Ramjit & Ors vs State Of U.P

Ramjit and Ors. .........Appellants

Versus

State of U.P. ........ Respondent

JUDGMENT

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1

1. Leave granted.

2. A Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court dismissed the appeal

filed by the appellants who were convicted for offences punishable under

Section 302 read with Section 149 and Section 307 read with Section 149

and Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the `IPC').

3. In all five persons had filed the appeal. During pendency of the

appeal before the High Court appellant accused Mangaru died and the

appeal stood abated so far as he is concerned. The learned 3rd Additional

Sessions Judge, Azamgarh, had found the five accused persons guilty in

S.T. No.78 of 1982. The present appeal has been filed by four of the

accused persons who were A2, A3, A4 and A5 before the trial Court.

4. Prosecution version in a nutshell is as follows:

The incident resulting in the death of Sukhai and causing injuries to

Sabhajit and Laljit occurred on 26.12.1981 in Village Larpur Saheb Ali

situated within the limits of P.S. Didarganj, District Azamgarh. First

2 Information Report was lodged on 26.12.1981 by Ramjit S/o Sukhai Yadav

R/o Village Larpur Saheb Ali. The case of prosecution as appearing from

the F.I.R. in brief is that the chak of the complainant Ramjit was situated in

northern side near to the house of Mangaru S/o Munne Lal Yadav. On

26.12.1981 Sabhajit, brother of the complainant, along with one Dhodhai

(PW-2) was harrowing his wheat field. At about 4.30 p.m. the bull of the

accused Mangaru entered into another field of the complainant and started

grazing and damaging the wheat crop. Sabhajit seeing the bull grazing and

damaging his wheat crop, called Ramjit son of Mangaru and asked him to

take out his bull. Sabhajit complained also to Ramjit that their cattle always

trespass in his field and damage the grown standing crop. Thereupon,

Ramjit hurling abuses to Sabhajit went inside his house and immediately

thereafter the accused Mangaru and Rajdev having lathies in their hands and

Ram Bachan, Ram Achal and Ramjit armed with knife, bhala and gandasi

respectively came there and they all began to assault Sabhajit. When on

hearing hue and cry, the complainant Ramjit, his father Sukhai and brother

Laljit rushed to save Sabhajit, the accused persons assaulted Sukhai and

Laljit also. Behind the complainant, his cousin Indrajit, witnesses Sabhajit

S/o Bahadur Yadav and Sita S/o Madhar Yadav of his village and Ram

Narayan Singh S/o Hub Raj Singh of village Larpur Jhokhu as well as his

3 maternal uncle Sudarshan of village Gilwara also reached there. On being

challenged by these persons, the accused went away after causing injuries to

Sabhajit, Laljit and Sukhai. The complainant Ramjit witnessed the incident

standing at some distance. Sukhai having sustained serious injuries fell

down in the field and died instantaneously. Sabhajit and Laljit also

sustained serious injuries due to which they were carried to Government

Hospital, Phulpur for treatment. The complainant with the help of Banarsi,

Jeetu, Adhin and Keesa carried the dead body of his father to P.S.

Deedarganj and handed over written report there which was scribed by

Abhai Raj (P.W.4).

On the basis of written report the then Head Moharir, Bal Govind

Tiwari prepared chik F.I.R. and registered a case on 26.12.1981 at 6.30 p.m.

under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 307, 302 I.P.C. at Crime

No.106/1981 against Mangaru, Ramjit, Ram Achal, Ram Bachan and

Rajdev and made entry in G.D. vide Ext.Ka-3.

The inquest proceeding on the dead body of Sukhai was conducted on

27.12.1981 by S.I. Lat Buksh Singh (PW-5) who prepared inquest report

and connected papers. Thereafter, the dead body in sealed condition was

4 sent through the constable Ram Ugrah Pandit for post mortem examination

which was conducted on 28.12.1981 at 2.00 p.m. by Dr. S.N. Sinha (PW-7)

who prepared post mortem report. Various injuries were found on the

person of the deceased. Investigation of the case was entrusted to S.I. Lat

Buksh Singh (PW-5) who recorded the statement of the witnesses and after

making spot inspection at the instance of the complainant Ramjit prepared

site plan. Blood stained and sample earth were collected from two places in

the field of occurrence and one knife was also recovered from the place

where the dead body of the Sukhai was stated to be lying in the field and

fard Ext.Ka.8 and KA-9 were prepared in this regard. Thereafter, blood

stained lathi, gandasi and bhala were recovered from the well of accused

Mangaru at the instance of witnesses and fard was prepared.

After completion of investigation charge sheet was filed. Since the

accused persons pleaded innocence trial was held. Nine witnesses were

examined to further the prosecution version. Sabhajit Yadav (PW-1) and

Laljit (PW-3) were injured witnesses. Similarly, Dhodhai (PW-2) was also

an eye witness. Placing reliance on the evidence of the eye witnesses the

trial Court recorded the conviction as noted above.

5 In appeal, the primary stand was that occurrence took place in a

sudden quarrel and, therefore, Section 302 has no application. It was

pointed out that there was exchange of hot words and there was sudden

quarrel because the bullocks damaged the crops.

The High Court did not find any substance in the plea of the

appellants and upheld the conviction.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants reiterated the stand taken before

the High Court. Learned counsel for the respondent-State on the other hand

supported the judgment of the Trial Court as affirmed by the High court.

6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the State that this cannot be

stated to be a case of sudden quarrel because the accused persons after the

quarrel went inside and came back with arms. In the instant case though the

witnesses stated that after initial exchange of hot words and quarrel the

accused persons went inside and came back, it is to be noted that they have

fairly accepted that while the exchange of hot words, quarrel was continuing

and immediately i.e. in less than two and three minutes they came back.

6

7. That being so, in the peculiar facts of the case we are of the

considered view that appropriate conviction would be under Section 304

Part I read with Section 149 IPC. The conviction is accordingly altered.

The other convictions remain unaltered. Custodial sentence of 10 years in

respect of offence punishable under Section 304 Part I IPC would suffice.

The sentences in respect of other offences remain unaltered. All the

sentences shall run concurrently.

8. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent.

....................................J. (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)

....................................J. (ASOK KUMAR GANGULY) New Delhi, January 12, 2009

7