# Pargan Singh & Ors v. State

- **Citation:** (2025) 9 ILRA 670
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-09-04
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 2136 of 1985
- **Bench:** Anish Kumar Gupta
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/pargan-singh-ors-v-state-53955
- **Pages:** 18

## Headnote

offences under SS. 307/149, 147, 148 I.P.C. and
SS. 30 of the Arms Act was justified in view of
the defence arguments regarding: (i) credibility
of
fact-witnesses, (ii) delay in recording
statement of injured PW2, (iii) alleged nonexplanation of injuries on deceased Lallan
Singh, (iv) plea of self-defence, and (v) whether
the ingredients of S. 307 I.P.C. stood proved.

Headnotes
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - S. 307 -
Attempt to Murder - Intention, not nature
of injury, is determinative - Injury need
not be on vital part; hurt sufficient -
Intention
for
S.
307
inferred
from
surrounding circumstances - Right of
Private Defence - Court may consider even
if plea not specifically taken - Explanation
of Injuries - Prosecution must explain
injuries on accused when material; but
explanation adequate here - Delay in
recording statements - Not fatal if witness
is injured and evidence is corroborated -
Eyewitness
need
not
specify
which
accused inflicted which blow in group
assault - Sentencing - object - to impose
a sentence that reflects the conscience of
society and acts as a deterrence.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - SS.
313, 394, 161 - Arms Act, 1959 - S. 30 -
Held: Conviction upheld - Self-defence plea
rejected - Section 307 IPC attracted - Delay in
recording statement of PW2 not fatal - Sentence
affirmed - Appeal "accordingly dismissed" -
Directions for Custody. (Paras 31 to 53) (E-7)

Case Law Cited
Shahid Khan v. State of Rajasthan, (2016) 4
SCC 96; Nandan v. State of U.P., 2010 SCC
OnLine All 5221; Maheshwar Tigga v. State of
Jharkhand, (2020) 10 SCC 108; Gottipulla
Venkatasiva Subbrayanam v. State of A.P.,
(1970) 1 SCC 235; Mohar Rai v. State of
Bihar, (1968) 3 SCR 525; State of Gujarat v.
Bai Fatima, (1975) 2 SCC 7; Lakshmi Singh v.
State of Bihar, (1976) 4 SCC 394; Nand Lal v.
State of Chhattisgarh, (2023) 10 SCC 470;
Karu Marik v. State of Bihar, (2001) 5 SCC
284; State of M.P. v. Imrat, (2008) 11 SCC
523; State of Maharashtra v. Balram Bama
Patil, (1983) 2 SCC 28; Girija Shankar v. State
of U.P., (2004) 3 SCC 793; R. Prakash v. State
of Karnataka, (2004) 9 SCC 27; State of M.P.
v. Saleem, (2005) 5 SCC 554; Shoyeb Raja v.
State of M.P., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2624;
State of M.P. v. Mohan, (2013) 14 SCC 116.

List of Acts
Indian Penal Code, 1860; Arms Act, 1959;
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

List of Keywords
Common Object - Self-Defence - Injured
Witness - Broken Gun - Incised Wounds -
Firearm Injury - Vital Parts - Aggressors -
Snatched the Weapons - Bloodstained Soil -
Intention -Overt Act - Attempt to Murder -
Enmicable Relations -Categorical Explanation.

Case Arising From
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURIDICTION:
Criminal Appeal No. 2136 OF 1985, against
judgment dated 16.08.1985, Sessions Court,
arising from FIR regarding incident dated
28.02.1982 at Village Barhan, P.S. Dhina,
Varanasi.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellants:
Sri Kamal Krishna, Senior Advocate
Sri Prakhar Saran Srivastava
Sri K.P.S. Yadav
Sri Vijay Shantam, Amicus Curiae
Advs. for the Respondent-State:
Sri Satendra Nath Tiwari, A.G.A.

## Text

_Characters 0–39,593 of 60,729. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39593 for what follows._

670 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
court to alter and review its own judgment.
Elaborating
on
the
two
relaxations
envisioned by the legislature, this Court
explained that an alteration or review is
only feasible if it is so provided by the said
legislation itself or by any other law in
force. It was also clarified that such an
attempt to alter or review is also not
feasible or permissible through a reference
to Section 482 of CrPC for being expressly
barred under Section 362 of CrPC.

34. Criminal Appeal @ SLP
(Crl.) No.3425/2022 Page 19 of 27 34. A
careful consideration of the statutory
provisions and the aforesaid decisions of
this Court clarify the now-well-settled
position of jurisprudence of Section 362 of
CrPC which when summarize would be
that the criminal courts, as envisaged
under the CrPC, are barred from altering
or review their own judgments except for
the
exceptions
which
are
explicitly
provided by the statute, namely, correction
of a clerical or an arithmetical error that
might have been committed or the said
power is provided under any other law for
the time being in force. As the courts
become functus officio the very moment a
judgment or an order is signed, the bar of
Section 362 CrPC becomes applicable,
this, despite the powers provided under
Section 482 CrPC which, this veil cannot
allow the courts to step beyond or
circumvent an explicit bar. It also stands
clarified that it is only in situations wherein
an application for recall of an order or
judgment seeking a "procedural review"
that the bar would not apply and not a
substantive review" where the bar as
contained in Section "362 CrPC is
attracted. Numerous decisions of this Court
have also elaborated that the bar under
said provision is to be applied stricto
sensu."

