Ram Singh & Anr. Vs. The State Haryana.
EmailAppeal: Criminal Appeal No. 165 of 1987.
Petitioner: Ram Singh & Anr.
Respondent: The State Haryana.
Apeal: Criminal Appeal No. 165 of 1987.
Judges: RANGANATH MISRA & MURARI MOHON DUTT, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Dec 11, 1987
Head Note:
CRIMINAL LAW:
Indian Penal Code, 1860; Sections 149, 302, 304-I and 325 – Appellants convicted for causing death and injuring persons in a free fight – Similar injuries which caused death were suffered by some of the accused in the free fight – Whether it was an offence under s.302? – Appellants should be convicted under s.304-I and not under s.302.
JUDGEMENT:
O R D E R
1. The two appellants along with many others were convicted under Section 302 read with Section 149 and the provisions of the Indian Penal Code for causing death of one Manohar Lal and injuring other persons. The High Court came to hold that the alleged common object had not been established and it was free fight arising out of purling of abuses. It was not possible to find as to which party was the aggressor. The High Court, therefore, came to the conclusion that it was free fight and that the authors of the injuries would be punishable for their respective blows. The conviction under Section 148 was set aside. Apart from the present applellants in regard to others the High Court vacated their conviction them under Section 325 I.P.C. In regard to these two applellants, on the basis of the oral evidence as also the medical evidence the High Court sustained the conviction under Section 302 and maintained the sentence of imprisonment for life.
2. When special leave was granted it was confined to the question relating to the nature of offence and sentence.
3. Mr. Mulla appearing in support of the appeal contended that the deceased received two injuries on the head and the third one as the doctor has said could have been caused by fall.According to him since the jaili was used as a lathi and not as a piercing instrument but the metallic sharp ends attached to it have been found to have caused two injuries on the head.
4. We have read the medical evidence. We have also scanned evidence of the prosecution witnesses. The evidence is clear that lathi and Jaili were used and both of them were aimed at the head. Three injuries have been found on different parts of the head of the deceased. It is difficult for us in these circumstances to accept the contention of Mr. Mulla that only one person caused the fatal injuries on Manohar Lal.
5. Yet, it still remains to be determined whether an offence of murder has been committed and Mr. Mulla has rightly contended that an offence under Section 302 has not been established. There is material to show that similar injuries which caused the death of Manohar Lal were suffered by some of the accused persons in the free fight.
6. We are of the view that the proper section under which the two applellants should be convicted is section 304-I of the Indian Penal Code and not Section 302 I.P.C. Accordingly we direct that the appellants be convicted under Sec. 304 I.P.C. instead of under Sec. 302 I.P.C. and each of them shall suffer seven years’ rigorous imprisonment for life.
Appeal party allowed.
1. The two appellants along with many others were convicted under Section 302 read with Section 149 and the provisions of the Indian Penal Code for causing death of one Manohar Lal and injuring other persons. The High Court came to hold that the alleged common object had not been established and it was free fight arising out of purling of abuses. It was not possible to find as to which party was the aggressor. The High Court, therefore, came to the conclusion that it was free fight and that the authors of the injuries would be punishable for their respective blows. The conviction under Section 148 was set aside. Apart from the present applellants in regard to others the High Court vacated their conviction them under Section 325 I.P.C. In regard to these two applellants, on the basis of the oral evidence as also the medical evidence the High Court sustained the conviction under Section 302 and maintained the sentence of imprisonment for life.
2. When special leave was granted it was confined to the question relating to the nature of offence and sentence.
3. Mr. Mulla appearing in support of the appeal contended that the deceased received two injuries on the head and the third one as the doctor has said could have been caused by fall.According to him since the jaili was used as a lathi and not as a piercing instrument but the metallic sharp ends attached to it have been found to have caused two injuries on the head.
4. We have read the medical evidence. We have also scanned evidence of the prosecution witnesses. The evidence is clear that lathi and Jaili were used and both of them were aimed at the head. Three injuries have been found on different parts of the head of the deceased. It is difficult for us in these circumstances to accept the contention of Mr. Mulla that only one person caused the fatal injuries on Manohar Lal.
5. Yet, it still remains to be determined whether an offence of murder has been committed and Mr. Mulla has rightly contended that an offence under Section 302 has not been established. There is material to show that similar injuries which caused the death of Manohar Lal were suffered by some of the accused persons in the free fight.
6. We are of the view that the proper section under which the two applellants should be convicted is section 304-I of the Indian Penal Code and not Section 302 I.P.C. Accordingly we direct that the appellants be convicted under Sec. 304 I.P.C. instead of under Sec. 302 I.P.C. and each of them shall suffer seven years’ rigorous imprisonment for life.
Appeal party allowed.
