Raghubir Vs. State of U.P.

Raghubir vs State of U.P.

Disposition Appeal Allowed Court Supreme Court of India Decided Dec 02, 1999

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/672873

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/672873
Court: Supreme Court of India
Judge: G.B. Pattanaik and; M.B. Shah, JJ.
Decided On: Dec 02, 1999
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 1240 of 1997
Subject: Criminal
Disposition: Appeal Allowed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- [G.B. Pattanaik and; M.B. Shah, JJ.] Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections. 302, 34, 323 — Common intention — Main accused armed with gun and pistol attacking the deceased and killing them — PW 1 who was following the deceased attacked by the accused- petitioner by a lathi and while running a...

Key legal issue: Criminal
Outcome / disposition: Appeal Allowed
Acts & sections: Indian Penal Code (IPC), (IPC) 1860 - Sections 302, 323, 34

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Raghubir

Respondent

State of U.P.

Legal References

Acts: Indian Penal Code (IPC), (IPC) 1860 - Sections 302, 323, 34
Reported In: (2002)10SCC219

Excerpt

- [g.b. pattanaik and; m.b. shah, jj.] indian penal code, 1860 - sections. 302, 34, 323 - common intention - main accused armed with gun and pistol attacking the deceased and killing them - pw 1 who was following the deceased attacked by the accused- petitioner by a lathi and while running away sustained minor injuries -- the appellant raghubir has been convicted under sections 302/34 ipc and sentenced to imprisonment for life. along with appellant raghubir two other accused persons who were tried for the same incident, namely, ram autar and ram charitra were convicted under section 302 ipc for having committed the murder of jagannath and ram saran. ram autar and ram charitra did not prefer any appeal as appears from the inquiry made, but we are not concerned with them in the present appeal. in the present appeal we are concerned with the legality of the conviction of appellant raghubir under sections 302/34 ipc. we accordingly set aside the conviction of sentence and sentence of appellant raghubir of the charge under sections 302/34 ipc. his conviction under section 323 ipc, however, for causing simple injury on pw 1 is upheld......for the appellant that the sequence of events as narrated by pws 1 and 2 will certainly not disclose any common intention of appellant raghubir with that of ram autar and ram charitra who caused the murder of jagannath and ram saran by using gun and pistol in their hands, notwithstanding the fact that the appellant was with them and he is alleged to have assaulted pw 1.4. to appreciate the aforesaid contention, we have been taken through the evidence of pws 1 and 2. pw 1 was actually injured by a lathi-blow said to have been given by appellant raghubir. it transpires from the evidence of the said witnesses that when the two deceased and pws 1 and 2 were returning to their house, after closing the shop, through a gali at about 6 p.m., the two accused persons ram autar and ram charitra, arrived at the scene of occurrence with gun and pistol in their hands and both of them gave out to finish all those belonging to the complainant party with “goli” and so saying both ram autar and ram charitra fired at the two deceased jagannath and ram saran. pw 1 who was following the said deceased persons, when tried to run away from the place, the appellant is said to have assaulted him by means of a lathi on his head. from the evidence of the doctor (pw 9) who examined pw 1, it appears that the said pw 1 sustained a very minor injury on his head, which is a scratch. in this view of the entire scenario as narrated by the eyewitnesses pws 1 and 2, it is not possible for us to hold that appellant raghubir shared a common intention with the two other accused persons who have been convicted under section 302 ipc for use of their gun and pistol in killing the deceased persons. we accordingly set aside the conviction of sentence and sentence of appellant raghubir of the charge under sections 302/34 ipc. his conviction under section 323 ipc, however, for causing simple injury on pw 1 is upheld.5. the appeal is accordingly allowed.

Full Judgment

G.B. Pattanaik and; M.B. Shah, JJ.

1. The appellant Raghubir has been convicted under Sections 302/34 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life. He has also been convicted under Section 323 for causing simple injury to PW 1 and sentenced to imprisonment for three months.

2. Along with appellant Raghubir two other accused persons who were tried for the same incident, namely, Ram Autar and Ram Charitra were convicted under Section 302 IPC for having committed the murder of Jagannath and Ram Saran. Another accused person who also was convicted by learned Sessions Judge under Sections 302/34 IPC, died during the pendency of appeal in the High Court and therefore the appeal stood abated against him. Ram Autar and Ram Charitra did not prefer any appeal as appears from the inquiry made, but we are not concerned with them in the present appeal.

3. In the present appeal we are concerned with the legality of the conviction of appellant Raghubir under Sections 302/34 IPC. His conviction under Section 323 IPC and sentence passed thereunder for causing simple injury to PW 1 is not assailed before us and rightly so. The conviction of appellant Raghubir for the offence under Sections 302/34 is based upon the oral testimony of the two eyewitnesses PWs 1 and 2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the sequence of events as narrated by PWs 1 and 2 will certainly not disclose any common intention of appellant Raghubir with that of Ram Autar and Ram Charitra who caused the murder of Jagannath and Ram Saran by using gun and pistol in their hands, notwithstanding the fact that the appellant was with them and he is alleged to have assaulted PW 1.

4. To appreciate the aforesaid contention, we have been taken through the evidence of PWs 1 and 2. PW 1 was actually injured by a lathi-blow said to have been given by appellant Raghubir. It transpires from the evidence of the said witnesses that when the two deceased and PWs 1 and 2 were returning to their house, after closing the shop, through a gali at about 6 p.m., the two accused persons Ram Autar and Ram Charitra, arrived at the scene of occurrence with gun and pistol in their hands and both of them gave out to finish all those belonging to the complainant party with “goli” and so saying both Ram Autar and Ram Charitra fired at the two deceased Jagannath and Ram Saran. PW 1 who was following the said deceased persons, when tried to run away from the place, the appellant is said to have assaulted him by means of a lathi on his head. From the evidence of the doctor (PW 9) who examined PW 1, it appears that the said PW 1 sustained a very minor injury on his head, which is a scratch. In this view of the entire scenario as narrated by the eyewitnesses PWs 1 and 2, it is not possible for us to hold that appellant Raghubir shared a common intention with the two other accused persons who have been convicted under Section 302 IPC for use of their gun and pistol in killing the deceased persons. We accordingly set aside the conviction of sentence and sentence of appellant Raghubir of the charge under Sections 302/34 IPC. His conviction under Section 323 IPC, however, for causing simple injury on PW 1 is upheld.

5. The appeal is accordingly allowed.

Same Court & Year Supreme Court of India · 1999 Same Parties Raghubir vs State of U.P. Same Subject Criminal Same Judge G.B. Pattanaik and; M.B. Shah, JJ. Acts & Sections Indian Penal Code (IPC), (IPC) 1860 - Sections 302, 323, 34

Criminal