14. The appellant has not annexed any
document which shows that he was
residing outside of his residence and he
never approached to his residence. No
information was given to him by his family
members and he was evading the Court
proceedings for last thirty years. The order
sheet of Criminal Appeal No. 1876 of 1983
reveals that several opportunities were
given to the applicant/appellant. Even nonbailable warrant was issued against him but
he did not come before the Court and gave
wrong impression that whereabouts were
not known to anybody. Thus in the present
facts and circumstances of the case, this
recall application filed under Section 528
of BNSS along with delay condonation
application is not maintainable as it is
barred by Section 362 of Cr.P.C. (Section
403 of BNSS).

15. In view of the above, this recall
application along with delay condonation
application is dismissed.
----------
(2025) 9 ILRA 670
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 04.09.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ANISH KUMAR GUPTA, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 2136 of 1985

Pargan Singh & Ors. ...Appellant
Versus
State ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellants:
Anil Raghav, Brijesh Sahai, S.P.S. Raghav,
Shanshak Shekhar

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.G.A. , V. Singh
9 All. Pargan Singh & Ors. Vs. State
671
Issue for Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellants for the
offences under SS. 307/149, 147, 148 I.P.C. and
SS. 30 of the Arms Act was justified in view of
the defence arguments regarding: (i) credibility
of
fact-witnesses, (ii) delay in recording
statement of injured PW2, (iii) alleged nonexplanation of injuries on deceased Lallan
Singh, (iv) plea of self-defence, and (v) whether
the ingredients of S. 307 I.P.C. stood proved.

Headnotes
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - S. 307 -
Attempt to Murder - Intention, not nature
of injury, is determinative - Injury need
not be on vital part; hurt sufficient -
Intention
for
S.
307
inferred
from
surrounding circumstances - Right of
Private Defence - Court may consider even
if plea not specifically taken - Explanation
of Injuries - Prosecution must explain
injuries on accused when material; but
explanation adequate here - Delay in
recording statements - Not fatal if witness
is injured and evidence is corroborated -
Eyewitness
need
not
specify
which
accused inflicted which blow in group
assault - Sentencing - object - to impose
a sentence that reflects the conscience of
society and acts as a deterrence.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - SS.
313, 394, 161 - Arms Act, 1959 - S. 30 -
Held: Conviction upheld - Self-defence plea
rejected - Section 307 IPC attracted - Delay in
recording statement of PW2 not fatal - Sentence
affirmed - Appeal "accordingly dismissed" -
Directions for Custody. (Paras 31 to 53) (E-7)

Case Law Cited
Shahid Khan v. State of Rajasthan, (2016) 4
SCC 96; Nandan v. State of U.P., 2010 SCC
OnLine All 5221; Maheshwar Tigga v. State of
Jharkhand, (2020) 10 SCC 108; Gottipulla
Venkatasiva Subbrayanam v. State of A.P.,
(1970) 1 SCC 235; Mohar Rai v. State of
Bihar, (1968) 3 SCR 525; State of Gujarat v.
Bai Fatima, (1975) 2 SCC 7; Lakshmi Singh v.
State of Bihar, (1976) 4 SCC 394; Nand Lal v.
State of Chhattisgarh, (2023) 10 SCC 470;
Karu Marik v. State of Bihar, (2001) 5 SCC
284; State of M.P. v. Imrat, (2008) 11 SCC
523; State of Maharashtra v. Balram Bama
Patil, (1983) 2 SCC 28; Girija Shankar v. State
of U.P., (2004) 3 SCC 793; R. Prakash v. State
of Karnataka, (2004) 9 SCC 27; State of M.P.
v. Saleem, (2005) 5 SCC 554; Shoyeb Raja v.
State of M.P., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2624;
State of M.P. v. Mohan, (2013) 14 SCC 116.

List of Acts
Indian Penal Code, 1860; Arms Act, 1959;
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

List of Keywords
Common Object - Self-Defence - Injured
Witness - Broken Gun - Incised Wounds -
Firearm Injury - Vital Parts - Aggressors -
Snatched the Weapons - Bloodstained Soil -
Intention -Overt Act - Attempt to Murder -
Enmicable Relations -Categorical Explanation.

Case Arising From
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURIDICTION:
Criminal Appeal No. 2136 OF 1985, against
judgment dated 16.08.1985, Sessions Court,
arising from FIR regarding incident dated
28.02.1982 at Village Barhan, P.S. Dhina,
Varanasi.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellants:
Sri Kamal Krishna, Senior Advocate
Sri Prakhar Saran Srivastava
Sri K.P.S. Yadav
Sri Vijay Shantam, Amicus Curiae
Advs. for the Respondent-State:
Sri Satendra Nath Tiwari, A.G.A.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Anish Kumar
Gupta, J.)

1. Heard Sri Kamal Krishna, learned
Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Prakhar
Saran
Srivastava,
learned
counsel
appearing on behalf of appellant nos. 1 &
4, Sri K.P.S. Yadav, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of appellant nos. 5, 6
& 9, Sri Vijay Shantam, Amicus Curiae
and Sri Satendra Nath Tiwari, learned
A.G.A. for the State-Respondent.

