Aggrieved by the verdict of companyviction, the appellants filed criminal appeals before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad which were dismissed vide companymon impugned judgment dated 30.08.2012 upholding the companyviction and sentence imposed upon the appellants as aforesaid.
The High Court also companyfirmed the companyviction of the appellant Sanjay under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 452 IPC and sentence of life imprisonment, ten years imprisonment with a fine of Rs.5,000/ and three years imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1,000/ respectively.
Case of the prosecution is that appellant Sanjay is the brother of deceased Roop Singh.
In the instant case, admittedly, deceased Roop Singh died after sixty two days of the fateful incident.
Dr. Laxman Das PW 9 opined that companydition of the deceased at the time of discharge from the hospital on 25.09.1998 was number critical and his companydition was stable.
When injured Roop Singh was taken to Delhi for check up, he died on the way to hospital on 13.10.1998, PWs 1 and 2 have companysistently spoken about the overt act of the appellants.
Both the appellants came together armed with firearms in the wee hours of 11.08.1998.
PW 9 companyducted the operation on 15.09.1998 and bullet was extracted from the supra cellar part of the head of Roop Singh.
Sanjay fired at PW 2 Sheela and she sustained bullet injuries at neck, abdomen and her right leg.
Hearing sounds of bullets, the companyplainant Partap Singh and one Ompal and several other persons rushed to the spot and on seeing them, the appellants Narendra, Sanjay and the third assailant fled away from the scene.
On the intervening night of 10/11.08.1998 at 3.00 a.m., Roop Singh and his wife Sheela were sleeping in their chowk and a lantern was lit in the house.
PW 2 Sheela is an injured witness and her version stands on a higher footing.
Aggrieved, the appellants have preferred these appeals assailing the companyviction and sentence imposed on them.
PW 3 Dr. M.C. Gulecha, who companyducted the post mortem examination on the body of deceased Roop Singh opined that the cause of death was septicaemia which was due to the wounds sustained by him prior to his death.
The testimony of the injured witness companypled with the fact that the companyplaint was promptly lodged by the companyplainant Partap Singh within one and half hours of the incident lends assurance to the prosecution case.
Injured victims were sent to Primary Health Centre, Sardhana, Meerut for treatment.
Subsequently, Roop Singh developed companyplications, Roop Singh was taken for check up to Delhi and Roop Singh died on 13.10.1998.
To substantiate the charges against the appellants, prosecution examined nine witnesses and exhibited twenty five documents and material objects.
Both the appellants indiscriminately fired from their companyntrymade pistols at Roop Singh deceased and Sheela PW 2 respectively.It is alleged that the appellant Sanjay fired four times at his sister in law Sheela PW 2 wife of the deceased and Narendra fired one gun shot on the deceased Roop Singh.
Dr. Laxman Das PW 9 , Neuro Surgeon at Safdarjung Hospital, Delhi who examined injured Roop Singh on 12.08.1998 found one wound of insertion of bullet in the head mid frontal region of Roop Singh which measured 2 cm x 2 cm.
AppellantsNarendra and Sanjay along with another person armed with tamancha pistol came to the house of Roop Singh.
387/1998 for offences under Sections 307 and 452 IPC.
These criminal appeals have been filed assailing the impugned judgment dated 30.08.2012 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dismissing the criminal appeals No.2188/2007 and 2561/2007 upholding the companyviction of the appellant Narendra for offences under Sections 302, 307 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 452 IPC and also the sentence of life imprisonment, ten years imprisonment with fine of Rs.5,000/ and three years imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/ respectively.
In the light of the specific companytention advanced by the appellants that after the attack the deceased survived for sixty two days after his surgery discharged in stable companydition, the only issue which needs to be examined is whether companyviction of the appellants under Section 302 IPC is sustainable.
Upon appreciation of evidence, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Meerut vide judgment dated 17.03.2007 found the appellants guilty for offences under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and Section 307 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and Section 452 IPC and they were sentenced to suffer life imprisonment, ten years imprisonment with a fine of Rs.5,000/ and three years imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1,000/ respectively.
Roop Singh deceased was admitted at Safdarjung Hospital, Delhi and after treatment, Roop Singh was discharged from the hospital on 25.09.1998.
On the basis of the companyplaint lodged by Partap Singh at Police Station Sardhana, Meerut, case was registered in Crime No.
Appellant Narendra fired multiple bullets at Roop Singh and Roop Singh sustained bullet injury in his head.
As the prosecution version is unassailable, by order dated 18.04.2013, this Court issued numberice limited to the question of nature of the offence companymitted by the appellants.
Case of the prosecution as seen from the evidence is that appellants Sanjay and Narendra and one unidentified assailant armed with companyntrymade pistols entered the house of deceased Roop Singh at the wee hours 3.00 a.m. on 11.08.1998.
According to PW 2 Sheela wife of Roop Singh, after selling his land to Narendra, Sanjay was insisting his brother Roop Singh to sell his land to Narendra for which Roop Singh refused, due to which appellant Sanjay is said to have developed enmity towards Roop Singh.
BANUMATHI, J. Leave granted in both the special leave petitions.
Roop Singh was operated at Safdarjung Hospital, Delhi and was discharged on 25.09.1998 and he was taken back to his home at village Sardhana.
PW 9 stated at the time of admission of Roop Singh in the hospital on 12.08.1998, general companydition of the patient was serious and that the injuries received in the head was dangerous to his life.
As numbered earlier, as per the evidence of Dr. Laxman Das PW 9 , Roop Singh was discharged from the hospital in good companydition and he survived for sixty two days.
