Criminal Appeal No. 1894/2010
Section 302 and 148 of IPC
The brief facts of the case are, the accused tried to hit Mangilal with Kassi as there was a quarrel between both the parties. On the basis of the complaint investigation had taken place and commenced for the offence under section 147, 148, 149, 323, 397 and 302 of IPC. As there were 5 accused in the case the order was according to their liability. The trial court has convicted all the convicts according to the offence committed by them. The appeal was filed by all the 5 accused before the HC. The HC convicted the sentence by the trial court and convicted the respondents and the HC converted that conviction under section 326 of IPC and under this sentence awarded to them was reduced.This appeal in the SC has been filed as an exception to the judgement against the order passed by the HC. The state has pursued this appeal only against one of the respondent to restore his conviction under section 302 of IPC and award him sentence of life imprisonment.
The following precedents were taken into the consideration by the Court before deciding this case:
Chandrakant Patil v. State through CBI[(1998) 3 SCC38], Summer Singh v. Surajbhan Singh &Ors. [(2014) 7 SCC 323] and State of Rajasthan v. Ramanand [(2017) 5SCC 695]; It was stated that the accused has the right to urge the appeal if found the guilty under section 326 and 148 of IPCagainst the impugned judgement.
Gottipulla Venkatasiva Subbrayanam & Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr[(1970) 1 SCC 235], Deo Narain v. The State of UP(1973) 1 SCC 347, Subramai & Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu [(2002) 7 SCC 210]and State of UP v. Gajey Singh & Anr. [(2009) 11SCC 414]; by relying upon these judgements it was stated that the as the accused was old-age so the court shouldn’t entertain the appeal filed by the state. But the reliance by the learned counsel was that atleast the benefit of right to private defence should be given to the accused.
The SC has partly allowed the appeal. The accused was sentenced under the simple imprisonment for 10 years and fine was imposed on him. The bail bond of the accused was cancelled.
Section 21 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act