advocatemmmohan

My photo

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN -  Practicing both IN CIVIL, CRIMINAL AND FAMILY LAWS,Etc.,

WELCOME TO LEGAL WORLD

WELCOME TO MY LEGAL WORLD - FOR KNOWLEDGE IN LAW & FOR LEGAL OPINIONS - SHARE THIS

Saturday, January 12, 2013

Non- explanation of the injuries by the prosecution may not affect the prosecution case. This would "apply to cases where the injuries sustained by the accused are minor and superficial or where the evidence is so clear and cogent, so independent and disinterested, so probable, consistent and creditworthy, that it far outweighs the effect of the omission on the part of the prosecution to explain the injuries." Therefore, no general principles have been laid down that non-explanation of injury on accused person shall in all cases vitiate the prosecution case. It depends on the facts and the case in hand falls within the exception mentioned in paragraph 12 in Lakshmi Singh (supra).” = Sections 147 and 148 IPC , Section 149 IPC = All the six accused on the day of the occurrence had assembled in front of the house of Rameshwar. They were armed with lethal weapons and were threatening to kill the family members of the complainant. Initially the accused persons had assaulted the family members of the complainant with lathis. Thereafter accused Manni Lal fired at PW-2 Ram Sanehi from the weapon he was carrying and injured him. Accused Raj Bahadur fired twice at PW-4 Sarju. Both the shots had missed the target and had instead, caused injuries to Kr. Sheela and one of the shots fired by the said accused Raj Bahadur had resulted in the death of Gayatri Devi. On the said facts, we can find no error in the conviction of the accused Raj Bahadur under Section 302 read with Section 301 IPC as well the conviction recorded against the said accused Raj Bahadur and accused Manni Lal under Section 307 IPC. We are, further, of the view that the facts proved by the prosecution clearly establishes that the accused persons had formed an unlawful assembly the common object of which was to cause death of the members of the family of the complainant. The remaining accused, therefore, are liable under Section 149 IPC for the death of Gayatri Devi and also for the lesser offences committed under Section 307 and 323/149 IPC in the course of prosecution of the common object of the unlawful assembly. It is also our considered view that the conviction of the two sets of accused under Sections 147 and 148 IPC has been correctly made. As the sentences for the lesser offences have been directed to run concurrently with the sentence of life imprisonment imposed on each of the accused there will be no occasion for us to cause any interference with any of the sentences imposed. 16. Accordingly, we find no merit in either of the appeals so as to warrant interference with the judgment and order dated 23.8.2007 passed by the High Court of Allahabad. Consequently, both the appeals shall stand dismissed and the convictions and sentences recorded against each of the accused shall stand affirmed.


                                                              NON-REPORTABLE
                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                      CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1523 OF 2008

Ram Vishambhar & Ors.                   ...  Appellant(s)
                                   Versus
State of U.P. Through Home Secretary    ...  Respondent(s)

                                    WITH

                      CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1524 OF 2008

                               J U D G M E N T

RANJAN GOGOI, J.

      Both these appeals arise out of the common judgment  and  order  dated
23.8.2007 passed by the High Court of Allahabad whereby  the  conviction  of
the appellants, (6 in number) inter alia, under Section 302  of  the  Indian
Penal Code (hereinafter for short “the Code”) has  been  affirmed.  Each  of
the accused-appellants in the two  appeals  under  consideration  have  been
sentenced to undergo RI for life besides to serve  out  further  periods  of
imprisonment for commission of lesser offence details  of  which  are  being
noticed hereinafter.

