Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rajesh And Others vs State Of M.P. on 22 February, 2017
Author: Anand Pathak
Bench: Anand Pathak
1 CRA 515/2001
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
BENCH AT GWALIOR
*****************
DB:- Hon'ble Shri Justice N. K. Gupta &
Hon'ble Shri Justice Anand Pathak
CRA 515/2001
AFR
Rajesh & Others
vs.
State of M.P. (Judge)
======================
Shri Atul Gupta, counsel for the appellants No.1 to 4 and 6 to 7
Shri JM Sahni, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/ State.
=====================
JUDGMENT
(Delivered on 22/02/2017) Per N. K. Gupta, J:-
The appellants have preferred the present appeal, being aggrieved with the judgment dated 19/09/2001, passed by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Morena in Sessions Trial No.19/1998, whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced, as mentioned below:-
Name of Conviction Sentence Fine In lieu
appellant amount
Rajesh 148 IPC Two Years' Rs.2,000/- 6 month's
RI RI
302 IPC LI Rs.10,000/- Two years'
(for RI
deceased
Lal Singh)
302 IPC LI Rs. 10,000/- Two years'
(for RI
deceased
Ramveer
Singh )
324/149 Two years' Rs.2,000/- 6 months'
IPC RI RI
323/149 One year's
2 CRA 515/2001
IPC RI
Surendra 148 of IPC Two years' Rs.2,000/- 6 months'
Singh, RI each each RI each
Shankar
Singh and
Dinesh
Singh
302/149 LI each Rs.10,000/- Two years'
IPC (for each RI each
deceased
Lal Singh)
302/149 LI each Rs.10,000/- Two years'
IPC (for each RI each
deceased
Ramveer
Singh)
324 of IPC Two years' Rs.2,000/- 6 month's
RI each each RI
323/149 One year's
IPC RI each
Ramnaresh, 148 of IPC Two years' Rs.2,000/- 6 months'
Rajveer RI each each RI each
302/149 LI each Rs. 10,000/- Two years'
IPC (for each RI each
deceased
Lal Singh)
302/149 LI each Rs.10,000/- Two years'
IPC (for each RI each
deceased
Ramveer
Singh)
324/149 Two years' Rs.2,000/- 6 month's
IPC RI each each RI each
323 IPC One year's
RI each
Arjun Singh 148 of IPC Two years' Rs. 2,000/- 6 months'
RI RI
302/149 LI Rs. 10,000/- Two years'
IPC (for RI
deceased
Lal Singh)
302/149 LI Rs. 10,000/- Two years'
IPC (for RI
3 CRA 515/2001
deceased
Ramveer)
324/149 Two year's Rs. 2,000/- 6 month's
IPC RI RI
323 IPC One year's
RI
30 of Arms Three
Act months' RI
(2) Prosecution's case, in short, is that on on 30/07/1997, complainant Rameshwar (PW-1) lodged FIR Ex.P1 at about 08:45 am at Police Station Ambah (District Morena) that he told his son Devendra Singh to join a service on a truck. However, Devendra Singh did not join the service and left the house. Thereafter, there was a rumour of Devendra Singh's abduction. On 30/07/1997, at about 07:30 am, accused appellant Arjun Singh called a Panchayat to resolve the matter as to why Rameshwar etc. were putting a blame upon appellant Arjun Singh etc. that they had abducted Devendra Singh. When villagers and concerned Panch of Panchayat were gathering at the spot appellants Surendra Singh, Dinesh Singh, Shankar Singh, Ramnaresh Singh, Rajveer Singh and Arjun Singh came to the spot armed with farsa, bhala (spear) and lathis. Appellant Surendra Singh gave a blow of farsa on the head of victim Raghuvir Singh (PW-2). Appellant Arjun Singh gave a blow of stick on the head of Rameshwar (PW1).
