AKLOO AHIR versus STATE OF BIHAR

Citation: [2010] 4 S.C.R. 604 · Decided: 11-03-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: H.S. BEDI, C.K. PRASAD · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2010]' 4 S.C.R. 604 
AKLOO AHIR 
v. 
STATE OF BIHAR 
(Criminal Appeal No. 836 of 2009) 
MARCH 11, 2010* 
[HARJIT SINGH BEDI AND C.K. PRASAD, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860: 
c · ·' .ss. J02/B4 and 307 - The fire stated to have been shot 
by accused-appellant missed the target - The fire shot by co-
accused hit the victim resulting into his death - Conviction 
of accused-appellant u/s 307 - Conviction of eight others u/ 
s 302134 - Six of the accused acquitted by High Court -
0 Appeal by the accused convicted u/s 307 - HELD: There is 
absolutely no suggestion whatsoever in the prosecution 
evidence of pre-concert or proof of a prior meeting of minds 
between the appellant and his co-accused -
There is 
admittedly evidence to show that there was animosity between 
some of the accused and the complainant party but in the 
E light of the fact that the accused against whom the animosity 
had been suggested have been acquitted, this fact does not 
in any way come into play against the appellant - It has also 
to be noticed that the accused were all living in close proximity 
- The possibility, therefore, that they were attracted to the 
F place of incident on account of noise and did not come 
together with a pre-planned objective to commit murder 
cannot be ruled out - In any way, there is no evidence to 
suggest that there was any prior meeting of minds -
Conviction of the appellant uls 302134 /PC is not called for -
G In the light of the fact that the appellant had fired a shot which 
missed its target his conviction u/s 307 has, therefore, to be 
maintained - Sentence is, however, reduced from ten years 
to five years. 
• 
Judgment Recd. on 24.4.2010 
H 
604 
AKLOO AHIR v. STATE OF BIHAR 
605 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
A 
No. 836 of 2009. 
From the Judgment & Order dated 29.10.2003 of the High 
Court of Patna in Crl. Appeal No. 36 of 2000. 
P.S. Mishra, Upendra Mishra, Dhruv Kr. Jha, Thagat 
B 
Harshvardhan, Pavan Kumar, Pawan Kr. Sharan for the 
Appellant. 
Ritesh Kr. Choudhary (for Gopal Singh) for the 
Respondent. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered 
ORDER 
c 
This appeal by way of special leave arises out of the 
following facts: 
D 
At about 5.00 p.m. on 10th January 1981 Kishore Bhagat 
had returned home along with his father after feeding their cattle. 
As they were entering the door of the house Garju Ahir one of 
the accused (since deceased) emerged from the North side 
E 
and asked Kishore Bhagat to return his fodder machine. 
Kishore Bhagat, however, refused to do so on which Garju fired 
a shot at him which did not hit its target. Appellant Akaloo Ahir, 
thereafter, came from the same direction and fired another shot 
at Kishore Bhagat which too missed its target. Following this 
F 
attack, Suresh Singh and Brij Mohan Ahir too came there and 
Suresh Singh handed over a cartridge to his companion who 
fired a shot with his gun which hit Kishore Bhagat on his chest 
and stomach killing him at the spot. Several other accused 
armed with traditional weapons, thereafter, attacked Kishore 
G 
Bhagat and caused several injuries to him as well and having 
done so the accused ran away from the spot leaving the dead 
body at the place where it had fallen. 
On the completion of the investigation the accused Brij 
Mohan Ahir was charged for the offence under Sec.302 of the 
H 
I 
606 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2010] 4 S.C.R. 
A IPC whereas the others were charged under Sec.302/34 of the 
IPC. Garju Ahir and Akaloo Ahir, the present appellants, were 
charged under Section 307/34 of the IPC and under Sec.27 of 
the Arms Act as well. The Court of Sessions in the course of 
its judgment held that the prosecution story had been proved 
B beyond doubt and that all the accused other than Garju Ahir 
(who had died during trial) were liable to conviction and 
sentence for the offences under which they have been charged. 
The matter was, thereafter, taken in appeal to the High Court 
and the High Court partly reversed the judgment of the trial 
c Court holding that as the accused who had been armed with 
traditional weapons had not caused any injuries in the light of 
the statement of the Doctor, they were entitled to acquittal. The 
appeal filed by Suresh Singh, Brij Mohan Ahir and Akaloo Ahir 
was, however, dismissed. The present appeal has been filed 
0 
in this Court only at the instance of Akaloo Ahir. 
Mr. P.S. Mishra, the learned senior counsel has raised only 
one argument during the cour

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.