2.    The prosecution  case  in  short   is  that  accused  Jagdeo,  Sahdeo,
Jagroop and Manni Lal  are  the  sons  of  accused  Ram  Vishambhar  whereas
accused Raj Bahadur is related to the accused Ram Vishambhar.  On the  other
hand, complainant Bhagwat Prasad  (PW-1) is the  brother  of  one  Rameshwar
Prasad whereas Ram Sanehi (injured witness No.  2),  Girija  Shankar  (PW-3)
and Ram Khilawan are the sons of Rameshwar Prasad.  Sarju Prasad (PW-4)  and
Mahendra Kumar are the sons of Ram Khilawan while Km. Sheela  (injured)  and
Km. Gayatri Devi (deceased) are the daughters of Ram Khilawan.
      The relationship between the two families was strained and there  were
disputes between them.  According to the prosecution, on 20.3.1981 at  about
10.30 p.m. while Holi procession was taken out  in  the  village  hot  words
were exchanged between accused Raj Bahadur and Sarju  Prasad  (PW-4).   When
the  procession  had  reached  near  the  house  of  accused  Raj   Bahadur,
allegedly, the aforesaid accused had threatened PW-4  Sarju  Prasad  with  a
country  made  pistol.  Thereupon,  Sarju  Prasad  fled  to  his  house  and
complained to Bhagwat Prasad (PW-1), Rameshwar Prasad, Girija  Shankar  (PW-
3), Ram Sanehi (PW-2) and Mahendra Kumar that the accused  Raj  Bahadur  had
threatened him.  According to the  prosecution,  the  accused  persons  then
arrived at the house of the complainant.   While  accused  Raj  Bahadur  and
Manni Lal were holding Tamanchas (country made pistols),  the  rest  of  the
accused had come armed with lathis.  Thereafter,  all  the  accused  started
abusing and beating Girija Shankar, Ram Sanehi,  Sarju  and  Mahendra  Kumar
with  lathis.   As  some  resistance  was  offered  by  the  party  of   the
complainant, particularly Ram Sanehi (PW-2), accused Manni Lal fired at  him
as a result of which  Ram  Sanehi  sustained  injuries.   According  to  the
prosecution accused Raj Bahadur also fired at PW-4 Sarju  Prasad.   However,
instead of Sarju Prasad,  Km. Sheela was  hit  as  a  result  of  which  she
sustained injuries.  Accused Raj Bahadur is reported to have fired a  second
shot at Sarju Prasad which once again missed  the  target  and  hit  Gayatri
Devi who died instantaneously. According to  the  prosecution,  the  accused
persons thereafter entered the house of accused Ram  Vishambhar  and  firing
was heard inside the house of the aforesaid accused.

3.    PW-1 Bhagwat Prasad dictated the written report (Exh. Ka-1) which  was
scribed by one Ram Kishore and the same was submitted in the Police  Station
Jafarganj at about 4.30 a.m. on 21.3.1981.  On the basis of the said  report
the FIR (Exh. Ka-3) was registered and investigation was undertaken  by  one
Jai Karan Singh (PW-8) who was posted  as  S.O.  Jafarganj  Police  Station.
Proceeding to the place of occurrence PW-8 found the dead  body  of  Gayatri
Devi lying at the door of house of Rameshwar Prasad. Inquest  was  held  and
the dead  body  was  sent  for  postmortem  examination.   PW-8  also  found
injuries on the person of Ram Sanehi, Km. Sheela, Sarju Prasad and  Mahendra
Kumar  who  were  sent  for  medical  examination  which  was  conducted  on
21.3.1981 and 22.3.1981.  PW-3 Girija Shankar, who also  sustained  injuries
in the incident,  was  also  sent  for  medical  examination  on  24.3.1981.
Thereafter,  on  completion  of  investigation,  chargesheet  was  submitted
against all the accused persons under Sections 147, 148, 149,  307  and  302
IPC.  The offences alleged against the  accused  being  exclusively  triable
by the Court of Sessions, the case  was  committed  to  the  Court  of   the
learned Sessions Judge, Fatehpur who  framed  charges  against  the  accused
appellants under the  aforesaid  provisions  of  the  Penal  Code.   As  the
accused persons denied the charges and claimed to be tried, the  prosecution
examined ten witnesses in support of its  case  besides  exhibiting  several
documents.  Four witnesses were examined on behalf of the  accused  and  two
witnesses, i.e., Budh Behari Pandey and Dhani Ram  Yadav  were  examined  as
Court witnesses.  Thereafter at  the  conclusion  of  the  trial  while  the
accused Raj Bahadur was convicted under Section 302 read  with  Section  301
IPC, the remaining 5 accused were  convicted  under  the  aforesaid  section
with the aid of Section 149 IPC.   Additionally,  accused  Raj  Bahadur  and
Manni Lal were convicted under Section 148 and 307 as well as under  Section
323 of the Code and the remaining co-accused, i.e. Ram  Vishambhar,  Jagdeo,
Jagroop and Sahdeo were convicted under Section 147  and  also  Section  323
and 307 IPC read with  Section  149  IPC.   The  sentences  imposed  on  the
accused-appellants for the lesser offences need not be specifically  noticed
as all such sentences  were  directed  to  run  concurrently  alongwith  the
period of life imprisonment imposed on each of  the  accused  persons  under
Section 302 IPC.  Aggrieved the two appeals in question have been  filed  by
the accused appellants.

