Delhi High Court
Vijay Jain vs State on 17 October, 2014
Author: Pradeep Nandrajog
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment Reserved on: October 09, 2014
% Judgment Delivered on: October 17, 2014
+ CRL.A. 18/2000
RAJESH & ORS. ..... Appellants
Represented by: Ms.Rebecca M.John, Sr.Advocate
instructed by Mr.Harsh Bora, Advocate
versus
THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent
Represented by: Mr.Varun Goswami, APP
Inspector Braj Mohan, PS Farsh Bazar
CRL.A. 49/2000
VIJAY JAIN ..... Appellant
Represented by: Mr.Dinesh Mathur, Sr.Advocate
instructed by Mr.Akshay Bipin,
Advocate
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Represented by: Mr.Varun Goswami, APP
Inspector Braj Mohan, PS Farsh Bazar
CRL.A. 27/2000
MURARI LAL & ORS ..... Appellants
Represented by: Mr.K.K.Sud, Sr.Advocate instructed by
Mr.Vishal Dabas and Mr.Ajay Tushir,
Advocates
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Represented by: Mr.Varun Goswami, APP
Inspector Braj Mohan, PS Farsh Bazar
CRL.A.Nos.18/2000 & conn.matters Page 1 of 17
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.
1. Crl.A.No.18/2000 filed by Rajesh, Munna Lal, Prakash Chand,
Subhash Chand and Ashok has to be decided only with respect to Rajesh,
Munna Lal and Subhash Chand, because Prakash Chand died on November
23, 2002 and Ashok died on May 04, 2009, and as recorded in the order dated
August 21, 2013, the criminal appeal abates as regards Prakash Chand and
Ashok. Along therewith Crl.A.No.49/2000, filed by Vijay has to be decided.
The reason being that all of them have been convicted vide decision dated
December 15, 1999 in FIR No.183/1985 PS Farsh Bazar.
2. Co-accused Swaroop Chand died during trial and hence proceedings
against him were dropped by the learned Trial Judge on May 26, 1998.
3. Whereas Vijay Kumar has been held guilty for having committed the
offence punishable under Section 302 IPC as also the offences punishable
under Section 147, Section 148 and Section 326 IPC read with Section 149
IPC, Rajesh, Munna Lal and Subhash Chand have been held guilty for the
offence punishable under Section 147, Section 148 and Section 326 IPC read
with Section 149 IPC.
4. Vide order on sentence dated December 22, 1999, where Vijay has
been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and pay fine in sum of
`1,00,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years for
the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and Vijay, Rajesh, Munna Lal
and Subhash Chand have been directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for
six months and pay fine in sum of `1,000/- each and in default to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under
Section 147 IPC. For the offence punishable under Section 148 IPC they
have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and pay
fine in sum of `1,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three
months. For the offence punishable under Section 326 read with Section 149
of the Penal Code they have been sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for three years and pay fine in sum of `5,000/- in default to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. The sentences have been
directed to run concurrently.
5. Crl.A.No.27/2000, filed by Murari Lal, Anil Kumar S/o Murari Lal,
Ramnik, Om Prakash, Anil Kumar S/o Baij Nath and Raj Kumar is also being
decided along with Crl.A.No.18/2000 and Crl.A.No.49/2000 notwithstanding
the appellants of Crl.A.No.27/2000 being convicted by a separate decision but
of even date (December 15, 1999). All of them have been convicted for the
offence punishable under Section 147 IPC, Section 148 IPC, Section 323 read
with Section 149 IPC and Section 427 read with Section 149 IPC, for which
offences they have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a
period of six months and pay fine in sum of `1,000/- and in default to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months; to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for one year and pay fine in sum of `1,000/-, in default to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months; to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for three months and pay fine in sum of `1,500/-, in default to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months; to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for three months and pay fine in sum of `500/-, in default to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. The sentences have been
directed to run concurrently. The order on sentence is dated December 22,
1999 i.e. of the same date on which the order on sentence was passed in the
other case.
6. The FIR in which these appellants were accused is FIR No.184/1985
PS Farsh Bazar.
7. It is a case of two cross complaints resulting in registration of FIR
No.183/1985 in which Rajesh, Munna Lal, Prakash Chand, Subhash Chand,
Ashok and Swaroop Chand were named as accused and FIR No.184/1985 in
which Murari Lal, Anil Kumar S/o Murari Lal, Ramnik, Om Prakash, Anil
Kumar S/o Baij Nath and Raj Kumar were named as accused.