2. The instant criminal appeal has been
filed by the appellants being aggrieved by
672 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the judgement and order dated 16.08.1985
whereby the Appellant No.1, Pargan Singh,
Appellant no.2, Ram Murat Singh @ Sheo
Murat Singh, Appellant No.3, Doctor
Singh, Appellant No.4, Mangala Singh,
Appellant
No.5,
Raj
Nath
Yadava,
Appellant
No.6, Sheshnath,
Appellant
No.7, Naresh, Appellant No.8, Ram Briksh,
Appellant No.9, Param Hans, Appellant
No.10, Amar Deo, Appellant No.11,
Sobran, Appellant No.12, Bhorick and
Appellant No.13, Bhukhal were convicted
for the offences under Section 307 read
with Section 149 I.P.C. and sentenced to
undergo ten years' rigorous imprisonment.
The Appellant No. 13, Bhukal was also
convicted for the offence under Section 147
I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo one year
rigorous imprisonment. The Appellant
No.1, Pargan Singh, Appellant No.2, Ram
Murat Singh alias Shio Murat Singh,
Appellant No.3, Doctor Singh, Appellant
No.4, Mangala Singh, Appellant No.5, Raj
Nath Yadava, Appellant No. 6, Shesh Nath,
Appellant No. 7, Naresh, Appellant No.8,
Ram Briksh, Appellant No.9, Param Hans,
Appellant No.10, Amar Deo, Appellant
No.11, Sobran and Appellant No.12,
Bhorick were also convicted for the
offences under Section 148 I.P.C. and
sentenced to undergo two years' rigorous
imprisonment.
The
Appellant
No.14,
Bhadra Narain Singh, who was found
guilty for the offence under Section 30 of
the Arms Act, was sentenced to undergo
two months' imprisonment.

3. During the pendency of the appeal,
Appellants No. 3, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13 and
14 had died and the appeal on their behalf
was abated. The Appellant No. 2, Ram
Murat alias Shio Murat Singh has also died.
An application on behalf of the legal
representatives (LRs) of the Appellant No.2
was moved under Section 394 Cr.P.C.,
which was allowed by this Court vide order
dated 19.08.2025 and his LRs were
permitted to contest the conviction of the
Appellant No.2 and the said LRs were
represented
by
the
Amicus
Curiae
appointed by this Court.

4. Briefly stated prosecution story is
that the informant as well as the appellants
herein were residents of Village- Barhan,
Police Station- Dhina, District Varanasi.
The informant, Ram Saneshi Yadav was
the owner in possession of a chak in the
North of the village. Adjoining the chak of
Ram Saneshi there was an Abadi land. As
per the allegations made by the prosecution
on 28.02.1982, at about 3:00 P.M, the
Appellant No.12, Bhukhal and Appellant
No.13, Bhorick respectively, were digging
the foundation for raising construction of
their house. The informant and others
stopped Bhukhal and his son Bhorick from
raising the construction and asked them to
let there be a proper measurement before
the construction of the house. Upon this,
said Bhukhal and Bhorick stopped their
work and went to the village, and
thereafter, Lallan Singh, Pargan Singh,
Ram Murat Singh armed with guns, Doctor
Singh, Mangala Singh, Rajnath, Sheshnath,
Naresh Yadava and Ram Briksh, armed
with Ballams (spears), and Param Hans,
Amar Deo, Sobran and Bhorick armed
Gandasaas and Bhukhal with lathi,
having
formed
a
common
object,
reached there and abused them and told
that the construction of the house would
be raised. Upon which, Chandrama,
Bandhan Yadava, Ram Sakal, Ram
Awadh, Banwari, Ram Lacchan and Ram
Saneshi Yadava prohibited them from
abusing as well as from raising the
construction of the house. At this
obstruction, the accused persons started
firing and assaulting them.
9 All. Pargan Singh & Ors. Vs. State
673

5. Then, first of all, Lallan Singh fired
from his gun, causing a firearm injury to
Ram Lachhan and Ram Awadh. Bandhan,
Chandrama, Banwari and Ram Sakal were
attacked by ballam and gandasas by the
accused persons and they sustained the
injuries by ballam and gandasas. After
sustaining the injuries, the persons on the
complainant's side rushed towards Lallan
Singh and the gun of Lallan was broken
and in the process, Lallan Singh also
sustained injuries. This incident was seen
by Rama Awadh and Chhangur, etc.

6. After the incident, the informant,
Ram Saneshi Yadav along with injured
persons,
Chandrama,
Banwari,
Ram
Awadh, Ram Sakal, Ram Lacchan and
Bandhan, reached the police station and
lodged a report at 05:10 P.M., on the same
date. Thereupon, the F.I.R. was registered
for the offences under Sections 307/149,
147, and 148 of the I.P.C.

7. All the six injured persons were
referred to the S.S.P.G. Hospital, Varanasi,
for their medical examination. Dr. M.S.
Sharma examined Banwari at 9:15 P.M.
and observed the following injuries on his
body:

"1. Lacerated wound 2 cm. x 1/2
cm. x scalp deep mid of forahead 5 cm.
from root of nose.

