Lakshmi Chand vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh Home ...

The   two   appellants   stand   convicted   under   Sections 323 r/w 34, 324 r/w 34 and 307 r/w 34 IPC to undergo one   year,   two   years   and   eight   years   of   rigorous imprisonment   respectively.     Appellant   No.2   has   been additionally convicted under Section 304 Part II r/w 34 to undergo   rigorous   imprisonment   for   eight   years   and   fine with a default stipulation.

2. The genesis of the assault lies in an occurrence in the Digitally signed by VINOD LAKHINA Date: 2018.08.24 morning   of   15.04.1980.     The   bullocks   of   the   appellants 11:15:01 IST Reason: strayed into the neighbouring compound of the deceased, 1 Prem Lal who drove them  out with a lathi, leading to an altercation   with   the   accused   Kashmira,   since   deceased. The   latter   went   back   to   his   house,   and   returned immediately   armed   with   a   lathi,   accompanied   by   the appellants,   who  were also armed with an iron rod and a knife   respectively.   They   together   assaulted   the   deceased Prem   Lal.   PW­1,   Banarasi,   the   informant,   and   PW­2, Omveer,   an   injured   witness   and   another   injured   witness Rajendra Singh intervened by picking up a lathi from the ground and retaliated in self­defence. The appellants then scampered away from the place of occurrence.  The fourth accused was held to be a juvenile.

3. The post­mortem of the deceased done by PW­7, Dr. B.K.   Mishra,   revealed   three   abrasions   on   the   abdomen, back and shoulder apart from two incised wounds, muscle deep, on the scapula and the left thigh, leading to cut of the femoral artery.  Death was attributed to the last injury. The abrasions were opined to have been caused by a lathi. PW­3   and   Rajendra   Singh   sustained   simple   injuries,   as 2 opined by PW­6, Dr. Ajeet Singh, attributable to a knife and iron rod.

4. The High Court, in appeal, after consideration of the evidence,   concluded  that   common   intention   could   not   be inferred in the facts of the case. The appellants were held liable   for   their   individual   acts.   The   conviction   of   the appellants   under   Section   302   r/w   34   IPC   was   set   aside. Further,   holding   that   the   assault   on   the   deceased   had taken   place   on   the   spur   of   the   moment,   preceded   by   an altercation,   without   any   premeditation,   the   conviction   of appellant no.2 was altered to one under Section 304 Part II r/w 34 IPC.   The rest of conviction was sustained relying on the injury reports of PW­2 and Rajendra Singh.

8.  PW­6, Dr. Ajeet Singh has deposed that the injuries on PW­2 and Rajendra were simple in nature. There is no consideration   of   the   nature   of   injuries   in   the   conviction under Section 307 r/w 34.  The conviction of the appellants to that extent is held to be unsustainable and is set aside.

10. Resultantly,   the   conviction   of   the   appellants   under Sections 323 r/w 34 and 324 r/w 34 is not interfered with. The conviction of appellant no.2 under Section 304 Part II I.P.C. is altered from eight years to two years.

11. The   appeal   is   allowed   only   to   the   extent   indicated above.