Appellant Dinesh Singh gave a blow of bhala on the head of Jagdish (PW-3). Appellant Shankar Singh assaulted victim Jagdish (PW-3) with a farsa on his palm. Appellant Ramnaresh Singh assaulted deceased Ramveer Singh with a stick on his back. Appellant Rajveer Singh gave a blow on the back of deceased Lal Singh. In the meantime, appellant Rajesh came to the spot having a mouser gun. He fired with a gun causing injury on the abdomen of deceased Lal Singh which came out of the back. Lal Singh died on the spot. Appellant Rajesh fired for the second time and bullet 4 CRA 515/2001 of which struck on the back of Ramveer Singh and took exit from the abdomen. Thereafter, the appellants ran away. Complainant Rameshwar quoted the name of various eye-witnesses like Laxman Singh, Rambharose Singh, Rama Bai, Kalla Bai and Munni Bai, etc. The injured persons were sent for their medico- legal examination. The condition of deceased Ramveer Singh was serious. Dr.G.C.Arya (PW-8) examined Bhagwan Devi, Narendra Singh, Raghuvir Singh, Ramveer Singh and Rameshwar and gave MLC reports Ex.P8-A to Ex.P12 respectively. Ramveer Singh had an entry wound on his back and exit wound on his abdomen. He also sustained a lacerated wound on his little finger. Various injuries were found to victims Bhagwan Devi, Narendra Singh, Raghuvir Singh and Rameshwar. After sometime, Ramveer Singh had died.
(3) SHO SR Sankhediya (PW10) went to the spot, took the dead body of deceased Lal Singh and sent it for post mortem. After death of deceased Ramveer Singh, his body was also sent for postmortem. Dr.G.C.Arya (PW8) performed the postmortem on the body of deceased Lal Singh and gave a report Ex.P15. He found a contusion on his left thigh, teeth-bite on left arm, one entry wound on the back and one exit wound on the left abdomen. Due to firing, various vital organs of abdomen were found damaged and hence, Lal Singh had died. Dr. Madhup Kumar (PW-9) performed the post mortem on the body of deceased Ramveer Singh and gave a report Ex.P/17. He found stitch wound on his abdomen and back. There was a fracture on left ulna bone of deceased Ramveer Singh. According to Dr. Madhup Kumar spleen was removed by operation and various vital parts in the abdomen were found injured. According to him, deceased Ramveer Singh died due to injury caused by speedy projectile.
(4) SHO SR Sankhediya (PW-10), thereafter, arrested various accused persons and recovered weapons from them including 5 CRA 515/2001 farsa, sticks etc. One mouser gun was recovered from appellant Rajesh and recovery memo Ex.P31 was prepared. Various weapons; soil taken from the spot, and clothes of the deceased persons received from the hospital, were sent for their forensic science analysis. Forensic Science Laboratory had given a report Ex.P40 relating to various arms whereas a report Ex.P41 was given relating to presence of blood on various weapons, clothes and soil. Serologist also submitted its report Ex.P42. After due investigation, charge-sheet was filed before JMFC, Ambah (District Morena) who committed the case to the Court of Session and ultimately, it was transferred to Second Additional Sessions Judge, Morena (M.P.).
(5) The appellants abjured their guilt. According to them, in Panchayat when Sudama told his version before the nominated Panchayat then the complainant party started quarrelling. In that quarrel, appellants Rajesh Singh, Shankar Singh and Dinesh Singh sustained injuries. Fire was done from the side of complainant party and appellant Dinesh Singh had snatched the gun of Lal Singh which was retained in the police station. A false case was lodged against the appellants. In defence, the appellants got MLC reports Ex.D7 to Ex.D9 of appellants - Dinesh Singh, Arun Singh and Shankar Singh respectively with help of Dr.G.C. Arya (PW-8). Similarly, FIR Ex.D13 was proved by SHO SR Sankhediya (PW10). No other defence was adduced. (6) After considering the evidence adduced by the parties, the Additional Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the appellants, as mentioned above.