2. Abraded contusion 2 cm. x 2
cm. on left side fore-head 2 cm. above left
eye brow.

3. abraded contusion 2 cm. x 2
cm., 1 cm. above injury no. 1.

4. Lacerated wound 2 cm. x 1 cm.
x scalp deep 10 cm, above right ear.

5. Contusion 14 cm. x 2 cm on the
right side chest 2 cm. away from right
nipple.

6. Contused swelling 4 cm. x 3
cm. on pack of right wrist, x-ray was
advised.

7. Contusion 10 cm. x 2cm, on
right scapular region.

8. Abrasion 2 cm. x 4 cm. on front
and upper part of left lag.

All the injuries were reported to
be caused by blunt object and friction
except injury no.6 which was kept under
observation."

8. On the same day at about 09.55
P.M. Dr. M.S. Sharma examined Ram
Sakal and noted the following injuries on
this person:-

"1. Incised wound 1/2 cm. x 4 cm
muscle deep on back of right elbow joint
with swelling around it in an area of 1 cm.
x 3 cm. on back of albow joint.

The injury was reported to be
caused by sharp edged object. It was kept
under observation."

9. On the same day Dr. M.S. Sharma,
examined Ram Awadh, son of Ram Vriksh
and noted the following injuries on this
person:-

"1. Gun-shot wound 1/4 cm. 2 of
1/4 cm. x depth not protted on right side
chest 5 cm. , medialright nipple.

This injury was reported to be
caused
by
firearm
and
kept
under
observation."

10. On the same day at about 8.10
P.M. Dr. T.B.Rai examined Bandhan and
noted the following injuries on his person:-

"1. Incised wound 8 cm. x 5 cm. x
bone deep on right side face 7 cm. below
right eye.
674 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

2. Incised wound 10 cm. x 3 cm. x
depth not probed on front of right neck.

3. Incised wound 5 cm. x 1 cm. x
muscle deep on the right forearm 12 cm.
below right elbow.

4. Abrasion 2 ??. x 1 cm., on the
outer aspect of right thigh in upper portion.

5. Abrasion 2 cm. x 1 cm, on the
right side of the head 9 cm, above right ear.

Injuries nos. 1, 2 and 3 were
reported to be edged by sharp-edged
weapon and rest by friction."

11. On the same day Dr. T.B.Rai
examined Chandrama at 08.55 P.M. and
noted the following injuries:-

"1. Incised wound 2 cm. x 5cm. x
depth not probed on the left side of chest.

2. Incised panetrating wound .5
cm. x .5 cm. x depth not prbed on the set
sim of the chest 6 cm. below injury no, 1.

3. Abrasion 1 cm. x 1 cm, on the
inner side of the right fore- arm upper part.

4. Abrasion 1/4 cm. x 1/ cm. on
top of the head.

Injuries nos. 1 and 2 were
reported to be caused by sharp edged
weapon and the rest by friction.

On the same day at about 08:42
P.M. Dr. T. B. Rai examined Ram
Lachchan and would not note the injuries
of Ram Lachhan because of his serious
condition.
He
referred
injured
Ram
Lachchan because of his serious condition.
He referred injured Ram Lachchan to
surgeon. Dr. T.B Rai had informed the
police station that the injury of Ram
Lachhan could not be noted due to very low
general condition. "

12. Thereafter, the investigation was
conducted by Ram Prasad Arya, the then
S.O. of P.S.- Dhina and the Investigation
Officer recorded the statement of the
informant. On 01.03.1982, he reached at
the spot and thereafter, the statements of
witness Chhangur Yadava (PW3), Ram
Saneshi (PW1) were recorded and a siteplan was prepared and also bloodstains and
plain soil from the spot. Memos were
prepared. He also found a broken gun at
some distance, which was allegedly used
by Lallan Singh, the deceased. The gun was
seized. He also found the used cartridge in
the right barrel of the said gun. On
investigation, he found that this gun
belonged to Bhadra Narain Singh, the
accused. He seized the cartridge and broken
gun. Therefore, he interrogated other
witnesses, namely Shyamlal and Munnu
Yadava and arrested the Appellant No14,
namely Bhadra Narain Singh under Section
30 of the Arms Act. He also recorded the
statements of various other witnesses and
the accused persons were arrested. Some of
the accused persons have surrendered
before the court. Thereafter, the chargesheet was filed by the IO against the
accused persons for the offences under
Sections 307/149, 147 and 148 I.P.C.
However, against Appellant No. 14, Bhadra
Narain Singh, the charge-sheet was filed
for the offence under Section 30 of the
Arms Act as well as under Sections
307/149, 147 and 148 I.P.C. A cross-case
was also lodged by accused Bhadra Narain
Singh at 5:45 P.M. on the same day i.e.,
28.02.1982, stating therein that there was a
long-standing feud between the Bhadhan
Yadava and the family of Bhadra Narain
Singh and on 28.02.1982, at 3:00 P.M.,
Bhadra Narain Singh and his nephew,
deceased Lallan Singh, were going to see
on their field on their chak. Lallan Singh
had a licensed double barrel gun and at the
same time, Ram Sakal, Bandhan armed
with ballam, Banwari, Ram Awadh s/o
Bhrigu, Ram Awadh s/o Ram Krit,
Chandrama and Ram Lacchan armed with
9 All. Pargan Singh & Ors. Vs. State
675
lathis
reached
there.
Chandrika
and
Ramadhar also reached and exhorted to kill
Lallan Singh. On their exhortation, the
aforesaid persons attacked on Lallan Singh
and started beating him by ballam and
lathis. Lallan Singh also made a fire by
which the accused persons also sustained
firearm injuries. Lallan Singh fell down
after sustaining injuries of ballam and lathis
and his gun was also broken and Lallan
Singh succumbed to his injuries on the
spot.

