Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: 120b 302 in Satyavir Singh Rathi vs State Tr.C.B.I on 2 May, 2011Matching Fragments
Under Section 307 IPC Read with Section 120B IPC - imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.100/-
Under Section 193 IPC
read with Section 120B
IPC - rigorous
imprisonment for 7 years
and a fine of Rs.100/-
Under Section 201 IPC -
rigorous imprisonment
for 7 years and a fine of
Rs.100/-.
Under Section 302 IPC -
rigorous imprisonment
for 2 years.
Anil Kumar, Inspector U/Sections 120B IPC,302 IPC U/Section 120B IPC -
Of Police, Delhi Police r/w 120B IPC,307IPC r/w imprisonment for life
120B IPC 193 IPC r/w 120 and a fine of Rs.100/-
B IPC,193 IPC,201/34 IPC
And 203/34 IPC
U/S 302 IPC read with
Section 120B IPC -
imprisonment for life and
a fine of Rs.100/-
U/S 307 IPC r/w
Sec.120B IPC -
imprisonment for life and
a fine of Rs.100/-.
U/S 193 IPC r/w
Sec.120B IPC - rigorous
Crl. Appeal No.2231/2009 etc.
imprisonment for 7 years
and a fine of Rs.100/-.
U/S 201 IPC - rigorous
imprisonment for 7 years
and a fine of Rs.100/-.
U/S 203 IPC - rigorous
years.
Ashok Rana,Sub- U/Sections 120B IPC,302IPC U/S 120B IPC -
Inspector of Police, r/w 120B IPC,307 IPC r/w 120B imprisonment for
Delhi Police IPC, 193 IPC r/w 120B IPC life and a fine of
Rs.100/-
U/S 302 IPC r/w
Sec.120B IPC -
imprisonment for life and
a fine of Rs.100/-
U/S 307 IPC r/w
Sec.120B IPC -
imprisonment for life and
a fine of Rs.100/-.
U/S 193 IPC r/w
Sec.120B IPC - rigorous
imprisonment for 7 years
and a fine of Rs.100/-.
U/S 201 IPC - rigorous
imprisonment for 7 years
and a fine of Rs.100/-.
U/S 203 IPC - rigorous
years.
Ashok Rana,Sub- U/Sections 120B IPC,302IPC U/S 120B IPC - imprison
Inspector of Police, r/w 120B IPC,307 IPC r/w -ment for life and a
Delhi Police 120B IPC,193 IPC r/w120B IPC fine of Rs.100/-
U/s 302 IPC r/w
S.120B IPC-
imprisonment for life
and a fine of
Rs.100/-.
U/S 307 IPC r/w
S.120B IPC -
imprisonment for life
and a fine of
Rs.100/-.
Crl. Appeal No.2231/2009 etc.
U/S 193 IPC r/w
S.120B IPC - rigorous
imprisonment for 7
years and a fine of
Rs.100/-.
Shiv Kumar,Head 120B IPC,302 IPC r/w 120B IPC U/S 120B IPC- -
Constable,Delhi 307 IPC r/w 120B IPC,193 IPC r/w imprisonment for
Police 120B IPC life and a fine of Rs.
100/-
U/S 302 IPC r/w
S.120B IPC -
imprisonment for life
and a fine of
Rs.100/-.
U/S 307 IPC r/w
S.120B IPC -
imprisonment for life
and a fine of
Rs.100/-.
U/S 193 IPC r/w
S.120B IPC - rigorous
imprisonment for 7
years and a fine of
Rs.100/-
Taj Pal Singh,Head 120B IPC,302 IPC r/w 120B U/S 120B IPC -
Constable,Delhi IPC,307 IPC r/w 120B IPC,193 imprisonment for
Police IPC r/w 120B IPC life and a fine of
Rs. 100/-
U/S 302 IPC r/w
S.120B IPC -
imprisonment for life
and a fine of
Rs.100/-
U/S 307 IPC r/w
S.120B IPC -
imprisonment for life
and a fine of
Rs.100/-.