(7) We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. (8) First of all, it is to be considered as to whether the death of deceased Lal Singh and Ramveer Singh was homicidal in nature or not? In this connection, the evidence given by Dr.G.C.Arya (PW8) is important. Dr. Arya proved postmortem report Ex.P15 of 6 CRA 515/2001 deceased Lal Singh. According to him, deceased Lal Singh sustained the following injuries:-
"(i) Contusion 8 cm x 2cm on the ant-medial aspect of left thigh 10 cm above left knee red in colour.
(ii) Abrasion 4 cm x 3 cm oval- shape with 4 teeth mark on upper side and 4 teeth mark on lower side on the post- aspect of left forearm 5 cm above left wrist red in colour.
(iii) Firearm wound 2 cm x 2 cm oval shape on the right side back 5.5 cm right and lat. to the vertebral column at the level of L3 and L4 vertebrae margins are everted blackening seen and underneath tissues seen black, an area of 4 cm x 4 cm around on wound is also black blood with shining tench is coming out from wound.
(iv) Lacerated wound 3 cm x 2.5 cm on left side abdomen 7 cm left lat. to umbilicus in midclavicular line omentum was coming out from wound and margins were everted'' On opening of the wounds he found the various organs of the abdomen were damaged and deceased Lal Singh died due to such injuries. According to Dr. G.C. Arya (PW-8), death of deceased Lal Singh was homicidal in nature.
(9) Similarly, Dr. Madhup Kumar (PW-9) performed the postmortem on the body of deceased Ramveer Singh and gave a report Ex.P17. He found stitched wounds on the abdomen and back of deceased- Ramveer Singh whereas various organs of abdomen were found damaged. Spleen of deceased Ramveer Singh was removed in surgery because it was damaged. Dr. G.C. Arya (PW-8) examined Ramveer Singh when he was alive and gave a report Ex.P.11A. He found the following injuries:-
"(I) Lacerated wound 2.5 cm x 2.00 cm on left penal area margin of wound inverted charring and blackening present, blood is oozing from wound.
(II) Lacerated wound 7.5 cm x 5. 6 cm on left side abdomen omentum and intestines coming from 7 CRA 515/2001 wound. Blood is coming from wound.
(II) Lacerated wound size 3 cm x 1 cm on the palmar aspect of left little finger at distal phalanx. Blood is coming from wound"
According to him, there was an entry wound on the back and exit wound on left abdomen of deceased Ramveer Singh. Condition of Ramveer Singh was critical and he was immediately referred for surgery. If MLC report given by Dr.G.C.Arya (PW-8) and postmortem report given by Dr. Madhup Kumar (PW-9) are considered simultaneously, then it would be apparent that deceased- Ramveer Singh sustained so many injuries caused by one gunshot and all the vital organs of the abdomen were found damaged, spleen was ruptured and thereafter, it was removed by surgery. However, deceased - Ramveer Singh could not be saved. Under these circumstances, it is established that the death of deceased Ramveer Singh was also homicidal in nature and he sustained such injuries which were sufficient to cause his death in the ordinary course of his life.
(10) In the present case, various witnesses; like Rameshwar (PW-1), Raghuvir Singh (PW-2), Jagdish (PW-3), Bhagwan Devi (PW-4), Narendra Singh (PW-5) and Rama Bai (PW-7) were examined as eye-witnesses. They have categorically stated that Surendra Singh gave a blow of farsa on the head of Raghuvir Singh. Shankar Singh gave a blow of farsa to victim Jagdish causing injury on his left palm. Dinesh assaulted the victim Jagdish with a spear (bhala). Various other accused persons assaulted victims Lal Singh, Bhagwan Devi, Narendra Singh, Raghuvir Singh, Jagdish and Rameshwar with lathis. Statements of these witnesses are duly corroborated by medical evidence as proved by Dr.G.C. Arya (PW-8). He proved MLC report Ex.P8A of Bhagwan Devi (PW-4). and found following injury to victim Bhagwan Devi:-
" 1. Contusion 4 cm x 3 cm on the left shoulder reddish and blackish colour."8 CRA 515/2001
Similarly, Dr. Arya examined victim Narendra Singh (PW-5) and gave MLC report Ex.P9-A of victim Narendra Singh. The injury found to victim Narendra Singh is as under:-
"1. Contusion of size 6cm x 2cm on the front of left thigh above 4 cm from knee."