13. The post-mortem of the dead body
of Lallan Singh was conducted by Dr. Sidh
Gopal, who noted the following antemortem injuries on the body of Lallan
Singh, the deceased:

"1. Lacerated wound 5 cm. x 1
cm. x scalp deep middle of head 7 cm,
above nosal bone.

2. Lacerated wound 5 cm. x 1 cm.
x scalp deep left side head 6 cm, above left
ear.

5. Lacerated wound 8 cm. x 1 cm
x bone deep middle of fore-head.

4.
Stab
wound
with
sharp
margins 5 cm. x 2 cm. x chest cavity on the
left side front of chest 3 cm, below clevicle.
Direction
backward,
middle
and
downward.

5. Multiple contusion on the left
arm outer side.

6. Incised wound 1 cm. x 1 cm. x
muscle deep on the left elbow back.

7. Incised wound 1 cm x .5 cm. x
skin deep 1 cm above injury no. 6.

In the opinion of the doctor
injuries nos. 4, 6 and 7 were possibly
caused by ballam and injuries no 1,2,3 and
5 were caused by lathi."

14. After submission of the chargesheet in the instant case the case was
committed to the Sessions Court for trial.
The Sessions Court framed the charges as
aforesaid against the appellants herein, who
denied the charges and claimed trial.

15. In support of its case, the
prosecution has examined the PW1 (Ram
Saneshi), PW2 (Ram Sakal) and PW3
(Chhangur) as the witnesses of fact, PW4
(Head Moharrir Rangila) as the formal
witness of registration of the F.I.R. and
PW6 (Ram Prasad Arya) as Investigation
Officer of the case. Dr. M.S. Sharma was
examined as PW5 and Dr. T.B. Rai was
examined as PW7, who supported the
medical examination report of the injured
persons.

16. In defence, the accused persons
have examined Ram Murat alias Janardan
as DW1 and Dr. Siddh Gopal as DW2, who
conducted the post-mortem of Lallan
Singh, the deceased. After completion of
the trial, the trial court has convicted and
sentenced all the appellants herein as
aforesaid.

17. Learned Senior Counsel appearing
for the appellants submits that out of the
three facts witnesses, PW1, the informant,
did not appear to be an eye-witness after
close scrutiny of his deposition as he has
failed to depose which accused person has
assaulted which injured person with which
weapon. Learned Senior Counsel further
submits that PW3, Chhangur is an
interested and partial witness as he was
having the enmical relations with the
accused persons. Learned Senior Counsel
further submits that the PW2, Ram Saneshi,
is an injured witness, however, his
statement was recorded by the Investigation
Officer after 18 days of the registration of
the F.I.R. However, no explanation for the
same has been provided by the IO for such
676 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
a delayed examination of PW2. Thus,
relying upon the judgement of the Apex
Court in Shahid Khan v. State of
Rajasthan, (2016) 4 SCC 96, learned
Senior Counsel submits that since there is
no explanation with regard non examining
the PW2 by the Investigation Officer for 18
days, his testimony cannot be relied upon
for the prosecution and conviction of the
appellants herein, cannot be sustained.

18. Relevant observations of the Apex
Court in the aforesaid judgement are as
under:

"20. The statements of PW 25
Mirza Majid Beg and PW 24 Mohamed
Shakir were recorded after 3 days of the
occurrence. No explanation is forthcoming
as to why they were not examined for 3
days. It is also not known as to how the
police came to know that these witnesses
saw the occurrence. The delay in recording
the statements casts a serious doubt about
their being eyewitnesses to the occurrence.
It may suggest that the investigating officer
was deliberately marking time with a view
to decide about the shape to be given to the
case
and
the
eyewitnesses
to
be
introduced. The circumstances in this
case lend such significance to this delay.
PW 25 Mirza Majid Beg and PW 24
Mohamed Shakir, in view of their
unexplained
silence
and
delayed
statement to the police, do not appear to
us to be wholly reliable witnesses. There
is no corroboration of their evidence
from any other independent source
either. We find it rather unsafe to rely
upon their evidence only to uphold the
conviction
and
sentence
of
the
appellants. The High Court has failed to
advert to the contentions raised by the
appellants and reappreciate the evidence
thereby resulting in miscarriage of
justice. In our opinion, the case against
the appellants has not been proved
beyond reasonable doubt."

19. It is further submitted that by
learned Senior Counsel for the appellants
that there are serious contradictions
between the depositions of PW1 and PW2
regarding assault on Lallan Singh, the
deceased, who were actively in selfdefence while causing the injuries to the
injured persons. PW6, Chhangur, had
previous longstanding enmity as the civil
disputes between the accused persons and
this witness Chhangur is pending since,
1960.

