LexSTATE OF U.P. versus GAJADHAR SINGH AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009] 2 S. C.R. 17
STATE OF U.P.
A
v
GAJADHAR SINGH AND ORS.
Criminal Appeal Nos. 332-333 Of 2002
FEBRUARY 11, 2009
B
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR GANGULY,
JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860 :
-t
'
ss.302, 307 rlw s.149- Murder- Commop object- Fight c
('
during elections- Two accused held hands orthe deceased-
,.
Respondent no. 1 fired upon him with a country made pistol -
Three persons injured - All seven accused including respon-
dent no. 1 convicted by trial court ulss. 302, 307 rlw s. 149- High
Court affirmed conviction of respondent no. 1 u/s. 302 rlw 149
D
but altered his conviction u/s. 307 rlw s. 149 to u/s. 323 rlw s. 149
- Conviction of other accused u/ss. 302 and 307 rlw s. 149 al-
tered to uls. 323 rlw s. 149 - Justification of - On facts, held:
Justified - Prosecution did not establish that remaining ac-
cused persons had any knowledge that respondent no. 1 was
carrying a country made pistol or that he would go to shoot the
E
deceased - Evidence on record established that the pistol
was concealed and was not visible to anyone - Common ob-
A
ject of the assembly was not to commit murder and it was the
solitary act of respondent no. 1.
F
According to the prosecution, on account of a fight
during the Gaon Sabha elections, two accused held the .
hands of the polling agent of 'R' while respondent no.1
fired upon him with a country made pistol which resulted
in his death. Three persons were injured in the incident.
G
All the seven accused including respondent no.1 were
convicted by the trial court under ss.302 and 307 both rlw
s.149 IPC.
17
H
18
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2009] 2 S.C.R.
A
On appeal, the High Court affirmed the conviction of
respondent no.1 under s.302 r/w 149 IPC but altered his
conviction under s.307 r/w s.149 IPC to under s.323 r/w
.I:-
s.149 IPC. As regards the other respondents, their con-
victions under ss. 302 and 307 r/w s.149 IPC was set aside
B by the High Court and instead they were convicted under
s.323 r/w s.149 IPC. Hence the present appeals.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: The evidence on record clearly established
c that the pistol was concealed and was not visible to any-
~
one. The High Court rightly noted that the evidence ad-
,
1
duced by the prosecution did not establish that remain-
ing accused persons had any knowledge that respondent
no.1 was carrying a country made pistol or that he would
D go to shoot the deceased. The testimony of PW-2 shows
that one accused 'J' was initially asking the voters not to
caste vote for 'R' but to vote for his candidate and subse-
quent1y· he had resorted to rowdism in- order to disturb
~
the voting process so that 'R'may not win the election and
E that simple injuries were caused by blunt weapon to three
persons. Therefore, as rightly observed by the High Court
the common object of the assembly was not to commit
the murder of the deceased and it was the solitary act of
respondent no.1. PW-2 had also stated that he had not
F
seen the lath is or country made pistol in the hands of any
of the accused persons at the time when 'J' was disturb-
ing the voters and. was asking them not to caste vote in
favour of 'R'. PW-4 i.e. Constable on duty had also stated
that there was figbJ between the parties regarding distur-
bance in voting. f n view of the aforesaid factual position,
G this Court is not inclined to interfere. [Paras 6, 7] [ 2~-G, H;
23-A, B, C, D]
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal
Appeal Nos. 332-333 oF 2002
H
From the Judgment and Order dated 29.8.2001 of the High
-1'
.... --
, .....
STATE OF U.P. V GAJADHAR SINGH AND ORS.
19
Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Appeal Nos. 2007
of 1997 and 1963 of 1997
Pramod Swarup, Vikas Bansal, Anuvrat Sharma & Alka
Sinha for the Appellant.
Ajai Bhalla, Shefali Jain, Abha R. Sharma. Vandana
Mishra, Ashok K. Srivastava, Saurabh Trivedi, C.S. Ashri & Jai
Prakash Pandey, for the Respondent.
- The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
1. Challengejn the present appeals is to the judgment of a
Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court allowing the ap-
peal filed by the respondents. The respondents were found guilty
of offence punishable under Sections 302, 307 read with Sec-
tion 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC') by
the trial Court. It is to be noted that two appeals were filed be-
fore the High Court by the convicted accused persons. Crimi-
nal AppExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.