# Manjeet v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2012) 1 ILRA 137
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2012-02-14
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 957 of 2009
- **Bench:** Vinod Prasad
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/manjeet-v-state-of-u-p-42141
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

Section
307
IPC-victim
and
Appellant both were friends-Appellant
while returning from Ram Lila offered
Buffalo race-on refusal by victim-verbal
triadic altercation took place-incident
occurred without any pre-mediation and
pre-plan-prosecution unable to point out
any circumstances otherwise-in view of
law laid down by Apex Court-conviction
10 years R.I. With fine of Rs. 10000/-
reduced to 5 years with 40000/-with
compensation of Rs. 25000/-payable to
victim.

Held: Para 26

Further if the evidence of the doctor is
looked into, it is clear that the shot was
fired from quite a distance as the
dispersal of the pellets is 38 cm x 28 cm.
Injured was advised for X-ray but the
prosecution has not brought forth the Xray to know the exact nature of injury
sustained
by
the
deceased.
It
is
categorical deposition of the doctor
(P.W. 5) that he had not prepared any
supplementary report in respect of the
victim. He had further deposed that he
had not extracted any pellets from the
body of the injured. In such a view,
looking
to
the
entire
facts
and
circumstances and also looking to the
fact that the appellant had no criminal
history nor he had got any criminal
proclivity and the crime was committed
in a heat of passion and loss of self
control and the period of a decade gone
by during intervening period, I consider
it appropriate to reduce the sentence of
imprisonment of the appellant from 10
years RI to 5 years RI but at the same
time enhance the fine imposed upon him
from Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 40,000/- and
award a compensation of Rs. 25,000/- to
the victim P.W. 3.
Case law discussed:
AIR 2002 SC 485; AIR 1997 SC 361; AIR 2001
SC 1091

## Text

1 All] Manjeet V. State of U.P.

137
against the accused respondents and the
trial Court has misread the evidence and
acquitted the accused respondents.

6. Considering the totality of the
circumstances of the case, we are satisfied
that the grounds for acquittal mentioned
by the trial Court cannot be said to be
perverse or unreasonable. It is well settled
law that evenwhere two views are
possible, the view taken by the trial Court
should not normally be interfered with if
the view taken is not highly improbable or
unreasonable. Hence no interference is
called for in the judgment and order of
acquittal passed by the trial Court.

7. Accordingly, the Application for
Leave to Appeal is rejected and the Govt.
Appeal is also dismissed.
---------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 14.02.2012

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE VINOD PRASAD, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 957 of 2009

Manjeet

 ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P.

 ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Apul Misra
Sri P.N. Misra
Sri Rakesh Kumar Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.G.A.

Criminal Appeal-conviction of 10 years
R.I. With fine of Rs. 10000/-for offence
under
Section
307
IPC-victim
and
Appellant both were friends-Appellant
while returning from Ram Lila offered
Buffalo race-on refusal by victim-verbal
triadic altercation took place-incident
occurred without any pre-mediation and
pre-plan-prosecution unable to point out
any circumstances otherwise-in view of
law laid down by Apex Court-conviction
10 years R.I. With fine of Rs. 10000/-
reduced to 5 years with 40000/-with
compensation of Rs. 25000/-payable to
victim.

Held: Para 26

Further if the evidence of the doctor is
looked into, it is clear that the shot was
fired from quite a distance as the
dispersal of the pellets is 38 cm x 28 cm.
Injured was advised for X-ray but the
prosecution has not brought forth the Xray to know the exact nature of injury
sustained
by
the
deceased.
It
is
categorical deposition of the doctor
(P.W. 5) that he had not prepared any
supplementary report in respect of the
victim. He had further deposed that he
had not extracted any pellets from the
body of the injured. In such a view,
looking
to
the
entire
facts
and
circumstances and also looking to the
fact that the appellant had no criminal
history nor he had got any criminal
proclivity and the crime was committed
in a heat of passion and loss of self
control and the period of a decade gone
by during intervening period, I consider
it appropriate to reduce the sentence of
imprisonment of the appellant from 10
years RI to 5 years RI but at the same
time enhance the fine imposed upon him
from Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 40,000/- and
award a compensation of Rs. 25,000/- to
the victim P.W. 3.
Case law discussed:
AIR 2002 SC 485; AIR 1997 SC 361; AIR 2001
SC 1091

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vinod Prasad, J. )

1. Challenge in this appeal by the
sole
appellant
Manjeet
is
to
his
conviction under section 307 IPC and
imposed sentence of 10 years R.I. with
138 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012

Rs.10,000/- fine and in case of default in
payment of fine to undergo further one
year simple imprisonment recorded by
Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C. court
no.21, Bulandshahar vide impugned
judgement and order dated 11.2.09
recorded in S.T. No.695 of 2001, State
Vs. Manjeet, relating to Police Station
Aurangabad, district Bulandshahar.