8. The two cross FIRs were registered concerning an incident of rioting
which admittedly took place on May 24, 1985 at 4:00 PM, and the place is a
street in Bara Bazar, Shahdara on which the accused on either side had shops
wherefrom they were carrying on business.
9. The gladiators on the two sides were : (i) Murari Lal, his sons Ashok
(who died due to injuries suffered at the incident) and Anil Kumar; his
brothers Raj Kumar and Om Prakash, and the son of Om Prakash named
Ramnik, and one Anil S/o Baij Nath who was married to the sister of Murari
Lal; (ii) Swaroop Chand, his sons Munna Lal and Subhash Chand along with
Subhash Chand's son Ashok and Prakash Chand, the brother of Swaroop
Chand and his sons Vijay and Rajesh.
10. We shall be referring hereinafter to the group of Murari Lal as Group-A
and the other group of Swaroop Chand as Group-B. The site plan to scale
Ex.PW-4/A in the criminal trial in which Group-B was the accused would
depict the place where the incident took place and would be as under:-
Bara Bazar Street
Namkeen
11. Being relevant for decision in the appeal, shop No.518 belongs to
Murari Lal's Group and shop No.512 belongs to Swaroop Chand's Group.
The Namkeen shop belongs to one unknown person where snacks used to be
prepared by frying food stuff in a kadhai and to stir and sieve the fried food
stuff a palta was used.
12. The origin of the incident, consistently deposed to by witnesses on
either side is that on May 24, 1985 the officials of the Food Department of
Delhi Administration reached Bara Bazar Shahdara to lift samples of food.
As the word spread in the market that the officials were lifting samples the
shopkeepers pull down their shutters. There were allegations and counter
allegations. Lala Swaroop Chand accused Lala Murari Lal of having
organized the raid and Lala Murari Lal accused Lala Swaroop Chand of
having organized the raid. Needless to state witnesses appearing at the trial
against Murari Lal and others i.e. members of Swaroop Chand's Group
deposed that Lala Murari Lal and his group were the aggressors and vice
versa.
13. Insp.Vinod Kumar who appeared as PW-3 in the criminal trial against
Group-A and as PW-13 in the criminal trial against Group-B was handed over
DD No.24-A which was recorded at PS Farsh Bazar at 4:05 hours and he
proceeded to Bara Bazar Street because the information was that two groups
were rioting in Bara Bazar Street. He learnt that one Ashok S/o Prakash
Chand and a few other injured persons had been taken to the hospital. He
recorded the statement Ex.PW-1/A of Vijay Kumar PW-1 in which Vijay
Kumar named members of the Group-A as the ones who had formed an
unlawful assembly and attacked shop No.512 of Vijay. He also recorded the
statement Ex.PW-1/A of Murari Lal in which he named the members of
Group-B as the ones who formed an unlawful assembly and attacked shop
No.518 of Murari Lal and during the assault oil was thrown on his son Ashok
causing scalding injuries.
14. Two FIRs as above noted were registered against members of Group-A
and Group-B.
15. Put in a tabular form the MLCs of Murari Lal's Group-A and Swaroop
Chand Group-B would evince as under:-
Group-A
Murari Lal Ex.PW-5/A Clean lacerated/incised(unclear) wound
(5:10PM) of 1 cm on left side of forehead.
Loss of upper part of left middle finger.
Deceased Ex.PW-5/B 30%-40% burns on the front of chest,
Ashok (5:05PM) back of chest and front of abdomen.
7%-9% burns in both upper limbs
Anil Kumar - -
s/o Murari
Lal
Om Prakash - -
Ramnik - -
Anil s/o - -
Baijnath
Raj Kumar - -
Group -B
Swaroop Ex.PW-6/A Clean lacerated wound of 3cm length on
Chand (5:20PM) left parietal region on scalp.
Clean lacerated wound of 1cm length on
right upper lip.
Abrasion on back.
Munna Lal Ex.PW-3/B Clean lacerated wound (1/2)inch x
(5:50PM) (1/2)inch x (1/4) inch over posterior
fontanal region on the back of the head.
Tenderness over the left loin but bony
injury.
Contrusion over the nail of left index
finger.
Vijay Ex.PW-6/B Clean lacerated wound on right parietal
(5:35PM) region of scalp.