4.    We have heard Mr. Deepak Goel, Advocate for  the  appellants  in  Crl.
Appeal No. 1523/2008, Mr. J.C. Gupta, Sr. Advocate  for  the  appellants  in
Crl. Appeal No. 1524/2008 and Mr. S.R. Singh, Sr. Advocate for the State  of
Uttar Pradesh.

5.    Before proceeding any further as the defence had  put  up  a  specific
version of the incident and, in fact, a complaint in this regard was  lodged
before the police station (Exh. Ka-11) by accused Ram Vishambhar,  the  said
defence of the accused may be noticed in some details.
      According to the accused the complainant and his  family  members  had
celebrated  Holi  in  the  plot  No.  1290  belonging  to  the  accused  Ram
Vishambhar. When the said accused  protested,  PW-4  Sarju  and  others  had
started beating him.  Seeing the assault committed on their  father  accused
Jagdeo, Manni Lal and Sahdeo arrived at the spot and warned PW-4  Sarju  and
others.  Thereupon, according to the  accused,  PW-2  Ram  Sanehi  and  PW-4
Sarju fired from the guns that  they  were  carrying.   Further  more,  PW-3
Girija Shankar was also armed  with  a  gun  which,  however,  fell  on  the
ground.  The aforesaid gun was picked up by some  relation  of  the  accused
who fired two shots towards Ram Sanehi and others,  in  defence.   According
to the accused, PW-2 and PW-4 had fired 3 more shots in the  course  of  the
incident and the same had hit the deceased  Gayatri  Devi  as  well  as  her
sister Sheela who sustained injuries.

6.    The argument advanced by the learned counsel for  the  appellants  has
delved upon the injuries sustained by the accused Jagroop, Sahdeo and  Manni
Lal, which though proved by the evidence of DW-2, had not been explained  in
any manner by the prosecution.   Learned  counsel  has  submitted  that  the
defence by examining DW-3 Jagdev Prasad has proved that the  accused  Jagdeo
was not present at the place of  occurrence.  It  is  also  urged  that  the
evidence of DW-4 Ram Karan clearly discloses that it is  the  party  of  the
complainant who were aggressors and who had fired upon  the  accused  first.
Learned counsel has pointed out that though there was  some  firing  by  the
accused the same was in self defence and in any event the testimony of  DW-4
clearly establishes that it is the shots fired by PW-2 Ram Sanehi  and  PW-4
Sarju Prasad which had accidently  injured  Km.  Sheela  and  had  also  hit
deceased Gayatri who succumbed to her injuries. The evidence adduced by  the
witnesses examined on behalf of the accused, according to  learned  counsel,
has not been shaken or discredited in any manner in  the  cross-examination.
Coupled with the injuries suffered by the accused  for  which  there  is  no
explanation forthcoming the defence version is eminently acceptable. In  any
case the  said version casts considerable doubt  on  the  prosecution  case.
Learned counsel has further submitted that the  injuries  sustained  by  the
accused could not have been self-inflicted  inasmuch  as  the  accused  were
arrested immediately after the incident and their  medical  examination  was
conducted while they were in  custody.   Pointing  to  the  previous  enmity
between the two families and the free exchange of assault and  use  of  fire
arms by either parties, it is  submitted  that  no  case  for  invoking  the
liability under Section 302 of Penal Code is made out so as to  warrant  the
conviction of the accused-appellants.  In any  case,  according  to  learned
counsel, Section 149 IPC  will  have  no  application  for  the  purpose  of
determination of the liability of any of the accused in the present case.