2. Shorn of eschewable detailes,
prosecution
allegations
against
the
appellant as are revealed from written
FIR, Ext. Ka-1, lodged by the informant
Rajendra Singh, (P.W. 1), were that
inraged by rejection of an his offer to do
buffalo cart racing, that the appellant
shot at Devendra (P.W. 3) S/o informant
from his DBBL gun on 5.10.2000 at 1
A.M. in night at the crossing of his
village Gangahari, P.S. Aurangabad,
District Bulandshahr causing gun shot
injuries on his chest and neck. Informant
Rajendra Singh (P.W. 1) F/o injured
dictated incident FIR, Ext. Ka-1, to
Prakash Singh, who scribed it, and
thereafter (P.W. 1) lodged it at P.S.
Augangabad, same day at 2.10 A.M.,
measuring a distance of seven kilometre.
S.I. Indra Pal Singh registered the F.I.R.
as crime no.278 of 2000, under Section
307 IPC vide Ext. Ka-2 and prepared the
G.D. entry Ext. Ka-3.

3. Investigation into the crime was
commenced by S.I. Mohammad Kamar,
who had interrogated the witnesses and
prepared the site plan Ext Ka-7. After his
transfer,
further
investigation
was
conducted by S.I. Mahendra Prasad
Pandey
(P.W.7)
from
28.10.2000
onwards, who concluding it had chargesheeted the appellant vide Ext. Ka-8.

4. Injured was examined by Dr. S.
Garg,
E.M.O.,
District
Hospital,
Saharanpur at 3.15 a.m. same day, who
was brought to him by Constable
Virendra Singh of P.S. Aurangabad.
Following injuries were detected by the
doctor on the torso vide injured medical
examination report Ext. Ka-5:-

"AMI :- multiple gunshot wound of
entry in area 38 cm. x 23 cm. on front
right shoulder and upper part of right
chest and middle part of left chest and
front neck and front chin size measuring
0.4 cm x 0.4 cm, 2.0 cm x 1.5 cm surgical
emphysema was present, no blackening
tattooing present, blood was oozing from
the injury. In the estimation of the doctor
injury was grievous in nature and
duration was fresh."

5. Charge-sheeting of the appellant
resulted in his summoning and finding
his case triable by Session's Court, it was
committed to the Session's Court for
trial, where it was registered as S.T. No.
695 of 2001, State Vs. Manjeet.

6.

Additional
Session's
Judge/F.T.C., court no.21, Bulandshahar
charged the appellant for offence under
section 307 I.P.C., which charge was
denied by the appellant under section
227/228 Cr.P.C. and hence to establish
it's case prosecution, during the course of
the trial, examined in all seven witnesses
out of whom informant Rajendra Singh
(P.W.1), Jai Pal Singh (P.W.2), injured
victim Devendra (P.W.3) were the fact
witnesses. Formal witnesses included S.I.
Indra Pal Singh (P.W.4), doctor S. Garg
(P.W.5), Bhuwan Ram (P.W.6) and
second I.O. S.I. M.P. Pandey (P.W.7).
1 All] Manjeet V. State of U.P.

139

7. In his statement under Section
313 Cr.P.C., appellant pleaded false
implication and denied incriminating
circumstances put to him occurring in
prosecution evidences.

8. Trial Judge vide impugned
judgement of conviction and sentence
came
to
the
conclusion
that
the
prosecution had established it's case
beyond any shadow of doubt and
therefore convicted the appellant for the
framed charge under section 307 IPC and
sentenced him to ten years R.I. with
Rs.10,000/- fine and in default thereof to
undergo additional one year simple
imprisonment. Consequently, appellant
has
challenged
his
conviction
and
sentence in the instant appeal.

9. In the preceding unfolded
background facts, I have heard Sri
Raghuraj Kishore, advocate in support of
the
appeal
and
learned
AGA
in
opposition.

