and threatening Yogesh and Nitin (brothers

of the victim) and Smt. Sheela (mother of the victim) to kill them if

they come in their way. The accused were duly identified in the moon

light and light of lantern, as they live in the neighbourhood and the

complainant (Komal) had known them since her childhood. Her mother

was rushed to Jeevan Hospital by her maternal uncle. The victim was

later shifted to Narendra Mohan Hospital and thereafter to Jang

Bahadur Hospital, Delhi where she succumbed to her injuries and died

on 14.06.2006 at 4:10 p.m. A first information report relating to the

incident was got registered by Komal on 13.06.2006 under Sections

307, 506 IPC as Crime Case No.227 of 2006. Later on offence was

converted to Section 302 IPC. The accused surrendered in court on

26.06.2006. On 04.07.2006, the court allowed police remand of 24

hours. On the same day, the police, on pointing out of the accused,

3.

recovered a country made pistol (tamancha) of 315 bore, 3 live

cartridges – 315 bore and an iron handle of hand-pump. The Police,

after investigation, submitted charge sheet under Sections 302 and 506

IPC. The Chief Judicial Magistrate by order dated 14.9.2006 committed

the trial to the Court of Sessions and it came to be registered as S.T.

No.409 of 2006. By order dated 3.7.2007, the trial court declared co-

accused Khalid as juvenile and he was tried separately by the Juvenile

court.

During course of investigation of Crime Case No.227 of 2006, a

separate case bearing No.270 of 2006 was registered against the

appellant under Section 25 of the Arms Act on basis of recovery of a

country made pistol of 315 bore and three live cartridges 315 bore on

4.7.2006. The police, after investigation, submitted a charge sheet. The

Chief Judicial Magistrate by order dated 14.9.2006 forwarded the

charge sheet to the Court of Sessions, where it came to be registered as

S.T. No.1408 of 2006. Both the cases were tried together and have been

decided by common judgment impugned herein.

During course of trial, the prosecution exa

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