7.    Opposing the contentions advanced on behalf  of  the  appellants,  the
learned  State  counsel  has  submitted  that  the  prosecution   witnesses,
particularly the injured eyewitnesses, have given a  consistent  version  of
the occurrence and the precise and specific role of each of the accused.  No
inconsistency, muchless any contradiction, is  discernible.   On  the  other
hand, according to the learned State counsel, the defence version is  highly
improbable.  In the complaint lodged by accused Ram Vishambhar (Exh.  Ka-11)
there is no mention of the injuries sustained by any of the accused.   Apart
from the aforesaid vital  omission  learned  counsel  has  pointed  out  the
inconsistency between the version as stated in Exh. Ka-11  and  the  version
narrated by accused Ram Vishambhar in his statement recorded  under  Section
313 Cr.P.C. as regards the place of occurrence. It is also pointed out  that
the incident took place in the house of the complainant where the dead  body
of Gayatri Devi was found lying and not as  claimed  by  accused  Vishambhar
either in the FIR (Ex-Ka-11) or in his statement recorded under Section  313
Cr.P.C. The above, according to the learned counsel, would go  to  show  the
utter falsity of the claim of the accused.  Insofar as the injuries  on  the
accused are concerned, learned counsel has pointed out  that  such  injuries
are simple in nature.  Furthermore, the possibility  of  the  said  injuries
being self-inflicted cannot be  ruled  out  inasmuch  as  according  to  the
prosecution witnesses a gun shot was heard from the inside the house of  the
accused Ram Vishambhar. It is also contended that the injuries sustained  by
the accused being simple, absence  of  any  explanation  therefor  will  not
erode the credibility of the prosecution version.

8.    Five witnesses to the alleged crime were examined by  the  prosecution
out of which PW-1 Bhagwat Prasad is the first informant who had  lodged  the
FIR and PW-5 Rang Pal is an  independent  witness.  PW-2  Ram  Sanehi,  PW-3
Girija Shankar and PW-4 Sarju Prasad are  the  injured  eye  witnesses.  The
version of the aforesaid five witnesses is in substance the same.  According
to  the  aforesaid  eye  witnesses  while  the  Holi  Dahan  procession  was
proceeding and had reached the  house  of  accused  Raj  Bahadur,  the  said
accused started abusing PW- 4 Sarju Prasad and had pointed  a  country  made
pistol at him i.e. PW-4.  Thereafter,  according  to  the  witnesses,  Sarju
Prasad ran away to his house and informed about the incident  to  Rameshwar,
Bhagwat Prasad (PW-1), Ram Sanehi (PW-2), Ram Khilawan  and  Girija  Shankar
(PW-3) who were sitting inside the house. While  PW-4  Sarju  was  narrating
the incident to his family members all the six accused persons came  to  the
spot. While the accused Raj Bahadur and Manni Lal were  armed  with  country
made pistols the remaining four accused were armed  with  lathis.  According
to the eye witnesses the accused  were  shouting  that  the  family  of  the
complainant should be done away with as they were old  enemies.  It  is  the
consistent version of the prosecution witnesses that the accused armed  with
lathis assaulted the family of the complainant and  the  accused  Manni  Lal
fired at Ram Sanehi hitting him on his head. Thereafter accused Ram  Bahadur
fired at Sarju but the shot missed him  and,  instead,  hit  Sheela  causing
injuries on her arm. Thereafter accused Ram Sanehi fired a  second  shot  at
Sarju which once again missed him and instead  hit  Gayatri  Devi  who  fell
down and died instantaneously. Thereafter all the  accused  persons  entered
the house of Ram Vishamhar. A little later firing was heard from inside  the
house of Ram Vishambhar. According to the  eye  witnesses  all  the  accused
could be identified as the incident had occurred  on  a  moonlit  night  and
further there was a lantern burning at the door of the house of Rameshwar.

