Ipc Project

Indian Penal Code- II
A STUDY OF
Pawan Kumar & Ors.
v.
State of Uttar Pradesh
SUBMITTED TO:
Dr. Pushpinder Kaur,
Professor, UILS,
Panjab University, Chandigarh.
SUBMITTED BY:
Anshul Singhal,
127/13, Sec-C, B.Com LL.B.,
UILS, Panjab University,
Chandigarh.
INDIAN PENAL CODE
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The success and final outcome of this project required a lot of guidance and assistance from
many people and I am extremely fortunate to have got this all along the completion of my
project report. Whatever I have done is only due to such guidance and I would never forget to
thank them.
I am thankful to and fortunate enough to get constant encouragement, support and guidance
throughout the completion.
I am very much thankful to Dr. Pushpinder Kaur for his support and guidance, without which
I wont be able to accomplish this project work. I am thankful to my friends who helped me
in collection of material.
Lastly and most importantly, I would like to thank my parents and the almighty for moral
support and constant supervision.
Anshul Singhal,
127/13.
Page | 2
PAWAN KUMAR & ORS. V. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
INDIAN PENAL CODE
TABLE OF CONTENTS
S. NO. PARTICULARS PAGE NO.
1. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT (i)
2. TABLE OF CASES (iv)
3. INTRODUCTION TO THE CASE 1
4. CLUBBING THE APPEALS 2
5. BASIC INFORMATION ABOUT THE CASE 3
6. FACTS OF THE CASE AS PER THE PROSECUTION 4-5
o Inspection of the Petrol Pump

o Confession of Accused No. 4 and 7
o Arrest of other Accused
7. CHARGES FRAMED 6
8. VERDICT OF THE TRIAL COURT 7
9. APPEAL TO THE HIGH COURT 8
10. ARGUMENTS FOR THE APPELLANTS 9-13
o Confession before police officer is not admissible
o Chain of circumstances not complete: Loopholes in the

prosecutions version
o Ignored Ballistic Report nor the Serological Reports
o Blood stains not found
o Presence of landlord not sufficiently explained
o Bullets not found
o Material Contradictions in the prosecutions version
o Motive wrongly attributed
Page | 3
INDIAN PENAL CODE
o Plea of alibi on behalf of Accused No. 2

o Accused No. 5: No link evidence
o Accused No. 4 and 7: No Relation established
o Accused No. 4 and 7: Non Examination of Independent
Witnesses
o Accused No. 8: No motive and that he is falsely
implicated
11. ARGUMENTS FOR THE RESPONDENT 14-15
o Motive established
o Other Circumstances linking all the accused

O Judgments relied upon
12. JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 16-17
13. CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGMENT 18
14. RICHHPAL SINGH MEENA V. GHASI, AIR 2014 SC 3595 19-20
o Facts of the case
o Issue Involved
o Decision of the court
15. SHEO SHANKAR SINGH V. STATE OF JHARKHAND, AIR 2011 SC 21-22

1403
o Facts of the case
o Issue Involved
o Decision of the court
16. DATA BY NCRB 23-24
Page | 4
INDIAN PENAL CODE
17. REFERENCES (v)
o Books Referred
O Web Links Referred
Page | 5
INDIAN PENAL CODE
TABLE OF CASES
A.
1. Aghnoo Nagesia v. State of Bihar, (1966) 1 SCR 134.9
B.
2. Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 684...21
D.
3. Dalbir Kaur v. State of Punjab, (1976) 4 SCC 158.15
F.
4. Farooq alias Karattaa Farooq and Ors. v. State of Kerala, (2002) 4 SCC 697.21
M.
5. Machhi Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab (1983) 3 SCC 470.22
R.
6. Richhpal Singh Meena v. Ghasi, AIR 2014 SC 3595..19
S.
7. Santosh Kumar Satish Bariyar v. State of Maharashtra (2009) 6 SCC 498...22
8. Sheo Shankar Singh v. State of Jharkhand, AIR 2011 SC 1403..21
9. Shivnarayan Laxminarayan Joshi v. State of Maharashtra, (1980) 2 SCC 465.15
10. State of Punjab v. Barkat Ram, (1962) 3 SCR 3389
Page | 6
IN THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 2194, 2195-2196, 2198, 2199 and 2200/2011)
AIR 2015 SC 2050, 2015 (3) SCALE 511, (2015) 7 SCC 148
Decided on 11/03/2015
Pawan Kumar & Ors.