10. Sri Raghurja Kishore, learned
counsel for the appellant did not
challenge conviction of the appellant for
the charge under section 307 IPC as he
fairly conceded that so far as conviction
of the appellant is concerned, the same is
infallible and cannot be castigated, as
there was no reason for the injured to
cook up a false story against him, as both
of them were friends and prior to the
shooting incident, there was no enmity in
between them. He further stated that
there was no reason for informant
(P.W.1) to lodge a false FIR and depose
mendacious version without any motive
and
previous
enmity.
He
further
submitted that the medical report and the
depositions of doctor (P.W.5) indicate
that the injury sustained by the injured
was by gun fire and the same was
grievous in nature on the vital part of the
body and therefore, testimony of the
doctor fully corroborates prosecution
version. Learned counsel, therefore, did
not harp much on the factual aspects and
fairly conceded that conviction of the
appellant under section 307 I.P.C. is
unassailable. Learned counsel however
vehemently addressed the Court only on
the question of sentence and submitted
that the incident had occurred more than
a
decade
ago
and
appellant
had
undergone more than three years of
incarceration. Adding remissions he had
served round about three and a quarter
years of imprisonment. The sentence
awarded
to
the
appellant
is
not
commensurate
with
his
guilt
and
therefore, learned counsel submitted that
the sentence of the appellant be reduced
to the period of imprisonment already
undergone with some fine clamped on
him
and
in
support of the said
contention,
he
has
raised
many
submissions and pointed out various
mitigating circumstances, which are
mentioned in succeeding paras.

11. Learned AGA conversely
submitted that the sentence should not be
reduced, as it is a case of causing of
grievous injury by gun fire, which
conviction stands unchallenged.

12. I have considered the entire
facts and circumstances of the case, from
penelogical point of view, as to whether
sentence of the appellant should be
reduced or not?

13. In above respect, some of the
mitigating circumstances, which were
argued by learned counsel for the
appellant and be taken note of are firstly,
140 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012

that the incident occurred in the dead
hour of night at 1.00 p.m. at a very petty
brawl of engaging in a buffalo cart race.
On four or five buffalo carts informant
and appellant had gone to enjoy the
Ramleela along with other co-villagers.
While returning from there, appellant
wanted to have a buffalo cart race as his
buffalo cart was moving ahead of rest of
them. Appellant's offer was refused and
there was verbal dual and tiradic
altercation between the appellant and the
injured. Incident is said to have occurred
because of the aforesaid reason. The
wordily exchange had started a kilometre
prior from the place of the incident and it
seems that it continued till the crossing,
place of the incident, as the depositions
of the injured is that as soon as the
appellant alighted from the buffalo
bullock-cart, he accosted the victim
(P.W. 3) to stand there and he will teach
him a lesson. Thereafter, it is alleged,
that the appellant brought the DBBL gun
of his brother and fired a single shot.
Thus the incident occurred without any
pre-meditation and pre-plan.

14. Secondly that the incident
occurred in the heat of passion, loosing
self control and unable to bear hot
exchange of verbal tiradic dual.

15. Thirdly that a single shot was
fired by the appellant, causing injuries to
the victim. There was no repetition of
shot. In such a view, it is very difficult to
conclude positively that appellant really
intended to cause death of the injured.
No doubt appellant had caused grievous
injuries to the victim on the vital part of
his body but that fact alone is not
sufficient to infer requisite mens rea to
impose such severe punishment on him.
Punishment has to be commensurate
looking to the mens rea, which the
accused harbingered at the time of the
commission of the crime.

16. Fourth mitigating factor is that
the appellant had no criminal history.
Victim and appellant both were friends
and prosecution had not been able to
point out any circumstance, which may
aggravate
the
offence,
which
was
committed after loosing self control.

17. Fifth circumstance is that the
appellant has an ailing father and small
children to foster. It was mentioned in
the impugned judgment that he was the
sole bread earner of his family.

18. Sixth modifying circumstance is
that the present was his first crime
without any criminal background and
proclivity.

19. Next mitigating circumstance is
that appellant during the course of trial
had not misused the liberty of bail
granted to him nor had endeavoured to
tamper with the prosecution evidences
and to be an impediment in the entire
trial procedure.