9.    The injuries sustained by PWs 2, 3 and 4 as well as those suffered  by
injured Sheela were proved by the prosecution by  examining  PW-9  Dr.  G.S.
Gaur and PW-10 Dr. Y. Vishwakarma who had examined the  injured  persons  on
different dates i.e. 21.3.1981, 22.3.1981 and 24.3.1981.The prosecution  had
also examined Dr. S.K. Singh (PW-6) who had conducted  the  post  mortem  of
the deceased. On the basis of the evidence of the  said  witness  i.e.  PW-6
and the post mortem  report  (Exh.  Ka-2)  the  prosecution  had  sought  to
establish  that  the  deceased  Gayatri  had  died  on  account  of  gunshot
injuries.

10.   As against the  aforesaid  evidence  adduced  by  the  prosecution  to
establish  the  charges  levelled  against  the  accused,  the  defence  had
examined four witnesses. The evidence tendered by  DWs  2,  3  and  4  would
require specific notice. DW-2 Dr. S.N. Mishra  (Jail  Doctor)  had  examined
accused Jagroop on 23.3.1981 and accused Sahdeo and Manni Lal on  27.3.1981.
He had certified that the injuries found on  the  accused  were  simple  and
superficial. DW-3 Jagdev Prasad had been examined to prove that the  accused
Jagdeo was not present at the place of occurrence and  DW-4  Ram  Karan  was
examined to prove that it is the complainant party who were  the  aggressors
and it is on account of the firing resorted to by PW-2 Ram Sanehi  and  PW-4
Sarju that  Gayatri Devi had died. Coupled with the above,  the  absence  of
any explanation on the part of the prosecution with regard to  the  injuries
on the accused will also have to be carefully weighed while considering  the
culpability or otherwise of the accused-appellants with regard to the  crime
alleged against them.

11.   Insofar as the evidence of DW-3 Jagdev Prasad  and  DW-4  Ramkaran  is
concerned there appears to  be  certain  inherent  lacunae  which  makes  it
difficult for us to accept the defence version so as to  conclude  that  the
same casts any serious doubt on the prosecution  story.  If  accused  Sarju,
Ram Sanehi and Girija Shankar had suffered gun shot injuries in  the  course
of the same incident, surely, the said fact would have found  a  mention  in
the complaint/FIR lodged by  Ram  Vishamabar  (Exh.Ka-11).  The  said  fact,
though goes to the root of the defence version, is conspicuously  absent  in
Exh. Ka-11.  Two  different  versions  with  regard  to  the  place  of  the
occurrence has been unfolded by the defence.  While  in  statement  recorded
under Section 313 Crl.P.C. accused Ram Vishambhar had  stated  that  on  the
day of occurrence Holi Dahan was performed in his field at the  instance  of
Bhagwat Prasad and others and as he had  asked  them  not  to  perform  Holi
dahan, Sarju and his associates had beaten him with fists and  kicks  seeing
which his sons Jagroop,  Manni  Lal  and  Sahdeo  had  came  to  his  rescue
whereupon they were fired at by Sarju and others. As against  the  aforesaid
version, the FIR version narrated  by  accused  Ram  Vishambhar  is  to  the
effect that on 20.3.1981 at about 10.30 pm accused  Jagroop  was  coming  to
his house from the place  of  Holi  celebrations  when  PW-4  Sarju  started
abusing  him and at that very time PW-2 Ram Sanehi and PW-3  Girija  Shankar
armed  with  guns  and  PW-4  Sarju  armed  with  country  made  pistol  had
threatened him (accused Jagroop) with murder and  had  started  beating  Ram
Vishambar and further that when accused Jagroop tried to rescue his  father,
Girija Shankar (PW-3)  fired as a result of  which  Jagroop  sustained  fire
arm injuries. Not only the said versions are inconsistent  with  each  other
both are belied by the fact that  the dead  body  of  the  deceased  Gayatri
Devi was found in the house of Rameshwar.

