LexHORI LAL AND ANR. versus STATE OF U.P
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A HORI LAL AND ANR. v. STATEOFU.P. DECEMBER 5, 2006 B . [S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860; ss. 302, 307, 324 r/w s.149: Assault and murder-Land disputes-Unlawful assembly-Accusfld C persons shot firearms injuring members of prosecution party-Two injured persons succumbed to injuries-FIR-Charge sheet-Trial Court convicted accused persons for committing offences under Sections 302, 307, 324 rlw Section 149 !PC and sentenced them accordingly-Affirmed by High Court in respect of accused-appellants acquitting another giving him benefit of doubt-On appeal, Held: Keeping into consideration the magnitude of D occurrence delay in sending special report to Magistrate would not negate the entire prosecution case-Medical evidence supports prosecution case- . Evidence on records suggest indiscriminate firing towards victims, resulting into death of two persons and injuring others-Motive to commit murder evident under the facts and circumstances of the case-Discrepancies as E noticed in statement of prosecution witnesses not very material-All the accused persons came heavily armed opened fire towards members of opposite party injuring them resulting into death of two persons-Hence, High Court rightly convicting them for committing offences punishable u/ss. 302, 307, 324 rlw s. 149. F Unlawful Assembly-Ingredients of-Discussed There was a land dispute between accused persons and victims, due to which there was enmity between them. On the fateful day, accused appellants and others formed an unlawful assembly, assaulted the members of other side with fire arms, causing death of two persons and injuring others. First G information report was lodged in the Police station, the case was investigated and charge sheet submitted. Trial Court found appellants and others guilty for commission of an offence under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for committing murder of the deceased under Section 307 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo rigorous H 60 • .; HORILALv. STATEOFU.P. 61 imprisonment for five years for making murderous assault on another under A Section 324 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years for causing hurt to yet another person. On appeal, the High Court has given benefit of doubt to one of the accused persons and acquitted him. Hence the present appeal. Accused-appellants contended that First Information report having been B forwarded to the Magistrate only on the next day, it should be held to be ante- timed; that the Investigating Officer having opined that an offence under Section 396 IPC having been committed, there was no reason to convert the same to an offence under Section 302 IPC; that the post mortem report would show that in one of the injuries there was blackening and thus, the shot must C have been fired from a short distance and having regard to the fact that they were said to be carrying pistols, they could not have caused the said injuries; that they did not have any motive to commit the offence; that eye-witnesses being P.W.1 and 2 having not mentioned the name of appellant No.1 in their statements before the police under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure D Code, 1973, they should not have been relied upon; and that no case has been made out for inferring that the appellants and other accused had common object in the commission of the offence. Dismissing the appeal, the Court E HELD: 1.1. Trial Court as also the High Court analysed the evidences brought on records by the prosecution very minutely. The First Information Report was promptly lodged. After such a ghastly crime was committed, it was but natural for the Prosecution Witness to report the matter as early as possible to the police. It was also necessary to get necessary medical assistance for the injured persons, particularly having regard to the nature of injuries F suffered by them. (66-G-H; 67-AJ 1.2. The lnvestigatir1g Officer was cross-examined on the question of alleged ante-timing of the First Information Report. It may be that the special report was sent to the Magistrate on the next day, but, then keeping in view G the magnitude of the occurrence, the same by itself would not negate the entire prosecution story. [67-BI 1.3. Medical evidence supports the
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.