Ramvir vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh

3. On   25.12.1980   around   5   P.M,   Siya   Ram (deceased) and his son ­ Kripal (PW­2) were going to a place called " Baithak " in a village ­ Bishnodi (PS ­Patiyali) from their house. When they reached near the   hut   of   one   Ram   Vilas,   the   appellant   (Ramvir) along with five persons namely (1) Bhoorey (2) Satya Ram   (3)   Shaitan   Singh   (4)   Ram   Das   and   (5) Jagdamba   Prasad   armed   with   guns/rifles   came there   and   surrounded   Siya   Ram   and   fired   shots from   their   guns/rifles.     Siyaram   on   receiving injuries fell down and succumbed to the injuries.

7. It is against this order; the appellant (Ramvir), feeling aggrieved, filed criminal appeal in the High Court   of   Allahabad.     So   far   as   the   State   is concerned, the State did not file any appeal against the   part   of   the   order   whereby   A­2   to   A­6   were acquitted of all the charges, and nor has the State filed   any   appeal   against   the   acquittal   of   A­1   with respect to the offence punishable under Section 149 IPC.   To that extent, therefore, the judgment of the Sessions Judge attained finality.

16. Second, in any event, five co­accused persons having   also   been   acquitted   of   the   charges   framed against   them   under   Section   148/149IPC,   no   case was   made   out   against   the   appellant   for   his conviction   under   Section   148/149  ibid.   In   other words, once it was held by the Sessions Judge that all the six accused persons could not be convicted under   Section   148/149  ibid  and   were   accordingly acquitted   and   no   appeal   having   been   filed   by   the State against this part of the order, the High Court was not justified in convicting the appellant under Section 148/149IPC.

9. It   is   against   this   order;   the   appellant   (A­1), feeling   aggrieved,   filed   the   present   appeal   after obtaining special leave to appeal in this Court.

13. In our considered opinion, so far as appellant's conviction under Section 148/149 IPC is concerned; the same is not legally sustainable and deserves to be set aside for more than one reasons.

19. In the light of afore­mentioned three reasons, we   are   of   the   considered   opinion,   that   the   High Court was not justified in convicting the appellant 9 (A­1)   for   commission   of   the   offences   punishable under   Section   148/149 IPC. The  conviction under twin sections is, therefore, not sustainable both on facts and in law and hence deserves to be set aside.

20. Now   so   far   as   appellant's   conviction   under Section 302 IPC is concerned, the same is also not factually   and   legally   sustainable   for   following reasons.  At the out set, it is apposite to quote how the High Court in Para 15 dealt with the issue in question.

22. In the light of foregoing reasons, we are of the view   that   the   appellant   is   entitled   for   benefit   of doubt   and   hence   deserves   to   be   acquitted   of   the charges framed against him under Section 302 read with Section 148/149 IPC.

23. Accordingly   the   appeal   succeeds   and   is allowed.   Impugned   order   is   set   aside.         The appellant ­ Ramvir (A­1) is acquitted of the charges 11 for   commission   of   offences   punishable   under Section  302  read with Section 148/149IPC. He is, therefore, set at liberty unless required in any other case.

24. Pending application(s), if any, stand dispose of.

October 26, 2018.