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
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