Clean lacerated wound on right middle
finger.
(length illegible)
Rajesh Ex.PW-3/A Lacerated wound 2inches x 1inch x
(5:45PM) (1/2)inch over left temporo-occipital
region of head.
Subhash - -
Chand
[email protected] - -
Prakash - -
Chand
16. Ashok son of Murari Lal died on June 09, 1985 and the cause of death
is septicaemia due to the burn injuries caused by scalding oil.
17. At the criminal trial of Murari Lal's group, Vijay Kumar, Rajesh
Kumar, Munna Lal and Swaroop appeared as PW-1, PW-2, PW-4 and PW-5
respectively and deposed in sync, albeit with minor variations on which
nothing turns, deposing that the accused were armed with hockey sticks,
dandas and bottles and attacked Swaroop Chand's group, save and except
Munna Lal who said that Murari Lal was armed with a danda and Om
Prakash with a hockey stick.
18. Relevant would it be to note that the witnesses have spoken in the
plural without stating as to who caused the lacerated wounds to Swaroop
Chand, Munna Lal, Vijay and Rajesh.
19. At the criminal trial of Swaroop Chand's group, Murari Lal appeared as
PW-1, Anil Kumar son of Murari Lal as PW-2, Om Prakash as PW-6, Raj
Kumar as PW-7 and Anil Kumar son of Baijnath as PW-9. As per Murari
Lal, Rajesh was carrying a palta (a cooking equipment having a round thin
plate with holes attached to a handle, seen in sweetmeat shops for making
boondi which is ultimately used to prepared ladoos). Prakash Chand was
armed with a saria. Subhash Chand with a hockey stick. As per him, Rajesh
struck him with the palta on his head and as he tried to ward of the blow he
suffered an injury on his hand. Prakash Chand gave a blow on his head with a
saria, Subhash Chand hit him on his back and hips with a hockey stick and
that Swaroop, Munna Lal and Ashok inflicted fist and kick blows on him. As
per him when his son Ashok intervened to snatch the hockey stick from
Subhash Chand, Swaroop Chand hit Ashok on the head and Vijay picked up a
bucket and filled with boiling oil and poured it on Ashok.
20. Anil Kumar PW-2 deposed that all accused collected near his shop and
started assaulting his father. As per him Munna Lal, Subhash and Swaroop
Chand inflicted fist and kick blows on his father. Rajesh injured his father's
fingers, Prakash Chand inflicted a blow on his father's head with a rod and
Subhash Chand hit his father with the hockey stick. Vijay brought hot oil in a
bucket and poured it on Ashok. Om Prakash PW-6, Raj Kumar PW-7, Anil
Kumar PW-9 and Ramnik PW-10 also deposed likewise with minor
variations, each one assigning role of pouring hot oil on Ashok to Vijay and
Murari Lal's finger being cut by the blow by a palta by Rajesh.
21. Witnesses on one side being accused on the other, it is apparent that the
witnesses would speak half truths for the reason Murari Lal and his group had
to account for the injuries suffered by four members of the Swaroop Chand's
group and likewise Swaroop Chand and his group had to explain the injuries
suffered by Murari Lal and the deceased Ashok. In testimony of neither
witnesses injuries suffered by members of the opposite group have been
explained. Whereas Swaroop Chand and his group accused Murari Lal and
his group of attacking them at shop No.512, Murari Lal and his group accused
Swaroop Chand and his group of attacking them at shop No.518; and thus
inherent would be the argument that the injuries caused to the opposite group
members were in exercise of right of private defence.
22. It thus becomes critical to determine whether at all there was an
aggressor group and whether at all a group formed an unlawful assembly with
the object of assaulting a member or all the members or the shop of the other
group. This would subsume the place of the origin of the fight.
23. Neutral witnesses testimony would thus be relevant and we find that at
the forefront would be the testimony of Ct.Shyam Singh PW-20 (in the
Sessions Trial against Swaroop Chand and others). He has admitted that the
photographs Ex.PW-20/1, Ex.D-2, Ex.D-3, Ex.D-4 and Ex.D-5 were taken by
him at the scene of the crime and we find from the photographs that neither
shop No.512 nor shop No.518 has been damaged. The scene of the crime is
the road segment of Bara Bazar between shop No.512 and shop No.518. The
road segment is about 60 feet. The place where oil was detected is about 15
feet from the western corner of shop No.512 and hence about 45 feet away
from where the eastern corner of shop No.518 exists. The trail of oil is from
the Namkeen shop.