Appellants
[Pawan Kumar @ Monu Mittal (Accused No. 1), Devesh Agnihotri (Accused No. 2), Rakesh
Kumar Anand (Accused No. 4), Shivkesh Giri @ Lala Giri (Accused No. 5), Vivek Sharma
(Accused No. 7), Rajesh Verma (Accused No. 8)]
v.
State of Uttar Pradesh
Respondent
Page | 7
CLUBBING THE APPEALS
The following appeals were clubbed and decided by the Supreme Court:
Criminal Appeal No. 2194 OF 2011
Pawan Kumar @ Monu Mittal ... Appellant
v.
State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. ... Respondents
Criminal Appeal Nos. 2195-2196 OF 2011
Rakesh Anand and Anr. ... Appellants
v.
State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. ... Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 2198 OF 2011
Shiv Kesh Giri @ Lalla ... Appellant
v.
State of Uttar Pradesh ... Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 2199/2011
Devesh Agnihotri ... Appellant
v.
Criminal Appeal No. 2200/2011
Rajesh Verma ... Appellant
v.
Page | 8
BASIC INFORMATION ABOUT THE CASE
HON'BLE JUDGES
S.J. Mukhopadhaya and N.V. Ramana, JJ.
COUNSELS
For Appellants: S.K. Agarwal, P.C. Aggarwal, Sr. Advs., Jitendra Sarin, Pradeep Aggarwal,
Ram Niwas, Sarad Kumar Singhania, Ruchi Kohli, Lal Pratap Singh, Nirmal Goenka, Nidhi
Jaswal, Anirudh Sharma, Mahesh Srivastava, Vaibhav M. Srivastava, P.N. Puri, Shivam
Sharma and Gautam Awasthi, Advs.
For Respondent: Gaurav Bhatia, AAG, Kunal Verma, Kamini Jaiswal, Shilpi Dey, Pragati
Neekhra and Utkarsh Jaiswal, Advs.
ACTS INVOLVED
Arms Act - 25 and 30;
Evidence Act - 25 and 27;
Indian Penal Code (IPC) - 34, 120B, 147, 148, 149, 201, 212, 302, 307, 404 and 411;
RESULT OF THE CASE

Appeal Dismissed.
Page | 9
FACTS OF THE CASE AS PER THE PROSECUTION
I.
INSPECTION OF THE PETROL PUMP
The father of Appellant Monu Mittal (Accused No. 1) was the owner of a petrol pump
namely M/s. Mittal Automobiles situated at Gola, District Lakhimpur Kheri, Uttar Pradesh.
The deceased Manjunath was working as a Sales Officer with the Indian Oil Corporation
(IOC) at Gola. On 13.9.2005, the deceased inspected the petrol pump of Accused No. 1 and
on finding some irregularities, the sales and supplies of the petrol pump were suspended by
the IOC at his instance. However, the same were restored on 19th October, 2005 after the
payment of fine of Rs. 75,000/- by the owner of the petrol pump. Again on 19th November,
2005, the deceased, being suspicious of malpractices still being carried on by Accused No. 1,
inspected the said petrol pump.
II.
CONFESSION OF ACCUSED NO. 4 AND 7
On 20.11.2005, when the Head Constable (Ram Bhawan Singh) of P.S. Mahaoli, District
Sitapur, along with Constable Asha Ram (PW2) and Driver Braj Kishore was on patrol duty
on the National Highway, at about 8.00 am, one Maruti Car bearing No. UP 51 E 5176 was
coming from the direction of Maigalganj and upon seeing the police jeep, the Maruti Car
suddenly turned back and tried to drive away from that place. On suspicion, the Maruti Car
was chased and intercepted at about 8.30 am near Green Gold Dhaba. One Vivek Sharma
(Appellant-Accused No. 7) was driving the car accompanied by another Appellant Rakesh
Kumar Anand (Appellant-Accused No. 4) who was sitting on the back seat besides a blood
stained dead body of S. Manjunath (deceased). On interrogation, both accused Nos. 4 & 7
confessed that the deceased was shot dead by Pawan Kumar alias Monu Mittal (Accused No.