12.   The above lacunae, in our considered  view,  when  considered  in  the
backdrop of the consistent version of the prosecution  witnesses  makes  the
defence version unworthy of acceptance.

13.   The next question that has to  be  addressed  is  the  effect  of  the
injuries sustained by the accused Jagroop, Sahdeo and Manni  Lal.  According
to the defence the said injuries were sustained in the course  of  the  same
incident. All the said injuries have been proved by  the  evidence  of  DW-2
Dr. S.N. Mishra who had conducted the medical  examination  of  the  accused
while they were in police custody.  No  explanation,  whatsoever,  has  been
offered by the prosecution  with  regard  to  the  said  injuries.   On  the
aforesaid basis, it is contended that in  the  course  of  the  incident  in
question there had been an exchange of fire  from  both  sides.  It  is  not
possible to label the accused as the  aggressors.  Therefore,  according  to
the defence no liability under Section 302 IPC can be attributed to  any  of
the accused. In any event, as there was a  free  exchange  of  fire  between
both the sides, common object to commit any  particular  offence  cannot  be
attributed to the accused and Section 149 of IPC cannot be  invoked  in  the
present case.

14.   We have carefully considered the above aspect of the matter.  In  this
regard,  we  have  scrutinized  the  evidence  adduced  by  the  prosecution
witnesses as well as by the defence. The  prosecution  witnesses  have  been
clear, consistent and  categorical  in  stating  that  they  could  see  and
recognize each of the accused as the incident  had  occurred  on  a  moonlit
night and  also there was a lantern burning in the house of  Rameshwar.  The
said witnesses have been equally  emphatic  in  saying  that  they  had  not
noticed any injuries on any of the accused persons after  the  incident  was
over. The injuries suffered by accused, though gun shot injuries, have  been
stated by DW-2, Dr.S.N.  Mishra  to  be  simple  and  superficial  injuries.
Occurrence of firing inside the house of accused  Ram  Vishambar  after  the
main incident was over has been deposed  to  by  the  prosecution  witnesses
with a fair amount of clarity and consistency.  Despite the above  we  would
not venture into the reasons that had led to the aforesaid injuries  on  the
accused inasmuch as the nature of the injuries on the accused  being  simple
and superficial the same can be ignored on the basis of  principles  of  law
laid down by this Court which have virtually set at rest  the  issue  raised
on behalf of the accused. In this regard the observations of this  Court  in
Para 40  of  the  report  in  Ram  Pat  v.  State  of  Haryana[1]  would  be
significant and therefore may be usefully extracted below:
      “40.  It has furthermore well settled that whereas  grievous  injuries
      suffered  by  the  accused  are  required  to  be  explained  by   the
      prosecution, simple injuries need not necessarily be. Non  explanation
      of simple injuries of the nature suffered by the accused would not  be
      fatal. In Hari v. State of Maharashtra  : 2009(4) SCALE103, this Court
      held:
           30. On the other question, namely, non- explanation of injury on
           the accused persons, learned Counsel for the appellant has cited
           a  decision  
in Lakshmi  Singh  and  Ors. v. State  of   Bihar :
1976CriLJ1736. 
In the said case, this Court  while  laying  down the principle that the prosecution has a  duty  to  explain  the injuries on the person of an accused held  that  non-explanation assumes considerable importance where the evidence  consists  of interested witnesses and  the  defence  gives  a  version  which competes in probability with that of the prosecution case.
           31.But while  laying  down  the  aforesaid  principle,  learned
           Judges in paragraph 12 held that 
there are cases where the  non-
           explanation of the injuries by the prosecution  may  not  affect
           the prosecution case. 
This  would  "apply  to  cases  where  the
           injuries sustained by the accused are minor and  superficial  or
           where the evidence is so clear and cogent,  so  independent  and
           disinterested, so probable, consistent and creditworthy, that it
           far outweighs the effect of the omission  on  the  part  of  the
           prosecution to explain  the  injuries."  
Therefore,  no  general
           principles have been laid down that non-explanation of injury on
           accused person shall in all cases vitiate the prosecution  case.
           It depends on the facts and the case in hand  falls  within  the
           exception mentioned in paragraph 12 in Lakshmi Singh (supra).”