24. Insp.Vinod Kumar PW-13 has categorically deposed that the
photographs in question depict the scene of the crime.
25. Anil Kumar S/o Baij Nath PW-9 has also admitted that said
photographs depict the scene of the crime.
26. There being no damage to either shop No.512 or shop No.518, it has to
be held that there is no evidence that members of either group formed an
unlawful assembly with the object of attacking the shop of the other group.
Faced with inimical and interested witnesses in the two cross cases for the
reason witnesses in one case were the accused in the other and vice versa, it is
apparent that both group of witnesses would speak the half truth. But the
photographs we have referred to above and the site plan to scale to which we
have made a reference, keeping in view the consistent version of both groups
that the raid by officers of the Food Department had led to a mutual bickering
between the two groups which festered from around 11:00 AM till 4:00 PM
on May 24, 1985, probablizes that remonstrance between the two groups
suddenly fled up and all of a sudden a mutual fight took place at which handy
objects lying such as an iron rod, a hammer etc. were used. No hockey stick
has been recovered either from the scene of the crime or pursuant to the
disclosure statement made by any accused. The site plan to scale records spot
'H' on the street where an iron rod was lying and spot 'I' where a small
hammer was lying. Spot 'J' is the place from where a palta was picked up.
27. If we look at the MLCs of Murari Lal's Group we find that only Murari
Lal and deceased Ashok were injured and no other member of said group was
injured. Therefore the claim of eye witnesses of Murari Lal group that
members of Swaroop Chand's group came armed with a palta, saria and
hockey stick etc. is not believable. The members of Swaroop Chand's group
were 7 in number and if 7 people armed themselves and launch an assault on
the other group, injuries would be found on members of the other group and
not merely two. Further, the injuries on Murari Lal's group are : (i) Burning
by scalding hot cooking oil on Ashok and (ii) use of a palta on Murari Lal.
The injuries on Swaroop Chand's group have been suffered by four persons:
(i) Swaroop Chand, (ii) Munna Lal, (iii) Vijay and (iv) Rajesh. The injuries
are clean lacerated wounds, besides contusions and abrasions and tenderness.
Whereas Swaroop Chand has two clean lacerated wounds on the head and the
lip and an abrasion, Munna Lal has one clean lacerated wound on the head
and contusions on the left index finger besides tenderness over the left loin.
Vijay has suffered two clean lacerated wounds, one on the head and the other
on the right middle finger. Rajesh has a lacerated wound on the head. The
injuries tell their own story. Four members of Swaroop Chand's group has
been assaulted and the assailants had blunt objects in their hands.
28. The scene of the crime and the injuries suffered by the two groups
would evince that as exchange of words between the two groups which
started at 11:00 AM continued till 4:00 PM, the remonstrance led to a sudden
quarrel in which the two sides jostled with each other and during the jostling
few members of Murari Lal's group picked up handy objects lying nearby
such as a small hammer and an iron rod. The balance of power shifted
resulting in injuries suffered by Swaroop Chand's group and then realizing
that to equal the balance or probably under the feeling of being overpowered,
two members of Swaroop Chand seeing the palta and the hot scalding oil
boiling in a kadhai in the Namkeen shop, rushing to the shop. One arming
himself with a palta and the other lifting a container filled with hot scalding
oil. Rajesh was the one who picked up the palta and hit Murari Lal with the
palta causing the wound on the left side of forehead, which as per the MLC
Ex.PW-5/A is not clearly described and it is not clear whether the wound is
incised or lacerated. He struck a second blow directing its trajectory towards
the head of Murari Lal who instinctively put his hands on his head to save the
head and in the process received the blow on the left middle finger resulting
in the upper part of the left middle finger being severed. It is apparent that the
sharp edge of the round thin plate having holes of the palta has caused the
injury.
29. Section 141 of the Indian Penal Code reads as under:-
"141. An assembly of five or more persons is designated
an "unlawful assembly", if the common object of the persons
composing that assembly is -
First -To overawe by criminal force, or show of criminal
force, the Central or any State Government or Parliament or
the Legislature of any State, or any public servant in the
exercise of the lawful power of such public servant; or
Second - To resist the execution of any law, or of any legal
process; or
Third - To commit any mischief or criminal trespass, or other
offence; or
Fourth - By means of criminal force, or show of criminal
force, to any person, to take or obtain possession of any
property, or to deprive any person of the enjoyment of a right
of way, or of the use of water or other incorporeal right of
which he is in possession or enjoyment, or to enforce any
right or supposed right; or
Fifth - By means of criminal force, or show of criminal force,
to compel any person to do what he is not legally bound to do,
or to omit to do what he is legally entitled to do."