20. Another ground is that appellant
had not repeated the shots. At the time of
the incident, he was 32 years of age and
as of now, he must be 42 years. Incident
had occurred a decade ago and during
intervening period bickering must have
subsided.

21. It was appellant's first crime
and he had not associated himself with
any kind of offence subsequently also.

22. In above view, 10 years
imprisonment imposed by the trial Judge,
1 All] Manjeet V. State of U.P.

141
therefore,
does
not
seems
to
be
commensurate with appellant's guilt. It
seems that the appellant had a remorse
for the incident, which occurred at the
heat of the moment, without any
premeditation and intention in the dead
hour of the night.

23.

Penology
is
a
science.
Sentencing requires analyzing facts and
circumstances, which are peculiar to
each case. Lesser sentence will give an
impression of no justice being done to
the victim or his family but, conversely
also, a disproportionate severe sentence,
not commensurate with the guilt of the
accused, will also not act as a deterrent
but will garner antagonistic feelings
pervaded by feeling of vengeance. As
exemplars reliance can be placed on the
views by the Apex Court in the following
decisions:-
Habbalappa
Dundappa
Katti
and
others
Vs.
State
of
Karnataka: AIR 2002 SC 485, in
paragraph 5, the Apex Court has
observed as under:-

"The occurrence took place as early
as in 1986. The appellants were
acquitted by the trial Court vide order
dated 11th September, 1987 and after
their conviction for offences under
Sections 326/149, 147 and 148, IPC by
the High Court on 9th June, 1992, they
were directed to be released on bail vide
our order dated 28th August, 1992. In
our opinion keeping all these factors in
view it would serve the ends of justice if
the appellants are not now sent back to
jail, as indeed nothing has been brought
to our notice to show that after their
release on bail they have acted in any
manner prejudicial to law and order.
We, therefore, reduce the substantive
sentences
of
imprisonment
of
the
appellants
to
the
period
already
undergone by them for the various
offences for which they have been
convicted but we sentence each one of
them to pay fine in addition to the
sentence
of
imprisonment
already
undergone."

24. In Union of India and others
Vs. Anand Singh Bisht: AIR 1997 SC
361, in paragraphs 7, 8 and 9, it has been
held as follows:-

"Mr. Amrish Kumar, the learned
Counsel for the respondent has submitted
that although within the scope and ambit
of
this
appeal,
the
prayer
for
compensation does not arise but in order
to give complete justice in the case, this
Court can give direction for giving
suitable compensation to the respondent
in exercise of the power under Article
142 of the Constitution of India. We have
taken into consideration the justification
of such claim for compensation. But in
the facts and circumstances of the case,
it appears to us that the respondent had
made an application for taking note of
the mitigating circumstances in the
matter of awarding suitable punishment
against him by indicating the period of
detention as under trial accused before
Court Martial. He was convicted under
Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code
and was awarded the sentence of
imprisonment
for
only
one
year
persumably by taking into consideration,
the mitigating circumstances. We may
indicate here that for an offence under
Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code,
imprisonment up to a period of ten years
can be given. Hence, we are not inclined
to give any direction for monetary
compensation for long detention as
under trial accused.
142 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012

Mr. Amrish has lastly submitted that
the respondent had a brilliant service
record as a member of the Border
Security Force. He had participated in
Indo-China War in 1962 and also in the
Indo-Pakistan War in 1971. Mr. Kumar
has submitted that the respondent did not
cause injury to the cadet Raj Kishore
Singh intentionally, but as it has come
out in the evidence that both the said Raj
Kishore Singh and the respondent Anand
Singh Bisht were intoxicated at the time
of the incident and not being in his full
senses, the respondent had fired one shot
from his rifle injuring the leg of the said
cadet Raj Kishore Singh with whom he
was quarreling for a long time. We have
looked into the records relating to the
Court Martial proceedings in this case.
It appears from the evidence given by the
prosecution witnesses in the Court
Martial that the respondent Anand Singh
Bisht was otherwise quite friendly with
Raj Kishore. They on the date of incident
started quarreling. Shri Anand shouted
to the cadet Raj Kishore Singh to move
away from him and he had also given
warning that otherwise Raj would be
shot. It has also come out in evidence
that Raj Kishore Singh did not move
away and even when the rifle was raised
with finger on the trigger Raj Kishore
rather pressed the barrel and then he
was shot at the leg. The officer-in-charge
of the Camp where the incident had
taken
place,
in
his
preliminary
investigating
report
sent
to
the
Commandant of the Unit indicated that
the Cadet Raj Kishore Singh and the
respondent were in best of terms and
most likely he did not intend to shot at
him but because of the altercation he had
fired one shot at the sour of the moment
when he must have lost his temper.