1), Devesh Agnihotri (Accused No. 2), Sanjay Awasthi (Accused No. 3), Lala Giri (Accused
No. 5), Harish Mishra (Accused No. 6) at M/S. Mittal Automobiles and they were carrying
the dead body of the deceased in his car, to dispose of the same at an unknown place. Both
the accused Nos. 4 & 7 were taken into custody and a recovery memo (Ext. Ka-1) was
Page | 10
prepared and a case against all the accused Under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 and Section
201 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code, was registered on 20.11.2005.
III.
ARREST OF OTHER ACCUSED
Mr. P.N. Saxena, Sub-Inspector took up the investigation and in the presence of Dhan Raj
Sahani (PW 3, landlord of the deceased) conducted inquest. He collected blood stained seat
covers and door mats (Ext. Ka-9) from the Maruti Car besides several other belongings of the
deceased, prepared site plan (Ext. Ka-8) and sent the dead body for post mortem. Thereafter,
he transferred the investigation to P.S. Gola, and Parmesh Shukla, SHO (PW 21) who took up
further investigation, arrested Shivkesh Giri @ Lala Giri (Accused No. 5) on 22.11.2005. He
also recovered a wet blood stained cloth from behind the Petrol Pump which was allegedly
used in cleaning the murder spot at the instance of Accused No. 5. Three cartridges of 32 bore
(Ext. Ka-16) were also recovered from behind the Petrol Pump on his pointing. Based on the
confession of Lala Giri (Accused No. 5), he arrested the other accused Pawan Kumar, Sanjay
Awasthi, Rajesh Verma and Harish Mishra at 6.50 p.m. near railway crossing in a car bearing
number UP 31 F4629. A revolver was recovered from accused Rajesh Verma, owner of the
car and a Pistol was recovered from accused Pawan Kumar (Ext Ka-17). On 23.11.2005 at
8:30 am, the IO recovered the car of accused Pawan Kumar, his blood stained pant from
Punerbhoo forest, Kheri. The IO also recovered three empty cartridges from the diesel tank of
the Petrol Pump on 24.11.2005 at 9:30 am on pointing of Accused No. 1 Monu Mittal.
Accused No. 2- Devesh Agnihotri was also arrested on the same day at 6:00 pm by TN
Tripathi, Sub-Inspector (PW 19) from Bheera and at his instance, four empty cartridges (Ext.
Ka-20) fired from the revolver of accused No. 8- Rajesh Verma were recovered from the
house of one Jitendra Mishra uncle of Sanjay Awasthi (A-3).
Page | 11
CHARGES FRAMED
After investigation, the IO submitted charge sheet, and the case was committed for trial. The
trial court framed charges against all the accused Under Section 147, 148, 302 r/w 149, 201
and 120B, Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Additional charges under Section 404 and 411 of Indian Penal Code, Section 30 of the Arms
Act were framed against accused No. 1- Pawan Kumar.
Additional charges under Section 212 Indian Penal Code and Sections 25/30 of the Arms Act
were framed against accused No. 8- Rajesh Verma.
Also additional charges under Section 411, Indian Penal Code were framed against accused
No. 7- Vivek Sharma and Accused No. 4-Rakesh Kumar Anand.
Page | 12
VERDICT OF THE TRIAL COURT
The Trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused No. 1-Pawan Kumar @ Monu Mittal to
death for offences Under Section 302 r/w 149, Indian Penal Code and to pay a fine of Rs.
10,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment (SI) for one year. He was also sentenced
to 2 years RI and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default 3 months SI for the offence Under
Section 404, Indian Penal Code and 6 months imprisonment Under Section 30 of the Arms
Act, 2 years RI and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- Under Section 404, Indian Penal Code and in
default to undergo 3 months S.I.
The other accused, namely accused No. 2-Devesh Agnihotri, accused No. 3- Sanjay Awasthi,
accused No. 4-Rakesh Kumar Anand, accused No. 5- Shivkesh Giri @ Lalla Giri, accused
No. 6- Harish Mishra, accused No. 7- Vivek Sharma and accused No. 8- Rajesh Verma were
also convicted Under Section 302 r/w Section 149, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer
life imprisonment. They were further sentenced to suffer one year RI Under Section 148, 5
years RI Under Section 201, Indian Penal Code, 5 years RI Under Section 120B Indian Penal
Code.
