LexHARI SHANKAR SHUKLA versus STATE OF U.P.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2017] 3 S.C.R. 339 HARI SHANKAR SHUKLA v. STATE OF U.P. (Criminal Appeal No.1159 of2007) APRIL 05, 2017 [R. F. NARIMAN AND PRAFULLA C. PANT, JJ.) A B Penal Code, 1860 - s.304 Part 1, ss.307, 323 - Acquittal by trial court - High Court convicted accused no.3 u/s.304 Part-I, u/s.307 for attempt to murder and JO years rigorous imprisonment C - Prosecution case that scuffle led to pistol shot - Medical evidence confirmed that there was scuffle - All eye witnesses including two injured eyewitnesses clearly stated that it was appellant who opened jire and this bullet hit the deceased causing his death - Evidence of prosecution witnesses was consistent - Conviction upheld but sentence reduced to 6 years. D Partly allowing the appeals, the Court HELD: DW-1 gave medical evidence as to the extent of injuries that were caused to the appellant himself. Five injuries are spoken about, the first two being serious injuries, though described as simple in nature~ The first is lacerated wounds deep in the scalp on the right side of the forehead. The second is an incised wound, skin deep, on the left side of the forehead. The other three injuries are contusion on the back of lip at left shoulder joints, contusion on the front of middle at left arm and abrasion on the front of middle of right leg. All these injuries show that there was indeed a scuffle. In fact, the statement under Section E F 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code made by the accused, in answer to the last question - "Do you want to say something?" was that he sustained injuries. This is a case where the conviction deserves to be upheld, but the sentence needs to be reduced to G six years and fine amounting to Rs.7,000/-. [Paras 11, 121(344-C- E) CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 1159 of2007. From the Judgment and Order dated 01.03.2007 of the High Comt H 339 340 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 3 S.C.R. A of Allahabad in Government Appeal No. 360of1996 WITH Criminal Appeal No. 655 of2017. Amrendra Sharan, Sr. Adv., Rakesh Mishra (For Shekhar Kumar), B Amit Yadav, Nilakanta Nayak, Shishir Deshpande, Advs. for the Appellant. c D M. R. Shamshad, Vivek Vishnoi, Aditya Samaddar, Zaki Ahmad Khan, Advs. for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by R. F. NARIMAN,J. 1. Permission to file the special leave petition in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 932 of2008 is granted. 2. Delay condoned. 3. Leave granted. 4. The present cases arise out of a death that was caused on 11th July, 1992. The father and mother of the deceased, both injured eye- witnesses and the accused persons were residents of village Mamkhor. It appears that there was a dispute between the parties regarding land. It was alleged that the accused persons, three in number, had made an E encroachment on a part ofSehan land of the injured eye-witnesses and had placed cattle troughs there. At about 6.00 a.m., it was alleged that the accused perons were heaping earth on the southern side of the cattle troughs and were collecting bricks. The daughter of PW-4, one Kumari Bindu, informed her father about the encroachment being made by the accused persons on the Sehan land. At this point, both PW-3 and PW- F 4 came out of the house and questioned the accused persons as to why they were putting soil on the land. On this, an altercation between the two sides took place. One of the accused, Guiab Shukla, exhorted his associates to assault PW-4. At this point, after this incident, the story diverges. According to one version, Hari Shankar Shukla, who is accused G No.3 and the petitioner in the special leave petition before us, gave a phawra blow, whereas, according to another version Guiab Shukla gave the said blow to the deceased. In any case, it appears that there was a scuffle between the parties, at which point, accused No.3 went back to his house and came out with a country made pistol. At this point, PW-1, a family member, PW-3 and PW-4 all stated that this particular accused H HARl SHANKAR SHUKLA v. STATE OF U.P. [R. F. NARIMAN, J.] 341 fired one bullet from the country made pistol, which caused the fatal A death of Umesh Shukla. As stated hereinabove, PW-I, PW-3 and PW- 4 were eye-witesses, PW-3 and PW-4 being injured eye-witnesses. After going into the evidence in some detail and after finding the First Information Report, which was filed by PW-2 Chowkidar doubtful, the trial Court went into vari
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.