Dr. Arya examined Raghuvir Singh and gave MLC report Ex.P10A. He found following injuries to victim Raghuvir Singh:-
"(I) Incised wound size 8 cm x 2.5 cm x1.5 cm on the right side of head at frontal and parietal region, margins are sharp-angle and blood was oozing from wound. (II) Lacerated wound size 3 cm x 0.5 cm x through and through on the left lip in zigzag shape. Blood is oozing from wound.
(III) Abrated contusion 4 cm x3 cm over right shoulder red in colour".
If such injuries found to the victims are considered with the allegations made against the appellants, then it would be apparent that all the appellants had participated in the crime with help of various weapons. Surendra Singh assaulted victim Raghuvir Singh with a farsa. Dinesh Singh assaulted victim Jagdish with a spear (bhala). Shankar Singh also used a farsa causing injury to victim Jagdish. Other appellants like Rajveer etc. have assaulted victim Bhagwan Devi etc. with sticks. However, the witnesses have told a common story of appellant Rajesh that he came with a gun and fired for two times. For first time he caused injury on the abdomen of Lal Singh and second time he caused injury of gunshot to deceased Ramveer Singh on his back. There is no material contradiction in the evidence of these witnesses so that their testimony may be discarded.
(11) The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that according to the witnesses, deceased Lal Singh sustained gunshot injury on his abdomen whereas Dr. G.C.Arya (PW-8) in his postmortem report Ex.P15 found that entry wound on the back of deceased Lal Singh and, therefore, it is a material contradiction. However, such contention cannot be accepted that it was a 9 CRA 515/2001 material contradiction. When a victim is beaten by a particular weapon then everyone can view the injury caused to a particular place of body where the weapon touches the body but in case of gunshot, it cannot be said that gun was fired by whom and gunshot was received by whom. The injury due to gunshot can be caused in such a quick span that no eyewitness can claim definite view about entry of bullet. Therefore, the witnesses could say that on firing of the gun by the accused Rajesh, deceased Lal Singh sustained injuries but where that bullet struck they could not say definitely. After the incident when they found two wounds of the gun then their conclusion that the bullet stuck on the abdomen of deceased Lal Singh was depending upon their observation and not as an eyewitness. Hence, when Dr.G.C.Arya (PW-8) in his postmortem Ex.P15 found that bullet stuck on the back of deceased Lal Singh and there was an entry wound on the back, then the evidence of eyewitness cannot be discarded. It is proved beyond doubt by evidence of these witnesses that appellant Rajesh had fired with a gun causing fatal injury to deceased Lal Singh.
(12) In this connection, evidence of eyewitnesses is duly corroborated by FIR Ex.P1 which was lodged within 1 hour and 15 minutes whereas complainant Rameshwar (PW1) had to go to the Police Station with various injured persons. Also, when a counter- FIR in the case is proved as Ex.D13, it was lodged by appellant Dinesh Singh. By that FIR, the presence of all the appellants is duly proved. That FIR was lodged after 2 hours and 25 minutes after the incident. Also, evidence given by various witnesses is duly corroborated by medical evidence as proved by Dr. G. C. Arya (PW-8) and Dr. Madhup Kumar(PW-9). The SHO S.R. Sankhediya (PW-10) has seized various weapons from the accused persons and sent them for their forensic science examination. The Forensic Science Laboratory gave its report Ex.P41 and according to that, 10 CRA 515/2001 all the weapons recovered from various accused persons, namely, Shankar Singh, Dinesh Singh, Arjun and Rajveer are found blood- stained. However, in the report of serologist Ex.P42, it could not be determined that the bloodstains found on the weapons were of human origin and no grouping could be done due to various reasons as mentioned in the report Ex.P42. But the report of Forensic Science Laboratory Ex.P41 clearly indicates that blood was found on the weapons recovered from concerned appellants. Hence, evidence given by various victims specially when the victims were injured witnesses, is acceptable and it is proved beyond doubt that that appellant Rajesh fired with the gun causing death of Lal Singh and Ramveer Singh. Appellant Surendra Singh and Shankar Singh with the help of farsa caused simple injuries to various victims like Bhagwan Devi, Narendra Singh, Jagdish Singh and Ramveer Singh. Appellant Dinesh and Rajveer have assaulted the various victims with lathis causing simple injuries. However, no specific allegation has been made by witnesses against appellant Ramnaresh as to whom he assaulted with any weapon and, therefore, it is not proved against appellant Ramnaresh that he assaulted anyone out of the victims.