Accused No. 8- Rajesh Verma was also convicted Under Section 212, Indian Penal Code and
sentenced to 3 years RI and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default to undergo 6 months SI
Under Section 25 of the Arms Act and sentenced to 1 year RI and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-,
in default to suffer SI for 3 months and 6 months RI Under Section 30 of the Arms Act.
Accused Rakesh Anand, Vivek Sharma and Pawan Kumar were also sentenced to 2 years RI
Under Section 411 Indian Penal Code.
All the sentences were, however, directed to run concurrently.
Page | 13
APPEAL TO THE HIGH COURT
Aggrieved thereby, the Accused--Appellants preferred appeals before the High Court.
The High Court by the impugned judgment dated 11.12.2009 partly allowed the appeal of
Pawan Kumar (Accused No. 1) and modified his death sentence to life imprisonment under
Section 302 r/w 149 but upheld the convictions for the other offences they are charged with.
The appeals of the accused Devesh Agnihotri (A-2), Rakesh Anand (A-4), Shivkesh Giri @
Lalla Giri (A-5), Vivek Sharma (A-7) and Rajesh Verma (A-8) were, however, dismissed by
the High Court.
The appeals of other co-accused Harish Mishra (A-6) and Sanjay Awasthi (A-3) were allowed
giving them benefit of doubt and acquitted them of all charges. Against the said judgment
passed by the High Court, Accused Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 7 & 8 filed the present appeals before this
Court.
Page | 14
ARGUMENTS FOR THE APPELLANTS
I.
CONFESSION BEFORE POLICE OFFICER IS NOT ADMISSIBLE
Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants argued that the Courts below have committed a
grave error in convicting and sentencing the Appellants on the very evidence by which it
acquitted the co-accused Harish Mishra and Sanjay Awasthi of all the charges. The High
Court relied solely on the confessional statements of the accused/Appellants made to the
police which is inadmissible in evidence Under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act. The
learned counsel took support of a decision of this Court in Aghnoo Nagesia v. State of Bihar1,
and State of Punjab v. Barkat Ram2.
II.
CHAIN OF CIRCUMSTANCES NOT COMPLETE: LOOPHOLES IN THE PROSECUTIONS

VERSION
The learned Counsel further submitted that the impugned judgment is based only on
conjectures and surmises and not on any cogent and reliable evidence. There were no
eyewitness to the occurrence and the case of prosecution is based solely on the circumstantial
evidence. The prosecution has completely failed to prove the chain of events linking the
accused Appellants to the commission of offence. There is no direct witness or incriminating
evidence against the Appellants to establish the motive of the accused to kill the deceased.
III.
IGNORED BALLISTIC REPORT NOR THE SEROLOGICAL REPORTS
The courts below have ignored the fact that neither the Ballistic Report nor the Serological
Reports support the case of prosecution. On the basis of these reports, it cannot be
1 (1966) 1 SCR 134.
2 (1962) 3 SCR 338.
Page | 15
conclusively held that the bullets recovered from near and around the scene of offence were
fired from the gun of accused No.1 Pawan Kumar.
IV.
BLOOD STAINS NOT FOUND
According to the Serological Report, no blood was found on the cloth recovered from behind
the petrol pump which was allegedly used to clean the site of crime as also the pant of the
accused No. 1 Pawan Kumar allegedly recovered from his car. Another crucial loophole that
is evident from the prosecution story is that the body of the deceased was stained with blood,
but no blood stains were reported to be found on the clothes of accused No. 7 and accused
No. 4 who were allegedly carrying the dead body of the deceased in their car to dispose of the
same.
V.
PRESENCE OF LANDLORD NOT SUFFICIENTLY EXPLAINED
Also another dubious circumstance sought to be proved by the prosecution is that when the
car in which accused No. 7 and accused No. 4, were carrying the dead body of the deceased
was intercepted, P.W. 3-Dhanraj Sahni, landlord of the deceased appeared from the crowd and
recognized the dead body. The landlord was living far away from the site where the accused
were apprehended, and no reason is given by the prosecution for his presence at the spot
where the car carrying the dead body of the deceased was intercepted. This casts a doubt on
the prosecution story about the presence of the landlord at that point of time.
