LexCHANDER PAL @ RAJ PAL versus STATE OF HARYANA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
CHANDER PAL @ RAJ PAL
A
v.
STATE OF HARYANA
OCTOBER 16, 2003
[K.G. BALAKRISHNAN AND B.N. SRIKRISHNA, JJ.]
B
Penal Code, 1860 :
Ss. 3021149, 3261149-Common object-Unlawful assembly-
Members armed with deadly weapons-Attacking the victims-Meanwhile C
one more person from the side of victims appeared on the scene and
accused started assaulting him-One of the accused shot him as a result
of which he died later-Conviction uls 3021149 by courts below-Accused
who shot at the deceased not filing appeal-Held, there is no evidence to
show that the unlawful assembly had any common object to do away with · D
the deceased-No motive or enmity on the part of accused alleged against
deceased-No evidence to indicate that the other accused were aware that
one of them was armed with a pistol-It cannot be said that unlawful
assembly was to cause death of the deceased-Object of unlawful assembly
must have been to cause injuries to complainant party-So, the offence
committed by appellants would come uls 3261149-Appellants convicted E
accordingly.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal appeal No.
744 of 2003.
From the Judgment and Order dated 18.9.2002 of the Punjab and
Haryana High Court in Crl. A. No. 174-DB of 1999.
WITH
Crl. A. No. 745 of 2003.
P.S. Mishra, A.T.M. Rangaramanujam, Rakesh K. Khanna, Rajeev
Singh, Ms. Ritu Jalali, H. Tatakat, Amitesh, Ms. Ranjana Narayan, Adv.
for Rajesh Prasad Singh, Aftab Ali Khan and V. Balalji for Variner Kumar
F
G
Sharma for the Appellants.
H
865
866
SUPREME COURT REPORTS {2003] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.
A
D.P. Singh, V.K. Garg and Avneet Toor for the Respondent.
The Order of the Court was delivered :
Eleven accused persons were tried by the Additional Sessions Judge,
B Faridabad for the offence punishable under section 148, 302/325 324, 323
and 412 read with section 149. The Sessions Judge convicted seven out
of eleven for the offence punishable under section 302 read with section
149 and also for the various other offences for which they were charged.
These seven appellants filed appeal before the High.Court and the Division
C Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court acquitted two of them. As
regards the five other accused, the High Court confirmed the conviction
and sentence imposed on them. Criminal Appeal No. 744/2003 is the
appeal preferred by one of the convicted persons, namely Chander Pal @
Raj Pal. Criminal Appeal No. 745/2003 is filed by the Rakesh, Shiv Kumar
D alias Shibbu and Anang Pal. Sunder, who was also convicted along with
these appellants, has not filed any appeal challenging his conviction and
sentence.
The incident took place on 11.7.1996 at about 4.00 a.m. at place
called Ballabhgarh in Haryana State. PW-4 Mann Singh and PW-6
E Surinder Singh were milking their cows in their cattle shed. According to
the prosecution about' I 0 to 12 persons including these appellants came to
that place and attacked PW-4 Mann Singh and PW-6 Surinder Singh with
lathi and ballam. At this time Megh Shyam came to the place and on seeing
him all the accused surrounded him and attacked him with Ballam, Pharsa
F and Lathi. Accused Surinder was armed with a country ma~e Pistol and
he shot Megh Shyam and caused injury on his head. All the appellants left
the place with their weapons of offence. PW-4 and PW-6 and one Giani
Singh also sustained injury. PW-4 and PW-6 and Megh Shyam were taken
to B.K. Hospital and as the condition of Mann Singh was serious, he was
G referred to Safdarjung Hospital, Delhi. On a telephonic information being
received by ASI Ram A vtar, he went to the hospital and recorded the
statement of Mann Singh. Pursuant to that, crime was registered against
accused persons. PW-16 conducted the investigation and questioned the
witnesses and finally filed the charge-sheet implicating all the eleven
H accused.
..
CHANDER r,AL @ RAJ PAL v. STA TE
867
We heard Shri P.S. Mishra, the learned senior counsel for the A
appellant Chandra Pal @ Raj Pal and Mr. A.T.M .. Rangaramanujam, the
learned senior counsel for appellants Rakesh and Ors. and also counsel for
the State. The counsel for the appellant contended that the evidence
adduced by the prosecution would only show that the object of the unlawful
assembly was not to cause the death of Megh Shyam and reliance was B
placed on the testimony of PWs. 4 and 6. Our attention was drawn to the
injuries sustained by Megh Shyam,,PW4 and PW6 and also Gian Singh,
who was not examinExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.