(13) Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that it is a case of right of private defence. The appellants filed the certified copy of FIR ExD13 and MLC reports of various appellants including Dinesh Singh, Arjun Singh and Shankar Singh. Out of them, Dinesh Singh had sustained various fractures and no explanation is given by the prosecution witnesses about the injuries caused to the appellants. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, the genesis of the crime should be proved by the prosecution in respect of accused persons also. Neither complainant Rameshwar has stated anything about the injuries of the appellants in FIR Ex.P1 nor any of the eyewitnesses has stated about the injuries caused to the victims. Actually, the 11 CRA 515/2001 Panchayat was called by appellant Arjun Singh because the complainant party was giving a blame upon him that Devendra Singh son of complainant Rameshwar was abducted by the appellants and, therefore, to erase that blame, the Panchayat was called. Hence, it is for the eye-witnesses to explain as to how the incident took place and who started the quarrel first. (14) In this connection, the reliance has been placed by learned counsel for the appellants upon the judgments passed by the Apex Court in various cases of "Darshan Singh vs. State of Punjab'' [(2010) 2 SCC 333], ''Puran vs. State of Rajasthan'' [AIR 1976 SC 912], ''Lakshmi Singh and Others vs. State of Bihar '' [1976 SC 2263], ''Mariadasan and others vs. State of Tamil Nadu'' AIR 1980 SC 573], ''Bhagwan Swaroop vs. State of Madhya Pradesh'' [AIR 1992 SC 675], '' Subramani and Ors. vs. State of Tamil Nadu'' [AIR 2002 SC 2980] and ''Suresh Singhal vs. State (Delhi Administration)'' [2017 SCC Online SC 82] and submitted that right of private defence was accrued to various appellants. (15) After considering the aforesaid judgments passed by the Apex Court, a little portion of para 11 of the judgment of Lakshmi Singh (supra), may be referred as under:-
" hence in a murder case where one of the accused is proved to have sustained injuries in the course of the same occurrence, the non-explanation of such injuries by the prosecution is a manifest defect in the prosecution case and shows that the origin and genesis of the occurrence had been deliberately suppressed which leads to the irresistible conclusion that the prosecution has not come out with a true version of the occurrence."
According to the judgment, if injuries caused to accused persons are denied, genesis is suppressed and the defence version is probable, then advantage of right of private defence should be given to the accused persons. In the present case, it is true that none of the prosecution witnesses has stated about the injuries caused to appellants Dinesh Singh, Arjun Singh and Shankar 12 CRA 515/2001 Singh. When the Panchayat was called by appellant Arjun Singh then it was for the prosecution to prove that who started the quarrel. Hence, in absence of genesis of crime told by the prosecution witnesses, in the light of the aforesaid judgments, it appears that the appellants except appellant Rajesh had a right of private defence against various persons of the complainant side and, therefore, if they caused simple injuries to various injured persons like Bhagwan Devi, Narendra Singh, Raghuveer Singh and Ramveer Singh, then in the light of their right of private defence, they did not commit any crime. They had the right of private defence to save themselves and, therefore, they had not committed any crime towards these persons. The trial Court has committed an error in convicting various appellants for offence under Section 324 or 323 of IPC. When most of the appellants were defending their right of private defence, then it cannot be said that any unlawful assembly was constituted and, therefore, in absence of any unlawful assembly none of the appellants could be convicted of offence under Section 148 or 147 of IPC. The trial Court has committed an error in convicting the appellants for the offence under Section 148 of IPC.