VI.
BULLETS NOT FOUND
According to the prosecution case, in all, eleven bullets were fired at the deceased, but
according to the post-mortem report, the deceased had suffered six firearm injuries, out of
which there were two exit wounds on his body and four bullets were recovered from his
body. There was no explanation coming forward from the prosecution as regards not finding
Page | 16
the other bullets. It is not possible to imagine that other seven bullets did not hit anywhere at
the place of incident.
VII.
MATERIAL CONTRADICTIONS IN THE PROSECUTIONS VERSION
PW 21- Parmesh Kumar Shukla, SHO was said to have taken control of the case on the
evening of 20th November, 2005 and he came to know about the place of incident only on 21st
November, 2005 seems improbable. The same stood fortified by the fact that as per
Rojanama, he had visited the alleged place of occurrence i.e. petrol pump on 21.11.2005.
Whereas in his deposition before the Trial Court he denied to have gone there on 21-11-2005
and he further stated that he went to the place of occurrence for the first time only on 22-11-
2005 in the afternoon. It is, therefore, clear that the investigations are tainted, vital and
material portion has been deliberately concealed. Once a material portion of the evidence of
I.O. is found to be false, no reliance could be placed on his statement.
Another discrepancy in the prosecution story pointed out by the learned Counsel is that as per
prosecution, accused No. 5 was arrested by PW 21 on 22-11-2005 from Railway Station,
whereas on 21-11-2005 at about 3.15 p.m. mother of Lalla Giri (A-5) had sent a telegram
(Ext. Kha-2) to the DIG, Lucknow complaining therein that her son has been wrongfully
confined by the PS Gola since 20-11-2005. This uncontroverted fact belies his arrest and thus
the recoveries allegedly made at his instance cannot be relied upon.
VIII.
MOTIVE WRONGLY ATTRIBUTED
Learned Counsel further contended that the Courts below have wrongly attributed the motive
for the crime inasmuch as M/S. Mittal Automobiles was sealed by the deceased owing to
alleged malpractices. When M/S. Mittal Automobiles clarified the same by reply dated 18-10-
2005, the petrol pump was restored. The fine of Rs. 75,000/- was paid in respect of technical
defaults in order to ensure that the supply is restored. Hence, the motive part advanced by the
prosecution is not proved and the Courts below have erred in not appreciating this fact.
Page | 17
IX.
PLEA OF ALIBI ON BEHALF OF ACCUSED NO. 2
Learned Counsel appearing for Accused No. 2- Devesh Agnihotri submitted that the
Appellant was wrongly implicated in the crime. The Appellant has no previous association
with the prime accused Monu Mittal. The Appellant--accused No. 2 was not even present at
the scene of crime at the relevant time as he was attending marriage of his brother in law in
District Etah which is far away from the place of occurrence. Moreover, there is no
incriminating evidence against accused No. 2.
X.
ACCUSED NO. 5: NO LINK EVIDENCE
On behalf of Accused No. 5 it is specifically argued that he has been wrongly convicted by
the Trial Court merely because he was an ex-employee of Pawan Kumar. Mere recovery of
empty cartridges at the instance of this Appellant--accused is of no consequence when there is
no evidence linking his participation in the crime. Moreover, the recovery of empty cartridges
at the place of occurrence itself is highly doubtful as they can easily be destroyed. Learned
Counsel further argued that at the most the case against the Appellant cannot be beyond
Section 201, Indian Penal Code for which the maximum sentence is 10 years. The Appellant
has already undergone about 9 1/2 years imprisonment.
XI.
ACCUSED NO. 4 AND 7: NO RELATION ESTABLISHED
Learned Counsel appearing for Accused No. 4- Rakesh Anand and Accused No. 7- Vivek
Sharma submitted that the prosecution has failed to complete the chain of events qua Accused
Nos. 4 and 7 to bring home their culpability. Both the courts below have gravely erred in
holding that the dead body of the deceased was recovered from the possession of these
Appellants on 20.11.2005 at 8.00 am. As per prosecution, at the time of their arrest, the dead
Page | 18
body of the deceased was bleeding, but admittedly no blood was found on their clothes. No
weapon, driving licence, money etc. were found from their possession. No relation between
these two accused and other accused has been proved.