20. Learned Senior Counsel further
submits that if the injuries were not
dangerous to life, the offence under
Section 307 I.P.C. is not made out. As per
the medical opinion none of the injuries
of the injured persons were found
dangerous to life, therefore, the offence
under Section 307 I.P.C. is not made out
against the appellants herein. In support
of his case, learned Senior Counsel has
relied
upon
the
judgement
of
the
Coordinate Bench of this Court in
Nandan v. State of U.P., 2010 SCC
OnLine All 5221, which reads as under:

"19.
The
contention
of
the
learned counsel for the appellants that no
offence under section 307 IPC is made out
seems to have some substance. In the case
of Rekha Mandal and others v. State of
Bihar (1967 CAR 108), the Apex Court has
held that section 307 IPC requires that the
act must be done with such intention or
knowledge or under such circumstances
that if death be caused by that act, the
offence of murder will emerge. In that
case the fact that the injuries were not
dangerous to life was also taken into
9 All. Pargan Singh & Ors. Vs. State
677
consideration for holding that no offence
under section 307 IPC was made out."

21. It is further submitted by learned
Senior Counsel that the prosecution has
failed to put the specific question with
regard to the injured persons acted in selfdefence. Therefore, the said story of injured
persons acted in self-defence cannot be
relied upon in support of his submission.
Learned Senior Counsel has further relied
upon the judgement of the Apex Court in
Maheshwar Tigga v. State of Jharkhand,
(2020) 10 SCC 108. Learned Senior
Counsel for the appellants has further
submitted that the accused persons have
acted in self defence, as the deceased
Lallan Singh was killed by the injured
persons. The spot of incident with regard to
self-defence by the accused persons has not
been considered by the trial court.

22. In support of his submission,
learned Senior Counsel has relied upon
para '19' of the judgement of the Apex
Court
in
Gottipulla
Venkatasiva
Subbrayanam v. State of A.P., (1970) 1
SCC 235 which reads as under:

"19. The fact that the plea of selfdefence was not raised by Accused 10 and
that he had on the contrary pleaded alibi
does not, in our view, preclude the Court
from giving to him the benefit of the right
of private defence, if, on proper appraisal
of the evidence and other relevant
material
on
the
record,
the Court
concludes that the circumstances in which
he found himself at the relevant time gave
him the right to use his gun in exercise of
this right. When there is evidence proving
that a person accused of killing or
injuring another acted in the exercise of
the right of private defence the Court
would not be justified in ignoring that
evidence and convicting the accused
merely because the latter has set-up a
defence of alibi and set forth a plea
different from the right of private defence.
The analogy of estoppel or of the technical
rules of civil pleadings is, in cases like the
present, inappropriate and the Courts are
expected to administer the law of private
defence in a practical way with reasonable
liberality so as to effectuate its underlying
object, bearing in mind that the essential
basic character of this right is preventive
and not retributive. The approach of the
High Court in this matter seems to us to be
erroneous. We accordingly allow the
appeal and acquit the appellants."

23. It is further submitted by learned
Senior Counsel that according to the case
of the prosecution the incident took place
near the place where the accused persons
were raising the construction and, as per
the prosecution, seven accused persons
received injuries from spear but no
bloodstains were found near the place of
construction. It is further submitted that six
persons on the prosecution side had
sustained the incised wounds and they were
bleeding and they were chasing Lallan
Singh from the point X to C, which is
around 150 steps ahead.

24. It is further submitted by learned
Senior Counsel that the prosecution has
failed to explain the injuries caused to the
deceased Lallan Singh. The injuries to said
Lallan Singh were duly proved in the
instant case by Dr. Sidh Gopal. The F.I.R.
is totally silent about the injuries caused to
Lallan Singh, by whom or which weapon.
Thus, since the prosecution has failed to
explain the injuries sustained by the
deceased on the side of the accused
persons, therefore, it should be presumed
that the prosecution is not presenting the
678 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
true story of the case and there is some
deliberate concealment on the part of the
prosecution. Therefore, the conviction of
the appellants herein is unsustainable.

25. In support of his submission,
learned Senior Counsel has relied upon the
judgements of the Apex Court in Mohar
Rai vs. State of Bihar : (1968) 3 SCR 525,
State of Gujarat v. Bai Fatima, (1975) 2
SCC 7; Lakshmi Singh v. State of Bihar,
(1976) 4 SCC 394 and the recent judgment
of the Apex Court in Nand Lal and
Others vs. State of Chhattisgarh : (2023)
10 SCC 470.

26. Sri K.P.S. Yadav, learned counsel
for the Appellant No. 5, 6 & 9, also adopts
the arguments advanced by learned Senior
Counsel on behalf of Appellant No.1. Sri
Vijay Shantam, learned Amicus Curiae,
who is appearing on behalf of the LRs of
Appellant No.2, who was a government
employee,
had
also
supported
the
arguments advanced by learned Senior
Counsel.

