REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.   40       OF 2009

(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.5671 of 2008)

Ramjit and Ors.         ………Appellants     

Versus    

State of U.P. …….. Respondent        

JUDGMENT

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1

1. Leave granted.

2. A Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court dismissed the appeal

filed by the appellants who were convicted for offences punishable under

Section 302 read with Section 149 and Section 307 read with Section 149

and Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the ‘IPC’).

3. In  all  five  persons  had  filed  the  appeal.  During  pendency  of  the

appeal  before  the  High  Court  appellant  accused  Mangaru  died  and  the

appeal stood abated so far as he is concerned. The learned 3rd Additional

Sessions  Judge,  Azamgarh,  had found the five  accused persons  guilty in

S.T.  No.78  of  1982.  The  present  appeal  has  been  filed  by  four  of  the

accused persons who were A2, A3, A4 and A5 before the trial Court.

4. Prosecution version in a nutshell is as follows:

The incident resulting in the death of Sukhai and causing injuries to

Sabhajit  and  Laljit  occurred  on  26.12.1981  in  Village  Larpur  Saheb  Ali

situated  within  the  limits  of  P.S.  Didarganj,  District  Azamgarh.  First

2

Information Report was lodged on 26.12.1981 by Ramjit S/o Sukhai Yadav

R/o Village Larpur Saheb Ali. The case of prosecution as appearing from

the F.I.R. in brief is that the chak of the complainant Ramjit was situated in

northern side near  to  the  house of  Mangaru S/o  Munne Lal   Yadav.  On

26.12.1981 Sabhajit,  brother of the complainant,  along with one Dhodhai

(PW-2) was harrowing his wheat field. At about 4.30 p.m. the bull of the

accused Mangaru entered into another field of the complainant and started

grazing and damaging the wheat crop. Sabhajit seeing the bull grazing and

damaging his wheat crop, called Ramjit son of Mangaru and asked him to

take out his bull. Sabhajit complained also to Ramjit that their cattle always

trespass  in  his  field  and  damage  the  grown  standing  crop.  Thereupon,

Ramjit  hurling abuses to Sabhajit  went inside his  house and immediately

thereafter the accused Mangaru and Rajdev having lathies in their hands and

Ram Bachan, Ram Achal and Ramjit armed with knife, bhala and gandasi

respectively  came there  and they all  began to  assault  Sabhajit.  When on

hearing hue and cry, the complainant Ramjit, his father Sukhai and brother

Laljit  rushed to  save Sabhajit,  the  accused  persons  assaulted  Sukhai  and

Laljit also. Behind the complainant, his cousin Indrajit, witnesses Sabhajit

S/o  Bahadur  Yadav and Sita  S/o  Madhar  Yadav of  his  village  and Ram

Narayan Singh S/o Hub Raj Singh of village Larpur Jhokhu as well as his

3

maternal uncle Sudarshan of village Gilwara also reached there. On being

challenged by these persons, the accused went away after causing injuries to

Sabhajit, Laljit and Sukhai. The complainant Ramjit witnessed the incident

standing  at  some  distance.  Sukhai  having  sustained  serious  injuries  fell

down  in  the  field  and  died  instantaneously.  Sabhajit  and  Laljit  also

sustained serious  injuries  due to which they were carried to Government

Hospital, Phulpur for treatment.  The complainant with the help of Banarsi,

Jeetu,  Adhin  and  Keesa  carried  the  dead  body  of  his  father  to  P.S.

Deedarganj  and  handed  over  written  report  there  which  was  scribed  by

Abhai Raj (P.W.4).

On the basis  of written report  the then Head Moharir,  Bal  Govind

Tiwari prepared chik F.I.R. and registered a case on 26.12.1981 at 6.30 p.m.

under  Sections  147,  148,  149,  323,  324,  307,  302  I.P.C.  at  Crime

No.106/1981  against  Mangaru,  Ramjit,  Ram  Achal,  Ram  Bachan  and

Rajdev and made entry in G.D. vide Ext.Ka-3.

The inquest proceeding on the dead body of Sukhai was conducted on

27.12.1981 by S.I. Lat Buksh Singh (PW-5) who prepared inquest  report

and connected papers.  Thereafter,  the dead body in sealed condition was

4

sent through the constable Ram Ugrah Pandit for post mortem examination

which was conducted on 28.12.1981 at 2.00 p.m. by Dr. S.N. Sinha (PW-7)

who  prepared  post  mortem  report.  Various  injuries  were  found  on  the

person of the deceased. Investigation of the case was entrusted to S.I. Lat

Buksh Singh (PW-5) who recorded the statement of the witnesses and after

making spot inspection at the instance of the complainant Ramjit prepared

site plan. Blood stained and sample earth were collected from two places in

the field  of  occurrence and one knife was also recovered from the place

where the dead body of the Sukhai was stated to be lying in the field and

fard  Ext.Ka.8  and  KA-9 were  prepared  in  this  regard.  Thereafter,  blood

stained lathi, gandasi and bhala were recovered from the well of accused

Mangaru at the instance of witnesses and fard was prepared.    

After  completion of investigation charge sheet  was filed. Since the

accused  persons  pleaded  innocence  trial  was  held.  Nine  witnesses  were

examined to  further  the prosecution  version.  Sabhajit  Yadav (PW-1) and

Laljit (PW-3) were injured witnesses. Similarly, Dhodhai (PW-2) was also

an eye witness. Placing reliance on the evidence of the eye witnesses the

trial Court recorded the conviction as noted above.  

5

In  appeal,  the  primary  stand  was  that  occurrence  took  place  in  a

sudden  quarrel  and,  therefore,  Section  302  has  no  application.  It  was

pointed out  that  there was  exchange of hot  words and there  was sudden

quarrel because the bullocks damaged the crops.  

The  High  Court  did  not  find  any  substance  in  the  plea  of  the

appellants and upheld the conviction.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants reiterated the stand taken before

the High Court. Learned counsel for the respondent-State on the other hand

supported the judgment of the Trial Court as affirmed by the High court.  

6. It is  submitted by learned counsel  for the State that this cannot be

stated to be a case of sudden quarrel because the accused persons after the

quarrel went inside and came back with arms.  In the instant case though the

witnesses  stated  that  after  initial  exchange  of  hot  words  and  quarrel  the

accused persons went inside and came back, it is to be noted that they have

fairly accepted that while the exchange of hot words, quarrel was continuing

and immediately i.e. in less than two and three minutes they came back.   

6

7. That  being  so,  in  the  peculiar  facts  of  the  case  we  are  of  the

considered view that  appropriate  conviction  would be under  Section  304

Part I read with Section 149 IPC.  The conviction is accordingly altered.

The other convictions remain unaltered. Custodial sentence of 10 years in

respect of offence punishable under Section 304 Part I IPC would suffice.

The  sentences  in  respect  of  other  offences  remain  unaltered.  All  the

sentences shall run concurrently.  

8. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent.     

………………………………J. (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)

……………………………...J. (ASOK KUMAR GANGULY)

New Delhi, January 12, 2009   

7