XII.
ACCUSED NO. 4 AND 7: NON EXAMINATION OF INDEPENDENT WITNESSES
There was no examination of any independent witness to support the story of prosecution that
the dead body of the deceased was recovered from the possession of these two accused.
Allegedly, there was a mob of about 100 to 150 people at that point of time, but no
independent witness has been examined to prove the prosecution story, and in the absence of
any independent witness being examined, the confession statement and consequent recovery,
cannot be believed. Learned Counsel therefore submitted that it is in the interest of justice,
the appeals be allowed, as otherwise, the Appellants would suffer irreparable injustice, loss
and injury.
XIII.
ACCUSED NO. 8: NO MOTIVE AND THAT HE IS FALSELY IMPLICATED
Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Accused No. 8 argued that the Appellant was merely
an employee of an Urban Co-operative Bank and had no previous enmity or motive to kill the
deceased as he had no interests in the business of Petrol Pump. His name neither figured in
the confessional statement of the accused nor in the F.I.R. According to the prosecution, the
licensed revolver of Accused No. 8 was recovered on 22-11-2005, but it was not even sealed
at the spot despite the I.O. having specific knowledge about its use. There was no specific
evidence to establish the date, time and place of it being sealed. Only the oral assertion of
I.O. that the weapon was sealed a couple of days later by him, shows the possibility of
revolver or bullet being changed, thereby wrongly implicating the accused in the crime. There
was also no evidence of conspiracy against this Appellant nor was any evidence to establish
the intention, knowledge or prior meeting of the Appellant with the other accused to commit
the crime. The I.O. in the cross examination admitted that the Appellant neither used his
revolver nor was present at the time of occurrence. There is also no absolute evidence of
Appellant giving his revolver to the prime accused. The Appellant was an active worker of a
Page | 19
political party and his political rivals being inimical towards him he was falsely implicated,
but the Courts below have failed to take into consideration this aspect.
Page | 20
ARGUMENTS FOR THE RESPONDENT
I.
MOTIVE ESTABLISHED
Mr. Gaurav Bhatia, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State, on the other
hand, supported the impugned judgment and submitted that Accused No. 1 Pawan Kumar @
Monu Mittal had developed grudge against the deceased because he inspected the petrol
pump run by him on 13.9.2005 and pointed out certain irregularities, and on his intimation to
IOC (Ext. Ka-34), the sales and supplies of the pump were suspended. The supplies were,
however, restored only after payment of fine on 19th October, 2005. The deceased again
visited the petrol pump of the accused on 19th November, 2005 for inspection and thereafter
he was not seen alive.
The learned AAG submitted that the incriminating articles including empty cartridges fired
from the licensed pistol of Accused No. 1, blood stained earth recovered from the petrol
pump of Accused No. 1 and on his pointing out, the mobile instrument of the deceased was
recovered from the forest. The Ballistic Expert in his report clearly mentioned that the bullets
found in the body of the deceased were fired from the licensed pistol of Accused No. 1. The
irregularities committed by the petrol pump were writ large inasmuch as certain important
documents and other materials which were necessarily required to be kept in the show room
were not found, when the police along with IOC official and official of Weights and
Measurements Department inspected. Moreover, some articles used for tampering of the seals
of the machines and tank were found.
II.
OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES LINKING ALL THE ACCUSED
Learned AAG contended that the involvement of accused Rakesh Anand (Accused No. 4) and
Vivek Sharma (Accused No. 7) has been proved beyond all reasonable doubt as they were
caught by patrolling police officials PW1-Head Constable Ram Bhawan, PW2-Constable
Asha Ram while they were carrying the dead body of the deceased in his car. This fact is
corroborated by the independent witness Dhanraj Sahni-PW3, the landlord of the deceased.
