Motilal Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar
EmailAppeal: Criminal Appeal No. 1015-1017 of 1998
Petitioner: Motilal Singh & Ors.
Respondent: State of Bihar
Apeal: Criminal Appeal No. 1015-1017 of 1998
Judges: K.T. THOMAS & S.N. VARIAVA, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Feb 08, 2001
Head Note:
CRIMINAL LAW
Indian Penal Code, 1860
Sections 302, 147, 148/149 – About 10 persons attacking – Nine persons injured with gunshot injuries – All accused having gone to a hut, started demolishing – PW objecting – One of the accused (A1) firing upon PW – Another accused (A3) replenishing cartridges – A1 continuing firing indiscriminately – Out of eight injured, one died after two days – A1 sentenced under section 302 and sentenced to life imprisonment – Defence version that prosecution party was aggressor, not believed – Except A1 and A3, others convicted under sections 147 and 148 – By this time A3 died. Held that appeal by A1 is dismissed. For remaining period of sentence reduced to that of already undergone. (Paras 3 to 6)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. There were two rival versions of one incident which happened at about 8.00 p.m. on 27.10.1981. One Sulakhan Singh and eight others were shot with gun. Sulakhan Singh died later at the hospital. Ten persons were arraigned as accused. The trial court acquitted A4 – Shyamjit Singh and convicted A1 – Sheoji Singh under section 302 IPC and A-3 Ranji Singh under section 302 read with section 149 IPC and sentenced them to life imprisonment. A2 – Rajballam Singh, A8 – Motilal Singh and A10 – Ramchandra Singh were convicted only under section 148 and were sentenced to suffer RI for 2 years while A5 – Jatan Singh, A6 – Bharath Singh, A7 – Hare Kishan Singh and A9 – Dhuplal Singh were convicted under Section 147 IPC and they were sentenced to RI for one year.
2. All the convicted persons filed appeals before the High court and their appeals were dismissed. When the appeals were pending in the High Court A10 – Ramchandra Singh died. The remaining convicted persons preferred these appeals by special leave. When the appeals were pending A3 – Ramji Singh died. The resultant position is that there are only seven accused now.
3. The occurrence according to the prosecution is the following:
There was a dispute regarding the land on which a hut was erected. On the morning of occurrence all the accused proceeded towards the hut. PW-10 (Daroga Singh) was then inside the hut. When the accused started demolishing the hut PW-10 (Daroga Singh) objected. Then A1 – Sheoji Singh fired at him. The cartridges were replenished by A3 – Ramji Singh and thereafter A1 – Sheoji Singh continued to fire indiscriminately during which eight persons sustained firearm injuries. One of them (Sulakhan Singh) died two days later.
4. The defence adopted was broadly that PW 10 – Daroga Singh and his associates went to the house of A1 – Sheoji Singh and attacked him and his father and an encounter took thereafter. Some of the accused also sustained injuries among which the A10 – Ram Chandra Singh had a cut on the bone of the head. The injuries on the persons of other accused were all simple. An F.I.R. was lodged by PW10 – Daroga Singh at 9.00. P.M. on the date of occurrence itself in which the version of the prosecution was furnished at the earliest point of time. Subsequently, the police recorded a statement from A9 – Dhuplal Singh at 10.45 a.m. in which he gave his version of what happened.
5. The trial court and the High court found the accused party to be aggressor and hence the conviction and sentence as aforesaid. After going through the evidence of the material witnesses we are unable to hold that the prosecution party was the aggressor. The finding recorded by the trial court and the High Court in that regard, therefore, needs no interference.
6. We, therefore, confirm the conviction and sentence passed on A1 – Sheoji Singh and dismiss the appeal filed by him. The remaining appellants were convicted only under sections 147 and 148 IPC and we have no reason to acquit them of the said offences. However, in the circumstances of this case the sentence of imprisonment for those lesser offences can be reduced to the period of imprisonment which those accused have already undergone. We do so.
8. With the above slight modification in regard to the sentence of the offences under sections 147 and 148 IPC, we dispose of these appeals.
1. There were two rival versions of one incident which happened at about 8.00 p.m. on 27.10.1981. One Sulakhan Singh and eight others were shot with gun. Sulakhan Singh died later at the hospital. Ten persons were arraigned as accused. The trial court acquitted A4 – Shyamjit Singh and convicted A1 – Sheoji Singh under section 302 IPC and A-3 Ranji Singh under section 302 read with section 149 IPC and sentenced them to life imprisonment. A2 – Rajballam Singh, A8 – Motilal Singh and A10 – Ramchandra Singh were convicted only under section 148 and were sentenced to suffer RI for 2 years while A5 – Jatan Singh, A6 – Bharath Singh, A7 – Hare Kishan Singh and A9 – Dhuplal Singh were convicted under Section 147 IPC and they were sentenced to RI for one year.
2. All the convicted persons filed appeals before the High court and their appeals were dismissed. When the appeals were pending in the High Court A10 – Ramchandra Singh died. The remaining convicted persons preferred these appeals by special leave. When the appeals were pending A3 – Ramji Singh died. The resultant position is that there are only seven accused now.
3. The occurrence according to the prosecution is the following:
There was a dispute regarding the land on which a hut was erected. On the morning of occurrence all the accused proceeded towards the hut. PW-10 (Daroga Singh) was then inside the hut. When the accused started demolishing the hut PW-10 (Daroga Singh) objected. Then A1 – Sheoji Singh fired at him. The cartridges were replenished by A3 – Ramji Singh and thereafter A1 – Sheoji Singh continued to fire indiscriminately during which eight persons sustained firearm injuries. One of them (Sulakhan Singh) died two days later.
4. The defence adopted was broadly that PW 10 – Daroga Singh and his associates went to the house of A1 – Sheoji Singh and attacked him and his father and an encounter took thereafter. Some of the accused also sustained injuries among which the A10 – Ram Chandra Singh had a cut on the bone of the head. The injuries on the persons of other accused were all simple. An F.I.R. was lodged by PW10 – Daroga Singh at 9.00. P.M. on the date of occurrence itself in which the version of the prosecution was furnished at the earliest point of time. Subsequently, the police recorded a statement from A9 – Dhuplal Singh at 10.45 a.m. in which he gave his version of what happened.
5. The trial court and the High court found the accused party to be aggressor and hence the conviction and sentence as aforesaid. After going through the evidence of the material witnesses we are unable to hold that the prosecution party was the aggressor. The finding recorded by the trial court and the High Court in that regard, therefore, needs no interference.
6. We, therefore, confirm the conviction and sentence passed on A1 – Sheoji Singh and dismiss the appeal filed by him. The remaining appellants were convicted only under sections 147 and 148 IPC and we have no reason to acquit them of the said offences. However, in the circumstances of this case the sentence of imprisonment for those lesser offences can be reduced to the period of imprisonment which those accused have already undergone. We do so.
8. With the above slight modification in regard to the sentence of the offences under sections 147 and 148 IPC, we dispose of these appeals.