(16) So far as the case of appellant Rajesh is concerned, various witnesses have stated that appellant Rajesh was present at the spot with gun and during the quarrel, he fired with a gun causing injuries to the deceased Lal Singh and Ramveer Singh. Learned defence counsel has given suggestions to all such witnesses and their attention was invited to the FIR Ex.P1 in which it is mentioned that at the end of quarrel appellant Rajesh went to his house and brought a mouser gun and thereafter, he fired with the gun for two times. Since the witnesses have stated against the FIR Ex.P1 that appellant Rajesh had the gun from the very beginning then looking to the contradiction in the FIR their allegations cannot be accepted. They have changed their version only to implicate all the 13 CRA 515/2001 appellants with appellant Rajesh and, therefore, their changed version cannot be accepted. But the witnesses have proved that it was the appellant Rajesh who fired with the gun causing injuries to deceased Lal Singh and Ramveer Singh.
(17) The appellants in their defence evidence including the FIR Ex.D13, did not mention about the injuries caused to deceased Lal Singh and Ramveer Singh. If description given by the appellants in the FIR Ex.D13 and the evidence as given by all eye-witnesses in the case is considered then it would be apparent that when appellant Rajesh came with a gun the quarrel was already over. Nobody was beating anyone from his rival party. Hence, the right of private defence which had accrued to other appellants was not available to the appellant Rajesh. He fired the gun when the quarrel was over.
(18) Learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of ''Shingara Singh vs. State of Haryana and Another'' [(2003) 12 SCC 758] to show that if the accused exceeds his right of private defence then in the light of Exception II of Section 300 of IPC the offence shall fall within the purview of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, as proved under Section 304 (I) of IPC but such submission cannot be accepted due to factual difference of the case. It is not a case that to stop the quarrel appellant Rajesh fired with a gun in haphazard manner and the injuries were caused to deceased Lal Singh and Ramveer Singh. As opined by Dr. G.C. Arya (PW-8), Lal Singh as well as Ramveer Singh had sustained gunshot injuries on their back and, therefore, they were not doing anything against the appellant or anybody at that time when appellant Rajesh fired upon them and, therefore, it is not at all a case of right of private defence relating to appellant Rajesh. When quarrel was going on, appellant Rajesh went to take the gun and when he came back with the gun the quarrel was over but still he fired upon two victims 14 CRA 515/2001 who were not assaulting him or anyone. In FIR Ex.D13, Lal Singh was not shown to be an assailant whereas appellant Rajesh gave his first fire on the deceased Lal Singh and, therefore, when name of deceased Lal Singh was not there in the counter-FIR Ex.D13, lodged by appellant Dinesh Singh then he was not the assailant and there was no need to appellant Rajesh to fire upon him. A defence was taken by the appellants that the appellants have snatched the gun of deceased Lal Singh when he was firing from the gun and it was given to the Investigating Officer who recovered the same in a counter-case. However, there is no evidence that deceased Lal Singh had a gun at the spot or he used the gun. Investigating Officer SR Sankhediya (PW10) has accepted in para 32 of his evidence that since Lal Singh had expired who had the licence of the gun, therefore, his brother produced that gun and it was deposited in Malkhana of the Police Station. Under these circumstances, claim of the appellants is incorrect that Lal Singh had a gun or he used the gun. If he would have used the gun then his name should have been mentioned as assailant in the counter- FIR Ex.D13. After firing once there was no need to fire for the second time but again appellant Rajesh fired with the gun causing injuries to deceased Ramveer Singh, whereas, at the time of firing, Ramveer Singh was not beating anyone. Even when he was participating in the crime then the quarrel must have stopped at the time when Lal Singh received fire and, therefore, no second fire was required but it was done by appellant Rajesh, hence his intention to cause death of deceased Ramveer Singh is established.