15.   In the present case, taking into account the evidence tendered by  the
prosecution witnesses and having  regard  to  the  nature  of  the  injuries
sustained by the accused, we are  of  the  view  that  the  absence  of  any
explanation on the part of the  prosecution  with  regard  to  the  injuries
suffered by the accused will not effect the core  of  the  charges  levelled
against the accused-appellants.
All the  six  accused  on  the  day  of  the
occurrence had assembled in front of  the  house  of  Rameshwar.  
They  were
armed with lethal weapons and were threatening to kill  the  family  members
of the complainant. 
Initially the accused persons had assaulted  the  family
members of the complainant with lathis. 
Thereafter accused Manni  Lal  fired
at PW-2 Ram Sanehi from the weapon he was carrying and injured him.  Accused
Raj Bahadur fired twice at PW-4 Sarju. 
Both the shots had missed the  target
and had instead, caused injuries to Kr. Sheela and one of  the  shots  fired
by the said accused Raj Bahadur had resulted in the death of  Gayatri  Devi.
On the said facts, we can find no error in the  conviction  of  the  accused
Raj Bahadur under Section  302  read  with  Section  301  IPC  as  well  the
conviction recorded against the said accused Raj Bahadur and  accused  Manni
Lal under Section 307 IPC. 
We are, further,  of  the  view  that  the  facts
proved by the prosecution clearly establishes that the accused  persons  had
formed an unlawful assembly the common object of which was  to  cause  death
of the members of the family of  the  complainant.  
The  remaining  accused,
therefore, are liable under Section 149 IPC for the death  of  Gayatri  Devi
and also for the lesser offences committed under  Section  307  and  323/149
IPC in the course of prosecution  of  the  common  object  of  the  unlawful
assembly. 
It is also our considered view that  the  conviction  of  the  two
sets of accused under Sections 147 and 148 IPC has been correctly  made.  As
the  sentences  for  the  lesser  offences  have  been   directed   to   run
concurrently with the sentence of life imprisonment imposed on each  of  the
accused there will be no occasion for us to cause any interference with  any
of the sentences imposed.

16.   Accordingly, we find no merit in  either  of  the  appeals  so  as  to
warrant interference with the judgment and order dated 23.8.2007  passed  by
the High Court of Allahabad. Consequently,  both  the  appeals  shall  stand
dismissed and the convictions and sentences recorded  against  each  of  the
accused shall stand affirmed.


                                       ...…………………………J.
                                        [P. SATHASIVAM]



                                        .........……………………J.
                                        [RANJAN GOGOI]
New Delhi,
January 11, 2013.
-----------------------
[1]    2009 (7) SCC 614

-----------------------
21


No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.