27. Per contra, learned A.G.A. submits
that in the cross-case lodged by Bhadra
Narain Singh, on behalf of the accused
persons, the accused persons therein were
acquitted and the appeals filed against the
acquittal were also dismissed by this Court.
Learned A.G.A. further submits that the
prosecution has properly explained and
narrated the entire story in true sequence.
Initially, Bhaukhal and Bhorick were
digging the foundation, which was objected
by the informant's side. Thereupon, both of
them went away and after some time, the
accused persons armed with firearms,
spears, lathis and gandasas, came on the
spot and assaulted the injured persons. First
of all, it was the deceased, Lallan Singh,
who had fired at Ram Awadh and Ram
Lachhan. Ram
Awadh
sustained
the
firearm injury on his chest and Ram
Lachhan sustained the injury on left side of
his face. Thereafter, all the accused persons
has assaulted the injured persons and in
self-defense, so that the said Lallan, who
was armed with firearm, may not kill other
persons. The injured persons have acted in
self-defense and broken his gun and
assaulted him, as has been categorically
deposed by all three fact witnesses in the
instant case. Thus, there was a clear and
categorical explanation with regard to the
injuries sustained by the deceased, Lallan
Singh, however, it has been further
explained by the witnesses that none of the
persons from the prosecution side were
carrying any weapon. They have snatched
the weapons from the accused persons and
thereafter assaulted the deceased Lallan.

28. Learned A.G.A. further submits
that from the injury report, which are duly
approved, the injuries sustained by Banwari
are on the vital parts. Ram Awadh has
sustained firearm injury on the chest that is
also a vital part. Bandhan has sustained
incised wounds on right face and front of
right neck. Chandrama has also sustained
two incised wounds on his chest. Thus,
from the nature of injuries sustained, which
are as noted hereinabove, are on the vital
parts of the body of the injured persons.
Therefore, there was clear and categorical
intention on the accused persons to kill the
injured persons. Therefore, offence under
Section 307 I.P.C. is categorically made
out. PW1 has categorically stated that
Chandrma and Banwari, had assaulted
Lallan with a broken sphere.

29. Thus, learned A.G.A. submits that
the injury sustained by the deceased Lallan
Singh, has been duly explained by the
prosecution and the prosecution has acted
9 All. Pargan Singh & Ors. Vs. State
679
in self-defence after assault was made by
the deceased Lallan Singh and the other
accused persons collectively upon the
injured persons. It is the case of the
prosecution that the accused persons were
trying to raise the construction, which was
objected by the prosecution side, upon
which the assault was made by the accused
persons along with deceased Lallan. Thus,
the appellants herein were the aggressors of
the incident.

30. PW2 in the instant case is an
injured witness and he is a most reliable
witness in the instant case who has
categorically supported the prosecution
case in detail and nothing has come
forward in his deposition to disbelieve his
testimony.
His
deposition
is
also
corroborated by PW1 and PW3. PW1
himself has stated that he has also assaulted
the deceased Lallan along with Chandrama
and Banwari. Thus, his presence cannot be
doubted. So far as the injuries sustained by
the injured persons from the prosecution
side are duly proved, there is a sufficient
explanation with regard to the injuries
sustained
by
the
deceased
Lallan.
Therefore, the trial court has rightly
convicted the accused person, therefore,
there is no ground for this Court to interfere
with the conviction and sentence awarded
to
the
accused
appellants
herein.
Accordingly, the learned A.G.A. prays for
dismissal of the instant criminal appeal
filed by the appellants.

31. Having heard the rival submissions
so made by learned counsels for the parties,
this Court has carefully gone through the
record of the case. It is undisputed and
sufficiently proved in the instant case that
six persons from the prosecution side,
namely Banwari, Ram Sakal, Ram Vriksh
Ram Awadh, Bandhan and Chandrama had
sustained the injuries and most of the
injuries sustained by the injured persons
were incise wounds and firearm injuries
that too on the vital parts of the injured
persons.

32. In Karu Marik v. State of Bihar,
(2001) 5 SCC 284, the Apex Court has
observed as under:

"10. Many a times, the nature of
the injury inflicted itself presents a most
valuable evidence of what the intention
was but that is not the only way of
gauging intention. Each case must be
examined on its merits. Intention being
the state of mind of the offender, no direct
evidence as a fact can be produced. It has
to be gathered from the available evidence
and the surrounding circumstances in
considering whether the offence is covered
by clause I of Section 300 IPC. As far as
clause II of Section 300 is concerned, it is
enough if the accused had the intention of
causing such bodily injury as he knew to
be likely to cause the death of the person
to whom the harm is caused. Such
intention may be inferred not merely from
the actual consequences of his act, but
from the act itself also."

33. In State of M.P. v. Imrat, (2008)
11 SCC 523, the Apex Court has observed
as under:

11. It is to be noted that the
alleged offences are of very serious nature.
Section 307 relates to attempt to murder. It
reads as follows:

'307.
Attempt
to
murder.?Whoever does any act with such
intention or knowledge, and under such
circumstances that, if he by that act caused
death, he would be guilty of murder, shall
be punished with imprisonment of either
680 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
description for a term which may extend to
ten years, and shall also be liable to fine;
and, if hurt is caused to any person by such
act, the offender shall be liable either to
imprisonment
for
life,
or
to
such
punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned.'

