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

Monday, January 20, 2014

Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’) - Quantum of sentence- Lower court sentenced to three years and six months rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.500/- and, in default of fine, for rigorous imprisonment for another one month - High court confirmed the lower court order and dismissed the appeal - Apex court set aside the order of High court and fixed the proper sentence on the appellant would be two years of rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/- and the default sentence of additional one month as the bullet injuries to PW1 not from the pistol of appellant - as the PW2 not suffered any bullet injuries she only receives minor abrasions due to fall but not by pellets - evidence given after 8 years of incident weak evidence on the latter part of Section 34 IPC on the participation in commission of the offence = Dilbagh Singh … Appellant (s) Versus State of Uttaranchal … Respondent (s) (Now State of Uttarakhand) = 2014 ( January - Vol - 1-D.B.) Judis.nic.in/ S.C./ file name =41158

   Section 307 read  with  Section  34  of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’)  -  Quantum  of sentence-  Lower court sentenced to three years and six months rigorous imprisonment  and  fine  of  Rs.500/- and, in default of fine, for rigorous imprisonment for another one  month - High court confirmed the lower court order and dismissed the appeal - Apex court set aside the order of High court and fixed the proper sentence on the appellant would be two  years of rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/- and the  default  sentence of additional one month as the bullet injuries to PW1 not from the pistol of appellant - as the PW2 not suffered any bullet injuries she only receives minor abrasions due to fall but not by pellets - evidence given after 8 years of incident weak  evidence  on  the  latter  part  of
   Section 34 IPC on the participation in commission of the offence =

 4. This Court on  06.09.2013,  issued  notice  limited  to  the  quantum  of
   sentence.

5. Having special regard to the fact that the bullet  injuries  suffered  by
   PW1 are not from the pistol of the appellant, having regard to  the  fact
   that PW2 has not suffered any bullet injury and that  she  suffered  only
   minor abrasions caused on account of fall while running, having regard to
   the fact that the incident is of the year 1993, having regard to the fact
   that the evidence tendered before the Trial Court was after eight  years,
   and, thus, having regard to the weak  evidence  on  the  latter  part  of
   Section 34 IPC on the participation in commission of the offence, we  are
   of the view that the proper sentence on the appellant would be two  years
   of rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/- and the  default  sentence
   of additional one month as the same  would  meet  the  ends  of  justice.
   Ordered accordingly.

       2014 ( January - Vol - 1-D.B.) Judis.nic.in/ S.C./ file name  =41158  
            

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                      CRIMINAL  APPELLATE  JURISDICTION


                    CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.   156     OF 2014
             [Arising out of S.L.P. (Criminal) No. 7833 of 2013]

Dilbagh Singh                                … Appellant (s)

                                   Versus

State of Uttaranchal                         … Respondent (s)
(Now State of Uttarakhand)

                               J U D G M E N T

KURIAN, J.:




      Leave granted.

2. The appellant was convicted under Section 307 read  with  Section  34  of
   the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’) and sentenced to
   three years and six months rigorous imprisonment  and  fine  of  Rs.500/-
   and, in default of fine, for rigorous imprisonment for another one  month
   by the Fast Track Court, Haldwani, Uttarakhand as per Judgment and  Order
   dated 29.09.2001. The appeal therefrom at the instance of  the  appellant
   herein was dismissed as per the Judgment dated  06.04.2013  of  the  High
   Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital and, hence, the appeal.

3. The incident relates back  to  04.11.1993.  While  the  informant  Trilok
   Singh along with his sister were doing work in their agriculture field in
   their village Rampura Kazi under Police  Station  Bazpur,  the  appellant
   armed with country-made pistol along with his brother Makkhan  Singh  who
   carried a country-made gun opened fire  at  them.  The  informant  Trilok
   Singh suffered bullet injuries on the hand,  shoulder  and  stomach,  the
   sister suffered only minor abrasions which were later  certified  by  the
   Doctor to have been caused not by gun shot.  During  the  course  of  the
   trial under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC, appellant’s brother and
   the main accused Makkhan Singh died. On the basis of evidence tendered by
   the injured witnesses as PWs 1 and 2, and PW3 - another  eye-witness  who
   came to the scene for rescue, the appellant was convicted  under  Section
   307 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced as stated above. The appellant
   was not successful before the High Court.

4. This Court on  06.09.2013,  issued  notice  limited  to  the  quantum  of
   sentence.

5. Having special regard to the fact that the bullet  injuries  suffered  by
   PW1 are not from the pistol of the appellant, having regard to  the  fact
   that PW2 has not suffered any bullet injury and that  she  suffered  only
   minor abrasions caused on account of fall while running, having regard to
   the fact that the incident is of the year 1993, having regard to the fact
   that the evidence tendered before the Trial Court was after eight  years,
   and, thus, having regard to the weak  evidence  on  the  latter  part  of
   Section 34 IPC on the participation in commission of the offence, we  are
   of the view that the proper sentence on the appellant would be two  years
   of rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/- and the  default  sentence
   of additional one month as the same  would  meet  the  ends  of  justice.
   Ordered accordingly.

6. Appeal is allowed as above.




                                                    ……………………………….…..…………J.
                                  (SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA)





……….………...……..……………………J.
                                         (KURIAN JOSEPH)
New Delhi;
January 17, 2014.
-----------------------
                                                              NON-REPORTABLE


-----------------------
3


No comments:

Post a Comment

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