U/S 193 IPC r/w
S.120B IPC-rigorous
imprisonment for 7
years and a fine of
Rs.100/-
Mahavir Singh,Head 120B IPC,302IPC r/w U/S 120B IPC -
Crl. Appeal No.2231/2009 etc.
Const.Delhi Police
120B IPC,307 IPC r/w
imprisonment for
120B IPC,193 IPC r/w life and a fine of
120B IPC Rs.100/-
U/S 302 IPC r/w
S.120B IPC -
imprisonment for life
and a fine of
Rs.100/-
U/S 307 IPC r/w
S.120B IPC -
imprisonment for life
and a fine of
Rs.100/-.
U/S 193 IPC r/w
S.120B IPC - rigorous
imprisonment for 7
years and a fine of
Rs.100/-.
Sumer Singh, Const. 120B IPC,302 IPC r/w 120B U/S 120B IPC -
Delhi Police. IPC 307 IPC r/w 120B IPC, imprisonment for
193 IPC r/w 120B IPC life and a fine of Rs.
100/-.
U/S 302 IPC r/w
S.120B IPC -
imprisonment for life
and a fine of
Rs.100/-.
U/S 307 IPC r/w
S.120B IPC -
imprisonment for life
and a fine of
Rs.100/-
U/S 193 IPC r/w
S.120B IPC - rigorous
imprisonment for 7
years and a fine of
Rs.100/-.
Subhash Chand,Const. 120B IPC,302 IPC r/w 120B U/S 120B IPC -
Delhi Police IPC,307 IPC r/w 120B IPC, imprisonment for
193 IPC r/w 120B IPC life and a fine of
Rs.100/-.
U/S 302 IPC r/w
S.120B IPC -
imprisonment for life
Crl. Appeal No.2231/2009 etc.
and a fine of
Rs.100/-.
U/S 307 IPC r/w
S.120B IPC -
imprisonment for life
and a fine of
Rs.100/-
U/S 193 IPC r/w
S.120B IPC - rigorous
imprisonment for 7
years and a fine of
Rs.100/-.
Sunil Kumar,Const. 120B IPC,302 IPC r/w U/S 120B IPC -
Delhi Police 120B IPC, 307 IPC r/w imprisonment for
120B IPC,193 r/w 120B life and a fine of Rs.
IPC 100/-.
U/S 302 IPC r/w
S.120B IPC -
imprisonment for life
and a fine of
Rs.100/-.
U/S 307 IPC r/w
S.120B IPC -
imprisonment for life
and a fine of
Rs.100/-.
U/S 193 IPC r/w
S.120B IPC - rigorous
imprisonment for 7
years and a fine of
Rs.100/-.
Kothari Ram, Const. 120B IPC,302 IPC r/w U/S 120B IPC -
Delhi Police 120B IPC, 307 IPC r/w 120B imprisonment for
IPC,193 IPC r/w 120B IPC life and a fine of
Rs.100/-.
U/S 302 IPC r/w
S.120B IPC -
imprisonment for life
and a fine of
Rs.100/-.
U/S 307 IPC r/w
S.120B IPC -
imprisonment for life
and a fine of
Rs.100/-.
Crl. Appeal No.2231/2009 etc.
U/S 193 IPC r/w
S.120B IPC - rigorous
imprisonment for 7
years and a fine of
Rs.100/-.
All the substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. The matter was thereafter taken in appeal to the Delhi High Court which re-examined the entire evidence and concluded that the conviction of the appellants under Section 302/120B of the IPC could not be sustained and they were entitled to acquittal of that charge, but their conviction and sentence under Sections 302 and 307 of the IPC was liable to be maintained with the aid of Section 34 of the IPC instead of Section 120B of the IPC. It was also directed that the conviction and sentence of ACP Rathi and Inspector Anil Kumar under Sections 193, 201/34 and 203/34 of the IPC was liable to be maintained. The appeals were accordingly allowed to this very limited extent. It is in this background that the matter is before us after the grant of Special leave on the 23rd November 2009.