12. To justify a conviction under
this section, it is not essential that bodily
injury capable of causing death should
have been inflicted. Although the nature
of injury actually caused may often give
considerable assistance in coming to a
finding as to the intention of the accused,
such intention may also be deduced from
other circumstances, and may even, in
some cases, be ascertained without any
reference at all to actual wounds. The
section makes a distinction between an act
of the accused and its result, if any. Such
an act may not be attended by any result
so far as the person assaulted is
concerned, but still there may be cases in
which the culprit would be liable under
this section. It is not necessary that the
injury actually caused to the victim of the
assault
should
be
sufficient
under
ordinary circumstances to cause the death
of the person assaulted. What the court
has to see is whether the act, irrespective
of its result, was done with the intention or
knowledge
and
under
circumstances
mentioned in the section. An attempt in
order to be criminal need not be the
penultimate act. It is sufficient in law, if
there is present an intent coupled with
some overt act in execution thereof.

13. It is sufficient to justify a
conviction under Section 307 if there is
present an intent coupled with some overt
act in execution thereof. It is not essential
that bodily injury capable of causing
death should have been inflicted. The
section makes a distinction between the act
of the accused and its result, if any. The
court has to see whether the act,
irrespective of its result, was done with the
intention
or
knowledge
and
under
circumstances mentioned in the section.
Therefore, an accused charged under
Section 307 IPC cannot be acquitted
merely because the injuries inflicted on
the victim were in the nature of a simple
hurt."

This position was highlighted in
State of Maharashtra v. Balram Bama Patil
[(1983) 2 SCC 28 : 1983 SCC (Cri) 320] ,
Girija Shankar v. State of U.P. [(2004) 3
SCC 793 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 863] , R.
Prakash v. State of Karnataka [(2004) 9
SCC 27 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 1408 : JT (2004)
2 SC 348] and State of M.P. v. Saleem
[(2005) 5 SCC 554 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 1329]
(SCC pp. 559-60, paras 11-13).

12. "15. In Sarju Prasad v. State
of Bihar [AIR 1965 SC 843] it was
observed in para 6 that mere fact that the
injury actually inflicted by the accused did
not cut any vital organ of the victim, is not
by itself sufficient to take the act out of the
purview of Section 307.

16. Whether there was intention
to kill or knowledge that death will be
caused is a question of fact and would
depend on the facts of a given case. The
circumstances that the injury inflicted by
the accused was simple or minor will not
by itself rule out application of Section
307 IPC. The determinative question is the
intention or knowledge, as the case may
be, and not the nature of the injury. The
basic difference between Sections 333 and
325 IPC is that Section 325 gets attracted
where grievous hurt is caused whereas
Section 333 gets attracted if such hurt is
caused to a public servant.

17. Section 307 deals with two
situations so far as the sentence is
concerned. Firstly, whoever does any act
with such intention or knowledge, and
under such circumstances that, if he by that
9 All. Pargan Singh & Ors. Vs. State
681
act caused death, he would be guilty of
murder,
shall
be
punished
with
imprisonment of either description for a
term which may extend to ten years, and
shall also be liable to fine; and secondly if
hurt is caused to any person by such act the
offender
shall
be
liable
either
to
imprisonment for life or to such punishment
as indicated in the first part i.e. 10 years.
The maximum punishment provided for in
Section 333 is imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to
10 years with a liability to pay fine." [Ed. :
Quoting from State of M.P. v. Saleem,
(2005) 5 SCC 554, p. 560, paras 15-17.] "

13. It is seen that the High Court
had arrived at erroneous hypothetical
conclusions ignoring the fact that the
nature of injuries were grievous and were
caused by use of sufficient force by sharpedged weapons. The injuries were so
serious that both the investigating agency
and the doctor felt that dying declaration
was to be recorded. That being so, the High
Court's conclusion that the offence under
Section 307 was not made out is clearly
indefensible. The order of the High Court is
set aside and that of the trial court is
restored."

34. In Shoyeb Raja v. State of M.P.,
2024 SCC OnLine SC 2624, the Apex
Court has observed that minor nature of
injuries is not sufficient to not to attract
Section 307 I.P.C., which is observed as
under:

"10. Section 307 IPC is the
charge that the Courts below have
concurrently, refused to frame. It reads as
under:"

"307.
Attempt
to
murder.-
Whoever does any act with such intention
or
knowledge,
and
under
such
circumstances that, if he by that act caused
death, he would be guilty of murder, shall
be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to
ten years, and shall also be liable to fine;
and if hurt is caused to any person by such
act, the offender shall be liable either to
imprisonment
for
life,
or
to
such
punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned.
Attempts by life convicts.? When any
person offending under this section is
under sentence of imprisonment for life, he
may, if hurt is caused, be punished with
death."

11. Let us at this stage, consider
the law as laid down by this Court in
respect of this section, as also that of
Section 34 IPC, given that there are a total
of eight respondents (accused) before the
court.

11.1 In State of Maharashtra v.
Kashirao : (2003) 10 SCC 434, the Court
identified the essential ingredients for the
applicability of the section. The relevant
extract is as below:

"The
essential
ingredients
required to be proved in the case of an
offence under Section 307 are:

(i) that the death of a human
being was attempted;

(ii)
that
such
death
was
attempted to be caused by, or in
consequence of the act of the accused;
and