Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: section 452 in Satender Alias Sanju vs State on 30 March, 2012Matching Fragments
1. In these appeals three accused i.e. Devender, Pradeep and Parvesh were convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302/34/452/149 IPC; the accused Satinder, Dharamvir and Gulab Rai were convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 307/34 IPC and Sections for 452/149 IPC. The appellant Mahender was convicted for the offence punishable under section 452/34 IPC and acquitted of other charges. All the appellants were sentenced to undergo various prison terms; those convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 302/34 IPC were sentenced to imprisonment for life; for other offences, they were sentenced to lesser sentences. Those convicted for offences under Sections 307/34 and 452/149 IPC were sentenced for 3 years' imprisonment and other sentences. Mahender too was sentenced to undergo 3 years' imprisonment. All the sentences were directed to operate concurrently.
XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX"
In the absence of any clear cut motive, or proof of pre-meditated design, what this court discerns is that first PW-3 was dragged out, after which the deceased was pulled out from his home. The intention of all the accused who went to the victim's house, is undoubtedly suspect. Yet, it is difficult to conclude without any doubt that Pradeep and Parvesh shared the common intention with Devender that he would commit the offence punishable under Crl.A. 244/2010, Crl. 317/2010, Crl.A. 162/2010 & Crl.A. 163/2010 Page 28 Section 302 IPC since they could not have been aware that injury would be inflicted on such a vital part of the body. In these circumstances, they can be attributed that the acts of Devender would have resulted in injuries on the deceased, that would have led to death in the ordinary course of nature. Their conviction under Section 302 IPC is accordingly modified to one under Section 304 Part I. The other conviction under Section 452/149 IPC is affirmed. The conviction of Devender too, for offences under Sections 452/149 IPC is maintained.
32. As regards PW-3, no doubt he is an injured witness. Yet, the injuries suffered by him, were simple, according to the attending doctor, PW-4. His MLC, PW-4/D also states that there was a single sharp edged weapon injury on the arm; it was evaluated as simple. Therefore, Satender, who inflicted that injury, is guilty for the offence punishable under Section 324, IPC. The others who held PW-3 to facilitate his attack, i.e Gulab Rai and Dharambir, are guilty by association, by theory of joint responsibility, on account of common intention, under Section 34, IPC. Their conviction under Section 452/149 IPC is also affirmed. As far as Mahendra is concerned, his conviction under Section 452 IPC is left undisturbed.
33. In view of the above findings, the conviction of Devender is maintained in respect of all the offences. The conviction of Pradeep and Pravesh, for the offence under Section 302 IPC is substituted to one under Section 304-I/34 IPC. Their sentence is modified from life imprisonment to imprisonment for 10 years each. Their sentences for the offences punishable under Section 452/149 IPC are confirmed.
Crl.A. 244/2010, Crl. 317/2010, Crl.A. 162/2010 & Crl.A. 163/2010 Page 29
34. The conviction of Gulab Rai, Satender and Dharamvir, having been modified to one under Section 324, instead of Section 307 IPC, the sentence is accordingly altered to 2 ½ years. The conviction and sentence under Sections 452/149 IPC, is left undisturbed. The conviction of Appellant Mahender under Section 452/149 IPC is left undisturbed. In all the cases, the sentences of fine are left undisturbed.