LexPANNEY @ PRATAP NARAIN SHUKLA & ANR. versus STATE OF U.P.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2010] 3 S.C.R. 594 A PANNEY @ PRATAP NARAIN SHUKLA & ANR. v. STATE OF U.P. (Criminal Appeal No. 304 of 2006) B DECEMBER 9, 2009. [HARJIT SINGH BEDI AND J.M. PANCHAL, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860: C s. 302 - Death of victim caused by bomb, firing a pistol and cutting his neck - Out of four accused, one absconding - Conviction by trial court of two of the accused - Death sentence awarded - Death reference declined by High Court and appeal of accused also dismissed - HELD: The bomb used, being a country made one, with uncertain content and D performance, the possibility of sustaining injuries by witnesses who were standing at a distance of 4-5 steps away · from the site of explosion, would be rather remote - Evidence of Investigating Office that splinters had been picked up from within a radius ofabout 4 feet from the site of explosion, also E indicates that no damage could be expected beyond that distance - In a case of injuries by bomb, incised wounds are clearly possible - Time of death as stated by prosecution is supported by medical evidence - Two courts below having found the accused guilty, there is no reason to interfere with F the findings of fact recorded - Medical jurisprudence - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 136. Modi's Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology 741 - referred to. G CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 304 of 2006. From the Judgment & Order dated 26.10.2005 of the High . H Judgment received on 31.3.2010 594 PANNEY @ PRATAP NARAIN SHUKLA & ANR. v. 595 STATE OF U.P. Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Crl. Appeal No. 6628 of A 2004. Ajay Veers Singh, B.S. Jain, S.N. Shukla, Nitin Jain, Mohd, lrshad Hanif for the Appellants. Prashant Chaudhary, S.K. Dwivedi, Garvesh Kabra, Shrish B Kumar Misra for the Respondent. The following Order of the Court was delivered ORDER This appeal arises out of the following facts: c About a month before the incident Shivdhari, son of (Ram Awadh Yadav) PW.1, the first informant, had purchased some land from Rudra Narain Shukla. The execution of the sale annoyed the accused appellants as they too were interested 0 in the land. At about 7.00 p.m. on 7th November, 2003, Shivdhari had gone to the house of Shyam Kunwar of village Bhedi and on exhortation of the accused Harihar Shukla, & Panney @ Pratap Narain Shukla hurled a bomb on Shivdhari which fell on his E abdomen and exploded, whereas Channey@ Prabhu Narain Shukla thereafter fired from a country made pistol of 12 bore on the abdomen of Shivdhari and Vishwajit, the absconding accused, cut his neck with a Gandasi. Shivdhari died immediately on the spot. On hearing the sound of the explosion F Ram Awadh Yadav and his sons Ramdhari, Tilakdhari and Dalsingar rushed to the spot, flashed a torch and saw the accused running away. Ram Awadh Yadav thereafter rushed to the police station at a distance of one furlong and lodged the report. Pursuant to the report, the S.H.O. Chandra Bali G Yadav (PW.5), reached the place of incident, made the necessary inquiries, picked up the spent cartridges and also recovered the splinters of the bomb which had been hurled at the deceased. He also recorded the statements of some of the witnesses under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. but not of Tilakdhari H 596 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 3 S.C.R. A whose statement was recorded after a gap of 8 days. On the completion of the investigation, the accused Harihar Shukla, Panney and Channey were charged for an offence punishable under Sec.302 of the IPC and as they pleaded not 8 guilty, they were brought to trial. The trial Court in the course of its judgment dated 10th December, 2004 acquitted Harihar Shukla on the ground that he had not participated in the murder and awarded a sentence of death to the other two accused. The matter was then referred to the High Court for confirmation of the death sentence, whereas the accused also filed an appeal C challenging their conviction. The murder reference was declined and the appeal too was dismissed. D This appeal by way of special leave has been filed by Panney and Channey, the two convicted accused. Mr. Ajay Veer Singh, the learned counsel for the appellants has raised several arguments during the course of hearing. He has first pointed out the medical evidence contradicted the ocular testimony inasmuch that had the bomb been hurled on E the deceased from a very close range as suggested the
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.