30. The underlying principle of Section 141 of the Penal Code is that law
discourages tumultuous assemblage of men so as to preserve the public peace.
The essence of an offence under the Section is the combination of five or
more persons, united in the purpose of committing a criminal offence, and the
consensus of the purpose is itself an offence distinct from the criminal offence
which these persons agree and intend to commit. Law does not declare the
mere assemblage of men, however large, illegal. But where the assemblage is
inspired by an illegal object as specified in Section 141 of the Penal Code, the
offence is committed.
31. A riot is an unlawful assembly in a particular state of activity, which
activity is accompanied by the use of force or violence. It is only the use of
force that distinguishes rioting from an unlawful assembly. As to the fact of
constituting the offence of rioting, there should be at least five persons and
force should be used in prosecution of the common object. If during rioting
deadly weapons are used, an offence under Section 148 of the Penal Code
ensues. If a penal offence is committed by any member of the unlawful
assembly in furtherance of the common object the offence contemplated by
Section 149 of the Penal Code is committed.
32. If there is evidence that one group formed an unlawful assembly and
assaulted the other group, notwithstanding the other group being five or more
than five persons, would be entitled to the right of private defence and injuries
caused on the aggressors, subject to the force used to defend being
proportionate to the gravity of the threat, would not render the defence group
liable for any penal action.
33. The suddenness of a quarrel militates against a common object being
entertained by the members of the assembly. As held in the decision reported
as AIR 1989 SC 1822 State of U.P. vs. Jodha Singh, a sudden quarrel does
not attract Section 141 or Section 147 or Section 148 or Section 149 of the
Penal Code.
34. A sudden quarrel is always the result of remonstrance and is thus
without any premeditation. Thus, in a sudden quarrel if more than five
persons form a group on either side, it cannot be said that the members of the
group form an unlawful assembly. As held in the decision reported as AIR
1973 SC 2505 Lalji vs. State of U.P, in such a case, each of the accused
persons is liable for his own acts and not vicariously liable for the acts of
others. As held in the decisions reported as AIR 1970 SC 219 Kanbi Nanji vs.
State of Gujarat and AIR 1971 SC 335 Munir Khan vs. State of U.P. in a
mutual fight there is no common object. Both parties suddenly indulge in a
stray fight resulting in injuries to persons of both groups. Only those persons
who are proved to cause the injuries can be held guilty for the offence
individually committed by them.
35. It may sometime happen that two parties make an issue of something
and that issue becomes the pretext for a fight. The two groups armed
themselves to see who are the better men. The ensuing duel between the
parties is planned by members of both groups. In such case, members of both
the groups would be guilty of forming an unlawful assembly. If the fight
ensues they would be guilty of rioting as well.
36. Speaking of the two impugned decisions we find that the learned Trial
Judge who has authored two separate judgments of even date has observed
that witnesses on both sides have concealed some truth, but strangely has held
both groups as aggressors. He has held that both groups formed an unlawful
assembly. Convicting Murari Lal and others in Sessions Case No.56/1999
relating to FIR No.184/1985, in paragraph 17 of the decision a categoric
finding has been returned that Murari Lal and others formed an unlawful
assembly to attack Vijay's shop No.512. This is the reason why Murari Lal
and others have been convicted for the offences under Section 147, Section
148, Section 427 and Section 323 read with Section 149 IPC. By a separate
judgment of even date members of Swaroop Chand and his group have been
convicted holding that they had formed an unlawful assembly with the
common object to beat Murari Lal and his group and this is the reason why
save and except Vijay who has been convicted for the offence punishable
under Section 302 IPC, all others including Vijay have been convicted as
noted in paragraph 4 above.
37. Now, it cannot be that both groups were aggressors.
38. For the evidence noted by us hereinabove it is apparent that it is the
case of a sudden mutual fight, not preceded by any group assembling with
any particular object and thus we hold that neither group formed an unlawful
assembly. The mutual fight cannot be treated as rioting because rioting as per
Section 146 of the Indian Penal Code must be preceded by an unlawful
assembly followed by use of force or violence by members thereof. The
question of anybody being thus liable under Section 148 of the Indian Penal
Code does not arise. The question of a common object of any unlawful
assembly and hence the vicarious liability contemplated by Section 149 of the
Penal Code would also not arise.
