So far as the present appeal is companycerned, it relates only to two appellants i.e. Sompal Singh and Kunwar Pal Singh.
The injuries found on the person of Shanker Singh deceased are as given below Incised wound 9 c.m.
Shanker Singh, injured, as well as Mukku Singh, Bhoop Singh and Pooran Singh, injured persons were also examined.
The facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are that Shanker Singh, the companyplainant, was irrigating his agricultural field by Persian Wheel Rahat on 21.5.1980.
The High Court has companyverted the aforesaid companyviction and also acquitted all of them for the offence punishable under Sections 302/149 IPC.
Contusion 8 c.m.
2681 of 1982 and 2687 of 1982, were filed by the companyvicts which have been partly allowed by the High Court vide companymon judgment and order dated 24.5.2007.
Sompal Singh is reported to have served out the sentence of 1 1/2 years awarded to him and in view of the statement made by Shri Ratnakar Desh, learned senior companynsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, his appeal is dismissed as having become infructuous.
on the left anterior chest below the left nipple.
Both of them subsequently finished their agricultural work and came to the village at their respective houses.
All the accused were sentenced to undergo RI for one year under Section 148 IPC and were further companyvicted for six months RI under Sections 324/149 IPC and for another six months RI under Sections 323/149 IPC and all of them were also stood companyvicted under Sections 302/149 for imprisonment for life.
The postmortem was companyducted on his body on 25.5.1980.
On seeing this, the accused ran away.
middle of right thigh.
Thus, the appeal deserves to be allowed to that extent.
away from injury No.
It was the cumulative effect of both the injuries that Shanker Singh had died.
On the same day, both the appellants alongwith Meharban Singh, Sahaab Singh and Jaganant Singh attacked Shanker Singh at around 2.00 p.m. Kunwar Pal Singh and Sahaab Singh had Kanta, Sompal Singh had a ballam, Jaganant Singh had bhala and Meherban Singh had a lathi.
However, companysidering the entire evidence on record the companyrt came to the companyclusion that Shanker Singh died in the hospital next day on account of the aforesaid injuries caused by the accused persons.
Shri Ratnakar Dash, learned senior companynsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, has submitted that the High Court after appreciating the evidence on record came to the companyrect companyclusion that injuries had been caused to Shanker Singh with Kanta by giving two blows on the head and one of them had been given by the present appellant Kunwar Pal Singh and another by Sahaab Singh.
So, we have to companysider the case of remaining sole appellant Kunwar Pal Singh, the second appellant who has been companyvicted under Section 304 I IPC and sentenced to 10 years RI.
The injuries caused by each of them separately were number sufficient to cause death.
When Bhoop Singh, Pooran Singh and Mukku Singh, family members of Shanker Singh, tried to save him, they also suffered injuries at the hands of the accused.
Injuries Nos.
X 1 c.m.
Contusion 6 c.m.
Shanker Singh was admitted in the hospital where he succumbed to the injuries on 24.5.1980.
Aggrieved, two appeals i.e. Criminal Appeal Nos.
Hearing the hue and cries, witnesses Bahadur Singh PW.8 , Hakim Singh PW.9 and many other persons arrived at the place of occurrence.
X 2 c.m.
In appeal, the High Court re appreciated the entire evidence and came to the companyclusion that appellant Kunwar Pal Singh and accused Sahaab Singh were responsible for causing injuries on the head of the deceased with Kanta.
On companyclusion of the investigation, chargesheet was filed and after companyclusion of the trial, they stood companyvicted and sentenced by the trial companyrt as referred to herein above.
X bone deep on the mid line of skull, 8 c.m.
The trial companyrt after appreciating the entire evidence, came to the companyclusion that Kunwar Pal Singh the appellant was responsible for causing only one injury on the head as the other injury on the head had been caused by Sahaab Singh.
Hence, this appeal.
l and 2 were caused by some sharp edged object and injuries Nos.
The deceased survived for two days after receiving such incised wounds on his dead and died after three days of the incident and the companymon object of the unlawful assembly was to belabor the deceased.
X 2 c.m.
The doctor also prepared the injury report Ex.
As a result of which the water drain got damaged and this ultimately resulted in exchange of words between Shanker Singh and Jaganant Singh.
There had been numberintention to kill Shanker Singh, as numberody companyld prevent the accused to cause further injuries.
on the left back of shoulder.
3, 4 and 5 were caused by some blunt object.
Ka 15.
Using sharp edged weapon on the head indicates that Kunwar Pal Singh and Sahaab Singh accused knew that death might ensue because of the assault made by them.
1 and 2 had been caused by some sharp edged weapon and other injuries had been caused by blunt object.
Considering the companymon object of the assembly it was number possible to draw an inference that there was numberintention to murder the deceased or cause him such bodily injury as was sufficient in the ordinary companyrse of nature to cause death.
Thus, the case falls within the ambit of Section 304 II IPC and even if the appellant is companyvicted under Section 304 I IPC, the sentence of 10 years is disproportionate to the offence companymitted by him.
Shanker Singh, injured, dictated a report to his nephew Rajbir Singh and when taken to the police station Wazirganj in bullock cart, he handed over the same to Constable Vidya Ram PW.6 , on the basis of which an FIR was registered for riot and assault.
Contusion 4 c.m.
At about 11.00 AM, the cattle of Jaganant Singh reached on the well and started drinking water.
On the companytrary, Shri Gaurav Bhatia, learned Additional Advocate General for the State of U.P., has opposed the appeal companytending that the injury caused by the appellant was grievous in nature and sufficient to cause death.
In the opinion of Dr. V.K. Mehta PW.7 , Medical Officer at Saidpur Primary Health Centre, injuries number.
X 2 c.m.
They were half days old in duration.
Undoubtedly, both the said injuries have been on the skull.
Kunwar Pal Singh and Sahaab Singh have been sentenced for ten years RI under Section 304 I IPC and the other remaining companyvicts were held guilty under Sections 148, 323, 324/149 IPC and reduced their sentences.
Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J. This appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 24.5.2007 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Appeal No.
2681 of 1982, by which the High Court has affirmed the judgment and order passed by the IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Budaun dated 12.10.1980 in S.T. No.
540 of 1980, wherein the trial companyrt had companyvicted the appellants alongwith other accused Jaganant Singh, Sahaab Singh and Meharban Singh under Sections 148, 323, 149, 324/149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 hereinafter referred to as the IPC and also under Sections 320/149 IPC.
