Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from a criminal trial involving a firing incident in village Barniya, police station Pasgawan, district Kheri, Uttar Pradesh, between two groups with strained relations over thirty years and prior proceedings under Sections 107 and 117 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The appellant Ram Dutt, along with six co-accused, faced trial under Sections 148, 302 read with 149, and 307 read with 148 of the Indian Penal Code in Sessions Trial No. A-45 of 1976 before the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kheri. On November 24, 1975, at about 5:00 PM, an altercation began when Sheo Nath was obstructed by two accused; Sanwalia Prasad and his son Pravin Kumar came out. All accused arrived armed with guns; the appellant had a double barrel gun and another accused had a rifle. The appellant allegedly fired first, hitting Pravin Kumar and causing his death on the spot; other accused also fired causing injuries to several persons. The Sessions Court convicted the appellant under Sections 148, 307 read with 149, and 302 IPC, sentencing him to life imprisonment plus rigorous imprisonment for other offences, with sentences to run concurrently. Co-accused were similarly convicted. On appeal, the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, acquitted some accused, convicted two others for lesser offences under Section 324 read with Section 34, but upheld the appellant's conviction under Section 302 IPC and additionally convicted him under Section 324 read with Section 34, setting aside his other convictions. Only the appellant appealed to the Supreme Court. The core legal issues were whether the murder conviction under Section 302 IPC was sustainable given that multiple accused fired simultaneously and whether discrepancies about the weapon used created reasonable doubt, and whether the conviction under Section 324 read with Section 34 was valid. The appellant argued that the witnesses gave inconsistent statements about the appellant being armed with a pistol under Section 161 CrPC versus a double barrel gun at trial, making it impossible to determine who caused the fatal injury. The Supreme Court rejected these contentions, relying on the specific testimony of PW3 Sanwalia Prasad and PW5 Sheo Nath, who clearly stated that the appellant fired first with a double barrel gun and fatally injured the deceased. The Court held that such clear and specific evidence removed any doubt, and the concurrent findings of the lower courts were not based on surmise or conjecture. The conviction under Section 324 read with Section 34 was also upheld because the evidence showed that the appellant along with others fired causing injuries. Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upheld the conviction and sentences, cancelled the bail granted earlier, and directed that the appellant be arrested and detained to serve out the sentence.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Murder - Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Conviction based on direct eyewitness identification of appellant as the first to fire a double barrel gun that fatally injured the deceased - Both trial court and High Court accepted testimony of PW3 and PW5 who specifically identified appellant; mere possibility that other accused also fired did not create reasonable doubt; Held conviction under Section 302 IPC upheld (Paras Not mentioned). B) Criminal Law - Common Intention - Section 34 read with Section 324, Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Liability for injuries caused by co-accused in furtherance of common intention - Evidence showed appellant and others fired causing injuries to Sanwalia Prasad and others; conviction under Section 324/34 justified; Held appeal dismissed (Paras Not mentioned). C) Criminal Procedure - Bail Cancellation - Bail granted by Supreme Court cancelled upon dismissal of appeal - No specific statute section cited; inherent jurisdiction - Held appeal dismissed, bail cancelled, appellant to be arrested and detained to serve sentence (Paras Not mentioned).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant for murder under Section 302 IPC was sustainable in light of simultaneous firing by multiple accused and discrepancies in witness statements regarding the weapon used; and whether the conviction under Section 324 read with Section 34 IPC was justified.
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence under Section 302 IPC and Section 324 read with Section 34 IPC upheld; bail cancelled; appellant directed to be arrested and detained to serve out the sentence.
Law Points
- Clear and specific eyewitness testimony can establish guilt under Section 302 IPC even when multiple persons fire
- minor discrepancy in weapon description between Section 161 CrPC statement and trial evidence does not create reasonable doubt
- conviction under Section 324 read with Section 34 IPC justified when injuries caused by co-accused in furtherance of common intention
- concurrent findings of fact based on credible evidence not to be interfered with absent perversity
- bail granted by Supreme Court stands cancelled upon dismissal of appeal
