SURESH CHANDRA versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

Citation: [2005] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 759 · Decided: 21-07-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. VENKATARAMA REDDI, D.M. DHARMADHIKARI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

SURESH CHANDRA 
A 
v. 
STATE OF UTT AR PRADESH 
JULY 21, 2005 
[P. VENKATARAMAREDDIANDD.M. DHARMADHIKARI,JJ.] 
B 
Penal Code, 1860: 
s:302 r/w s.34, s.300, Exception 4-Accused- 'Baraties' in a marriage-
On a sudden quarrel firins gun shots and killing two persons-Convicted C 
and sentenced to life imprisonment-Plea that there being absence of 
premeditation and being a casf:: of sudden fight, case fell under Exception 4 
to s.300 and punishable u/s 304-Held, tM very fact that accused fired at 
the victims on a frivolous quarrel demonstrates beyond doubt that they acted 
in a cruel manner and intended to cause death· or bodily injury of the nature D 
mentioned in clause 'thirdly' of s.300--:-It is a case in which clauses I to Ill 
of s.300 are attracted and Exception 4 is not app)lcable-It is evidenced that 
all the three accused fired at the victims-It is a case where common intention 
sprang up at the spot-However, prima facie, facts ahd circumstances of the 
case justify remission a/sentence to some extent-Such ·application, if filed, 
it is hoped, would be duly considered-Criminal Law-Common intention- E 
Remission of sentence. 
Sukhbir Singh v. State of Haryana, (2002) 3 SCC 327 and Su'rinder 
Kumar v. Union Territory, Chandigarh, (1989) 2 SCC 217, distinguished. 
Sunder Singh v. State of Rajasthan, [1988] Supp. SCC 557, held F ' 
inapplicable. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 746 of 
2003. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 23. 7 .2002 of the Allahabad High G 
Court in Crl. A. No. 2105of1981. 
WITH 
Cr!. A. Nos. 747 and 748 of 2003. 
759 
H 
760 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. I S.C.R. 
A 
Sudhir Kulshreshtha, for the Appellant in Crl. A. No. 746/2003. 
P.S. Mishra, Ajay Bhalla, Ms. Shikha Sapra and Ms. Abba R. Sharma 
with him for the Appellant in Crl. A. No. 748/2003. 
Subhash Chandra Birla and Subrat Birla, for the Appellant in Crl.A. No. 
B 74712003. 
c 
Ravi Prakash Mehrotra, Mrs. Deepti R. Mehrotra and Garvesh Kabra, for 
the Respondent. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
ORDER 
The facts of this case reveal that an auspicious occasion of marriage 
had turned out to be a funeral ceremony, following a quarrel that ensued 
between the invitees on a flimsy ground. The three appellants therein along / 
D with two other, who have been acquitted by the High Court, were charged 
for murdering two persons, namely, Ravindra Singh and Mahendra Singh in 
the night of 20th February, 1977 in the village Tikari, Aligarh District. On trial, 
the appellants were convicted under Section 302 read with 34 IPC and Section 
307 read' with 34 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment. T~e other two 
E accused.- \Yere convicted under Section 302 read with I 09 IPC. 
F 
On appeals filed by the accused before the High Court, the conviction 
and sentence of the appellants was upheld by the High Court. The conviction 
of the other two accused was set aside by the High Court giving them the 
benefit of doubt. 
The prosecution case is that on 20th February, 1977 on the occasion of 
the marriage at the house of Sri Ram Nayi, the bridegroom party (known as 
'Baratis') came to the village and stayed in a Chaupal (Courtyard of the 
house) of one Vikram Singh. There was a dance performance on that occasion. 
At about 8 p.m. Barati after taking their meal went inside the Chaupal to take 
G rest. The acquitted accused, Bhikari and Nawab Singh, belonging to the Barati 
party remained in the Verandah of the house. The deceased Ravindra Singh 
remarked probably as a joke that the dancers have become tired and, therefore, 
Baratis could as well start dancing. Irked by this remark,~some of the members 
of the Barati party protested and it led to heated exchange of words and 
H mutual abuses. At that stage, the acquitted accused exhorted the appellants 
to attack the persons of the group who were involved in the scuffle. It 
SURESHCHANDRA v. STATEOFU.P. 
761 
appears that the three appellants of the Barati party were carrying arms which, A 
we are told; was not unusual for the baratis to carry in those rural areas. Then, 
according to the prosecution case, the three appellants herein fired at Ravindra 
Singh and Mahendera Singh and they died at the spot. Three other persons, 
namely, Dwarika Prasad, Karua and Ujagar Singh also sustained injuries from 
the shots fired at them by the accused. Karua was examined as PW.5. PW. I, 
Nripendra Singh, brother of the deceased, lodged the report with the police B 
on th

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.