SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
N.L. UNTWALIA AND P.N. SHINGHAL, JJ.
State of U.P., Appellant
Versus
Mohammad Musheer Khan and others, Respondents.
Criminal Appeal No. 286 of 1975,
D/- 29-7-1977.
Advocates Appeared
Mr. D. P. Uniyal, Sr. Advocate (Mr. O. P. Rana, Advocate with him), for Appellant; Mr. D. Mookerjee, Sr. Advocate (M/s. B. P. Singh and A. K. Srivastava, Advocate with him), for Respondents.
Indian Penal Code - Section 302 - Criminal Procedure Code - Section 342 – Offence of murder - Sentence of life imprisonment – Appeal against conviction - There is a college known as B. P. Intermediate College in District - Several students from different villages were reading in the various classes of college including respondent deceased his brother P. W. 1 and some other P. Ws - There existed a bad blood and enmity between two factions and groups of students - One hailing from village and other belonging to village - Respondents belong to latter group - Deceased had associated himself with former faction - On February at instigation of respondents it is said one - a student of Class IX-A went to classroom of VII-B and gave a few slaps and blows P. W. 8 who is a resident intervened and rescued – Thereupon respondents are said to have given a threat - A day later on February when Tiffin interval started students came out of playground of college - At that time in field respondents 2 and 3 instigated respondents 1 to assault - Said two respondents caught hold of his hands and respondent 1 plunged his knife deep into back - After receiving knife blow staggered fell down and collapsed immediately - Occurrence was witnessed by P. W. 1, P. W. 2, P. W. 3 and P. W. 4 - Dead body was taken in a bus to Police Station nine miles away and the First Information Report was lodged – Held, In court judgment High Court was in error in acquitting the respondents on basis of their stand of right of private defense - Court do not feel confident to say that respondents 2 and 3 can be held guilty for murder with aid of Section 34 of Penal Code - Only one blow had been given on the back - Prosecution story that it was so given at instigation of other two respondents or that each of them had caught hold of one hand of deceased and then the blow was given is a doubtful and inherently improbable story - As none appears on ocular testimony of the prosecution witnesses of catching hold of his hands in order to give the blow on his back - Blow must have been given suddenly in a split second - Court would therefore maintain acquittal of respondents 2 and 3 extending to them benefit of doubt as regards their complicity in crime - But there can be no doubt that respondent No. 1 had inflicted the blow on the back with a knife - Evidence of four eye-witnesses was fully trustworthy could not be and has not been rejected even by High Court And believing that evidence court hold that charge of murder has been amply proved – Blow according to report and evidence of doctor who held the autopsy over the dead body was sufficiently deep and fatal - It was sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause his death it did cause his instantaneous death - Did intend to cause that injury and therefore he is guilty under Section 302 of Penal Code – Court find no justification to accept argument put forward by his learned counsel that he could be held guilty under Section 304 and not under Section 302 - But Court think on facts in circumstances of the case extreme penalty of death sentence is not warranted - Ends of justice will be served by sentencing to life imprisonment – Appeal dismiss
Judgment
UNTWALIA, J. - In this appeal by special leave filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh, there are three respondents - (1) Mohammad Musheer Khan; (2) Mohammad Shamim Khan and (3) Siraj Ahmad Khan. All the three were tried by the Sessions Judge of Sultanpur for the offence of committing the murder of Nirmaljeet Singh, brother of Bimaljeet Singh, P. W. 1. Respondent No. 1 was convicted under Section 302 of the Penal Code and sentenced to death. The other two respondents were convicted for the said offence with the aid of Section 34 and each of them was awarded a sentence of life imprisonment. The respondents filed an appeal in the Allahabad High Court and a reference for the confirmation of the death sentence imposed upon respondent No. 1 was also made by the Sessions Judge. The High Court was rejected the reference, allowed the appeal and acquitted all the three respondents. Hence this appeal by the State.
2. There is a college known as B. P. Intermediate College at Kurwar, P. S. Kotwali, in the District of Sultanpur. Several students from different villages were reading in the various classes of the college, including the respondent, the deceased, his brother P. W. 1 and some other P. Ws. There existed a bad blood and enmity between the two factions and groups of students - one hailing from village Naugawan Teer and the other belonging to village Dharain. The respondents belong to the latter group. The deceased had associated himself with the former faction. On February 16, 1973 at the instigation of the respondents, it is said, one Balram - a student of Class IX-A went to the clasroom of VII-B and gave a few slaps and blows to Birendra Bahadur, P. W. 8 who is a resident of Naugawan Teer. Nirmaljeet Singh intervened and rescued Birendra Bahadur. Thereupon, the respondents are said to have given a threat to Nirmaljeet Singh. A day later on February 17, 1973 when the tiffin interval started at 1.00 P. M. stutents came out of the playground of the college. At that time in the field, respondents 2 and 3 instigated respondents 1 to assault Nirmaljeet. The said two respondents caught hold of his hands and respondent 1 plunged his knife deep into the back of Nirmaljeet. After receiving the knife blow, Nirmaljeet staggered, fell down and collapsed immediately. The occurrence was witnessed by Bimaljeet P. W. 1, Rajendra Prasad Singh, P. W. 2, Siya Ram, P. W. 3 and Mangla Rai, P. W. 4. The dead body of Nirmaljeet was taken in a bus to the Police Station nine miles away and the First Information Report was lodged by Bimaljeet at 2.00 P. M.
3. The respondents denied their complicity in the occurrence. In the Committal Court in their statements under Section 342 of the code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, none of them said a word pleading any right of defence or any assault on Mohammad Shamim Khan, respondent No. 2. In the Sessions Court, however, Mohammad Musheer stated:
"On 17-2-73 a quarrel had taken place between accused Shamim and deceased Nirmaljeet. In course of that scuffle Shamim was being beaten, meantime, while mediating, someone, stabbed Nirmaljeet."Shamims statement in the Sessions Court under Section 342, in this regard, was in these terms:
"The reason of my absconding was that on 17-2-73, during interval time, Bimaljeet Singh and 10-15 boys had, saying that on 16-2-73, in the evening at Kurwar Market I had got Nanhoo beaten by Balram, beaten me in the playground. And on my raising alarm some boys had gathered there. While saving me some one out of the crowd inflicted knife injury to Nirmaljeet Singh in his back and he fell down then and there".
It may be stated here that in the cross-examination of Bimaljeet it was suggested to him that Shamim had received injury due to attack on him by Bimaljeet and others. Bimaljeet denied the suggestion. No evidence was adduced by the defence in support of their plea that Shamim was attacked, beaten and injured in the college playground on the date and at the time of the occurrence. One defenc
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.