39. All accused on either side have to be acquitted of the offences
punishable under Section 147, Section 148 and Section 149 of the Indian
Penal Code, and we order accordingly.
40. In a sudden mutual fight the person causing the injury alone is liable for
his own acts.
41. Pertaining to the injuries caused to Swaroop Chand, Munna Lal, Vijay
and Rajesh, as noted hereinabove the said four injured persons who appeared
as PW-1, PW-2, PW-4 and PW-5 have deposed in the plural : simply
deposing that the accused group came armed with hocked sticks, danda and
bottles and attacked them, without specifying as to who hit whom. It has to
be kept in mind that Murari Lal's group comprised 7 persons, one of whom
Ashok died as a result of hot scalding oil being thrown on him during the
sudden free fight. The injuries suffered by Swaroop Chand, Munna Lal,
Vijay and Rajesh are lacerated wounds and thus have to be the result of a
blunt object.
42. It does happen that in a melee in which two groups having seven
members each indulge in a free fight, it becomes impossible for the victims
who are also participating in the fight to remember who injured whom. But
the injuries suffered by both groups cannot be ignored at the same time.
43. The injuries suffered by Swaroop Chand, Munna Lal, Vijay and Rajesh
are opined to be simple injuries, and we speak from the MLCs. From the
evidence on record it emerges that members of the Murari Lal Group
indulged in a mutual fight with members of Swaroop Chand's group and
blunt objects were used to cause injuries to Swaroop Chand, Munna Lal,
Vijay and Rajesh. It is settled law that common intention can be formed at
the spur of the moment and by the participative acts of the members of a
group the same can be inferred. Thus, at best all members of Murari Lal's
group would be liable to be punished for the offence punishable under Section
323 IPC.
44. As regards the injuries caused to Murari Lal and Ashok, the consistent
evidence is that Rajesh S/o Prakash Chand hit him with the palta. The palta is
not a weapon, it is an implement to fry. It was a handy object lying at the
Namkeen shop. The resultant injury caused is grievous and thus the offence
committed by Rajesh is punishable under Section 325 IPC and not Section
326 IPC.
45. As regards the death of Ashok S/o Murari Lal, the consistent evidence
is that during the free fight Vijay went to the Namkeen shop and filled up
scalding cooking oil in a container and threw the same on Ashok. Thus, the
offence committed by Vijay is not murder but culpable homicide not
amounting to murder inasmuch as he has to be attributed knowledge that by
his wanton act death of the victim may occur. Indeed, Ashok died after 15
days of the incident. The post-mortem report shows that he had suffered burn
injuries covering 30% - 40% of the body area. The offence committed by
Vijay is thus punishable under Section 304-II IPC.
46. To bring the curtains down we dispose of the appeals acquitting the
appellants in the two appeals of the offences and hence the conviction under
Sections 147, 148, 149 and 427 IPC.
47. We convict the appellants of Crl.A.No.27/2000 i.e. Murari Lal's group
for having committed an offence punishable under Section 323 IPC and
noting that all of them have undergone simple imprisonment for periods
ranging between 8 days to 12 days, noting further that the incident took place
more than 29 years ago, we sentence them to undergo the imprisonment for
the period already undergone and pay fine in sum of `5,000/- each and in
default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month.
48. We dispose of Crl.A.No.18/2000 acquitting the appellants save and
except Rajesh of the charge framed against them for the reason injuries
caused to Murari Lal and Ashok have been identified as having been caused
by Rajesh and Vijay alone. As regards appellant Rajesh we convict him for
the offence punishable under Section 325 IPC and for which we sentence him
to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and pay fine in sum of
`1,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month.
49. We dispose of Crl.A.No.49/2000 filed by Vijay acquitting him of the
charges under Sections 147, 148 and 326 read with 149 IPC. We alter his
conviction for having committed an offence punishable under Section 302
IPC to having committed an offence punishable under Section 304-II IPC for
which we sentence him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and pay
fine in sum of `1,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one
month.
50. TCR be returned.
(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG)
JUDGE
(MUKTA GUPTA)
JUDGE
OCTOBER 17, 2014
mamta
