LexRANBEER SINGH (DEAD) BY L.R. versus STATE OF U. P. & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2015]4S.C.R. 37 RAN BEER SINGH (DEAD) BY L.R. v. STATE OF U. P. & ORS. (Criminal Appeal No. 205 of 2009) MARCH 27, 2015 [PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE AND UDAY UMESH LAUT, JJ.) Penal Code, 1860- s.302134 - Conviction under- A B c Of all the accused including respondent co-accused by trial court - Acquittal of the co-accused by High Court on the ground that they did not share Intention with the main accused D to kill the deceased - On appeal held: There is enough material to infer the common and shared intention of the co- accused with the main accused - High Court erred in acquitting the co-accused. E Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: There is enough material to infer the common and shared intention of the accused- respondents with that of the main accused. Although, F the respondents-accused have taken the plea that they had not thrown the deceased down to the drain with intention of killing him but merely assaulting him and the shooting by the main accused was an independent act. However, there was no justifiable reason for the 4 G accused persons to go 100-150 yards inside the field of the complainant. Second, the fact that they carried a weapon being 315 bore country-made pistol with them clearly shows that they had all the wrong intentions. H 37 38 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 4 S.C.R. A Nowhere in the case of defence has this come out that the three accused respondents were not a\1are of the fact that the main accused carried the weapon. Also, in the exhortation made by the accused persons against the complainant, the deceased mentioned about killing B them. Having made such an exhortation, they threw the deceased on the ground. It goes on to show that they all shared a common intention and worked in tandem. Accused-respondent 'B' is the father of other three C accused persons; he could have asked the main accused to stop short of shooting, but he did not do so. The view taken by the High Court is not even a possible view. Thus, the High Court is not even a possible view. Thus, the High Court erred in acquitting the accused- D respondents. [Para 11] (42-H; 43-A-E] CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 205 of 2009 From the Judgment and Order dated 30.04.2008 of the E High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Appeal No. 1674 of2006 F Manoj Swarup, Lalita Kohli, Abhishek Swarup (for Manoj Swarup & Co.) for the Appellants. Ajay Veer Singh Jain.Ajay Kumar Jain, U. R. Bokaida (for Mohd. lrshad Hanif), Rajesh Kumar Maurya, Mukesh Verma, Ravi Prakash Mehrotra for the Respondents. G The Judgment of the Court was delivered by PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J. 1. This is an appeal by the Complainant against the impugned judgment and order dated 30-04-2008 passed by the High Court of H Judicature atAllahabad in CriminalAppeal No.1674 of2006. RANBEER SINGH (DEAD) BY L.R. v. STATE OF U. P. & 39 ORS. [PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J] In the impugned judgment the High Court had allowed the A appeal of three accused persons a j a::quitted t em while maintaining the conviction of th~ main accused. The present appeal before l's has been filed by the complainant against the e:L .;u .:al of the three accused by the High Court. The Sessions Court after trial had convicted the main accused B Shyamu under S. 302, IPC along with Section 25 of the Arms Act while it convicted the other three accused persons, Balbir Singh, Vinod and Karua (respondents herein) under S. 302, IPC read with s.34 IPC. The appeal of Shyamu against his C conviction by the High Court was filed in this Court but was dismissed, thus, his conviction has attained finality. 2. The facts of the present case are that Shyamu, Karua and Vinod are sons of Balbir Singh and Balbir Singh is D the elder brother of the complainant Ranbeer Singh. The deceased Pooran Singh was the son of the complainant Ranbeer Singh. Admittedly, there is pending criminal litigation between Ranbeer Singh and Balbir Singh, the two brothers. The pending criminal litigation relates to an incident 13 to 14 E months prior to the incident in question in present case wherein Balbir Singh had fired at Ranbeer Singh with intention of killing him. The pending civil litigation related to some property between the two brothers. As per the case of the prosecution, on the date of the incident in the instant case F i.e. 07-02- 2002, the complainant was irrigating his field along with his son Pooran Singh (the decea
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.