Considering
the
aforesaid
mitigating facts and also considering the
fact that Sri Anand had suffered long
detention as under trial accused and has
also
suffered
imprisonment
at
the
Behrampur Central Jail in execution of
the sentence for about six months, we
feel that justice will be met if his
sentence is reduced to the period already
undergone. We order accordingly."

25. Another exemplar decision can
be had from paragraph 9 of R.
Seetharam and others Vs. State of
Karnataka:
AIR
2001
SC
1091,
wherein it has been noted by the Apex
Court as a mitigating ground to reduce
sentence:-

"However, it has been pointed out to
us that Appellant No. 3 has already
expired, Appellants 2 and 4 have already
served out their sentence. Reliance has
been placed upon medical Certificate
from St. Martha's Hospital, Bangalore,
which shows that Appellant No. 1 is
suffering from Prolapsed Disc and has a
degenerated
and
fragmented
fibrocartilagenous
material
which
has
resulted in 60% disability in both lower
limbs. Appellant No. 1 is also a Diabetic
and suffering from acute Bronchitis
attacks. The Certificate show that he is
unable
to
attend
to
his
normal
physiological activities. We have also
seen that his wife has deserted him and
he has two small children with an aged
mother."

26. Further if the evidence of the
doctor is looked into, it is clear that the
shot was fired from quite a distance as
the dispersal of the pellets is 38 cm x 28
cm. Injured was advised for X-ray but
the prosecution has not brought forth the
1 All] Naval Singh and another V. State of U.P. and others

143
X-ray to know the exact nature of injury
sustained
by
the
deceased.
It
is
categorical deposition of the doctor
(P.W. 5) that he had not prepared any
supplementary report in respect of the
victim. He had further deposed that he
had not extracted any pellets from the
body of the injured. In such a view,
looking
to
the
entire
facts
and
circumstances and also looking to the
fact that the appellant had no criminal
history nor he had got any criminal
proclivity and the crime was committed
in a heat of passion and loss of self
control and the period of a decade gone
by during intervening period, I consider
it appropriate to reduce the sentence of
imprisonment of the appellant from 10
years RI to 5 years RI but at the same
time enhance the fine imposed upon him
from Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 40,000/- and
award a compensation of Rs. 25,000/- to
the victim P.W. 3.

27. In view of above, the appeal
succeed and is allowed in part. While
conviction of the appellant under Section
307 I.P.C. is hereby maintained, his
sentence is altered from 10 years RI and
Rs. 10,000/- fine to 5 years RI with Rs.
40,000/- fine with compensation of Rs.
25,000/- to the victim P.W. 3 Devendra
Kumar out of it. In default of depositing
the fine, appellant shall undergo further
one year simple imprisonment. Appellant
is stated to be in jail, he shall remain in
jail to serve out remaining part of his
sentence, which has been awarded to him
by this judgment.

28. Let a copy of the judgment be
transmitted to the trial Judge for its
intimation.
---------

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.01.2012

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ASHOK BHUSHAN,J.
THE HON'BLE MRS. SUNITA AGARWAL,J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1043 of 2012

Naval Singh and another
 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri M.D. Singh 'Shekhar'
Sri R.D.Tiwari

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Ramendra Pratap Singh
C.S.C.

Constitution
of
India,
Article 226Provisions of Naveen Okhla Audyogik
Vikas Pradhikaran Awasiya bhukhand
Yojna
2011-Clause
(5)-being
discriminated-be declared ultra viresprovisions of allotment of flats to one
claimant-where
recorded
co-tenure
holders are more than one-allotment to
any one shall be made by draw of lotscan not be in any manner arbitrary on
discriminatory-petition dismissed.

Held: Para 9

The petitioners were also permitted to
participate in draw, they can not
complaint
of
any
arbitrariness
or
discrimination. Petitioners had equal
chance for allotment in draw and mere
fact that draw went in favour of
respondent no..4 cannot be said that
petitioner s have been deprived of their
right. Thus the submission of the
petitioner that clause -4 of the scheme
is arbitrary cannot be accepted.