Crl. Appeal No.2231/2009 etc. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties in extenso in arguments spread over several days. Mr. Amrendra Sharan, the learned senior counsel appearing in the lead case i.e. the appeal of ACP Satyavir Singh Rathi, has raised several arguments in the course of the hearing. He has first pointed out that the prosecution story and the findings of the trial court as well as of the High Court with regard to the manner of the incident and how it happened were erroneous and the defence version that the appellants had fired at the car in self- defence after Jagjit Singh had first fired a shot through the window injuring two policemen was, in fact, the correct one in the light of the prosecution evidence itself that a 7.65 mm bore pistol, and two fired cartridge cases had been found and recovered from the car itself as deposed to by PW13, PW15, PW35, PW41 and PW57 and as these witnesses had not been declared hostile the prosecution was bound by their statements. In this connection, the learned counsel has placed reliance on Javed Masood & Anr. vs. State of Rajasthan 2010 (3) SCC 538. It has also been pleaded that Crl. Appeal No.2231/2009 etc. the fact that a single shot had been followed by a volley had been deposed to by PW-26 Avtar Singh who was an injured witness and also by ASI Om Bir-PW who was in a police control room Gypsy stationed closed by. It has further been pointed out that from the evidence of the aforesaid witnesses it was clear that all the window panes of the car had been broken which indicated that a shot had indeed been fired from inside the car. In addition, it has been urged by Mr. Sharan that the investigation made by the CBI was completely partisan and though a large number of independent witnesses had been examined at site, none had been cited as witnesses, and that even Dr. V.Tandon, who had extracted the bullet from the person of Constable Sunil Kumar, had not been produced as a witness. It has been highlighted that no investigation had been made as to the ownership of the 7.65 mm pistol or as to how and who had planted it in the car, as alleged. It has further been submitted that there was no common intention on the part of ACP Rathi along with his co-accused to commit the murders as he was sitting in his Gypsy far away from the place of the Crl. Appeal No.2231/2009 etc. shoot out and there was no evidence whatsoever to suggest that he had either encouraged or directed the other police officials to shoot at the car and as such his conviction with the aid of Section 34 of the IPC, could not be sustained. He has, in this connection, cited Ram Nath Madhoprasad & Ors. vs. State of M.P. AIR 1953 SC 420. As a corollary to this argument, the learned counsel has also emphasized that as the trial court had framed a charge under Section 302/120B and in the alternative under Section 302/34 of the IPC but had chosen to record a conviction under the former provision only and had not rendered any opinion on the alternative charge, it amounted to a deemed acquittal of the alternative charge and as the State had not challenged the matter in appeal, the High Court was not justified in an appeal filed by the accused in altering the conviction from one under Section 302/120B of the IPC to one under Section 302/34 of the IPC. In this connection, the learned counsel has placed primary reliance on Sangaraboina Sreenu vs. State of A.P. 1997 (5) SCC 348 and Lokendra Singh vs. State of M.P. 1999 SCC (Crl) 371 Crl. Appeal No.2231/2009 etc. and Bimla Devi & Anr. vs. State of J & K 2009 (6) SCC 629 and in addition on Kishan Singh vs. Emperor AIR 1928 P.C. 254, The State of Andhra Pradesh vs. Thadi Narayana 1962 (2) SCR 904 and Lakhan Mahto vs. State of Bihar 1966 (3) SCR 643. The learned counsel has also urged that it was settled beyond doubt that the provisions of Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure had to be scrupulously observed and it was obligatory on the trial court to put all the incriminating circumstances in the prosecution story to an accused so as to enable him to effectively meet the prosecution case and if some material circumstance was not put to an accused, it could not be taken into account against him and had to be ruled out of consideration in the light of the judgments reported as Hate Singh Bhagat Singh vs. State of Madhya Bharat AIR 1953 SC 468, Vikramjit Singh vs. State of Punjab 2006 (12) SCC
We are, therefore, of the opinion that the question of deemed acquittal in such a case where the substantive charge remains the same and a charge under Section 302/120B and an alternative charge under section 302/34 of the IPC had been framed, there was nothing remiss in the High Court in modifying the conviction to one under Section 302/307/34 of the IPC. It is also self evident that the accused were aware of all the circumstances against them. We must, therefore, reject Mr. Sharan's argument with regard to the deemed acquittal in the circumstances of the case.