(19) Under these circumstances, it is established beyond doubt that appellant Rajesh fired with the gun for two times when quarrel was over and he had no right of private defence in his favour. Initially he fired upon deceased Lal Singh who was not at all an assailant according to the FIR Ex.D13 and, therefore, his overt act falls within the purview of intentionally killing. Hence, he was liable 15 CRA 515/2001 for offence under Section 302 of IPC. Similarly, when the quarrel was over, appellant Rajesh fired with a gun upon deceased Ramveer Singh causing his death and, therefore, he is liable on two count charges of Section 302 of IPC. The trial Court has rightly convicted him for that offence.
(20) When it is established that the appellants except appellant No.1- Rajesh had right of private defence in the case then none of the appellants can be convicted of offence under Section 324 or 323 of IPC. Since appellant Rajesh did not assault anyone of the victims except deceased Lal Singh and Ramveer Singh then it cannot be said that he had common intention with other accused persons and when other accused persons shall be acquitted from the charge of Section 324 or 323 of IPC then appellant Rajesh shall also be acquitted from aforesaid charges. Similarly, when it is established that the appellants were defending themselves then it cannot be said that they were the part of unlawful assembly. Common object of five persons or more, could not be proved with appellant Rajesh and, therefore, none of the accused can be convicted of offence under Section 148 of IPC. The trial Court has committed an error in convicting the appellants of offence under Section 148 of IPC and other offences with the help of Section 149 of IPC. On the similar description, none of the appellants except Rajesh can be convicted of offence under Section 302 with the help of Section 34 or 149 of IPC because no overt act of the other appellants was proved that they intended to kill deceased Lal Singh or Ramveer Singh.
(21) Appellant Arjun Singh has also been convicted of offence under Section 30 of the Arms Act but it would be apparent that appellant Arjun Singh kept his gun in his house. He did not bring the gun to the spot. On the other hand, appellant Rajesh went to his house and brought the gun. Therefore, it cannot be said that appellant Arjun Singh had provided the gun to appellant Rajesh contrary to the condition of licence. If he had kept the gun in safe 16 CRA 515/2001 custody and Rajesh went to his house and brought the gun but in that over act of Rajesh there was no role of Arjun Singh and, therefore, it cannot be said that he was guilty of offence under Section 30 of the Arms Act.
(22) So far as the sentence is concerned, appellant Rajesh is found guilty of offence under Section 302 of IPC on two count charges. The trial Court has recorded a minimum sentence for that offence. Hence, there is no reason to further dilute the sentence recorded against appellant Rajesh.
(23) On the basis of aforesaid discussion, appeal filed by various appellants except appellant Rajesh is acceptable. They cannot be convicted of any offence for which the charges have been levelled against them. Hence, their appeal is accepted. Their conviction of offences under Sections 148, 302/149 (two counts), 324 or 324/149, 323 or 323/149 of IPC is set aside and consequently, the sentence inflicted by the trial Court is also set aside. They are acquitted from all the aforesaid charges. Appellant Arjun Singh is also acquitted from the charge of Section 30 of the Arms Act. The appeal filed by appellant- Rajesh is partly allowed. He is acquitted from the charges of Sections 148, 324/149 and 323/149 of IPC. His conviction and sentence for aforesaid offences are set aside. However, his conviction and sentence on two count charges of Section 302 of IPC is hereby maintained.
(24) The appellant- Rajesh is in jail and the Principal Registrar is directed to arrange for issuance of supersession warrant against him in tune of present judgment, whereas other appellants are on bail, their presence is no more required and, therefore, it is directed that bail bonds of other appellants except appellant Rajesh shall stand discharged.
(N. K. Gupta) (Anand Pathak)
Judge Judge
22/02/2017 22 /02/2017
MKB