Page | 21
Accused No. 2- Devesh Agnihotri's involvement is evident from the confession of the co-
accused, namely accused No. 7- Vivek Sharma and accused No. 4- Rakesh Kumar Anand and
also by accused No. 8-Rajesh Verma, who confessed that his revolver was used by accused
No. 2- Devesh Agnihotri for the commission of crime. After his arrest, he confessed to the
commission of the crime and also led to the recovery of four empty cartridges shot from the
revolver of accused No. 8- Rajesh Verma. Also accused No. 2- Devesh Agnihotri along with
accused No. 4 were earlier charge sheeted for an offence Under Section 307 Indian Penal
Code in 1998 which is sufficient to establish their nexus. Accused No. 5- Lalla Giri's
involvement came to light from the confession made by accused No. 7 and accused No. 4, at
whose instance accused No. 5- was arrested on 22.11.2005, from the Railway Station while
he was trying to abscond. Accused No. 5, led to the recovery of three cartridges from behind
the petrol pump and three more from the tank of the petrol pump. This clearly explains that
accused No. 5, has played an active role in the conspiracy in and commission of the crime.
Accused No. 8 was arrested along with Accused No. 1 and other accused when he was taking
them in his car on 22.11.2005 and a revolver with two live and four missing cartridges were
recovered from his possession. Those four cartridges were recovered at the instance of
accused No. 2. Thus, in the light of confessional statements of the accused and the recoveries
made at their instance, their involvement in the crime is established by the prosecution
beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, no interference is warranted with the concurrent
findings of fact arrived at by the Trial Court as well as the High Court, upon appreciation of
entire evidence on record.
III.
JUDGMENTS RELIED UPON
Learned AAG, placing reliance on Dalbir Kaur v. State of Punjab3 and Shivnarayan
Laxminarayan Joshi v. State of Maharashtra4 finally submitted that when the cumulative
effect of the evidence against the accused persons is sufficiently convincing for the trial court
as well as the High Court to have come to the conclusion that the offence with which the
accused were charged were established against them beyond all reasonable doubt, unless
3 (1976) 4 SCC 158.
4 (1980) 2 SCC 465.
Page | 22
there is substantial question of law involved, this Court should refrain from interfering with
the concurrent findings of fact given by the Courts below.
Page | 23
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
The court gave the following findings:
1. Accused Nos. 4 & 7 disclosed names of their co-accused at whose instance various
incriminating materials including pistols, cartridges, bullets, blood stained articles
were recovered. Confession given by accused was not basis for courts below to
convict accused, but it was only source of information to put criminal law into
motion. Hence, accused could not take shelter under Section 25 of Evidence Act. The
case is in fact covered by section 27 of the Evidence Act.
2. Motive behind brutal murder of deceased as brought forward by prosecution was

trustworthy in light of material available on record. As the petrol pump was again
inspected even after the payment of fine.
3. Merely because all bullets fired from gun did not hit target and were not recovered
from scene of offence, was no ground to conclude that incident did not take place. It
happens many a times.
4. Nexus between accused as well as their participation in crime is well established

beyond reasonable doubt and nothing on record to suggest that accused were
unnecessarily implicated by police.
5. The contradictions raised by the appellants are not material at all and such
contradictions are likely to arise when a witness gives statement.
6. Entire evidence brought on record by prosecution, was not only convincing, but was
also trustworthy.
7. Prosecution had established beyond reasonable doubt complete chain of events which
points at guilt of accused.
8. Therefore, impugned order of conviction was sustainable and required no

interference.
Page | 24
To quote from the judgment:
[34] In the present case, on scrutiny of evidence on record, we are convinced that
the prosecution had established beyond reasonable doubt the complete chain
of events which points at the guilt of the accused.
[35] Thus, in the light of above circumstances coupled with the complete chain of
events, this Court has no manner of doubt to hold that the prosecution has
succeeded in proving its case against the accused beyond all reasonable
doubt.
[36] Taking the entire case in its totality, we do not find any merit in these appeals
requiring our interference. Resultantly, the appeals fail and are dismissed.
Page | 25
CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGMENT
In the present case, the court has considered the evidence very well and it is only after
considering such evidence that the court has convicted the accused persons.
The court has rightly held that the chain of circumstances is complete and that there is
presence of motive as well.
Moreover, all the accused were related to each other and that relation has very well been
established by the prosecution in the present case.
There are some points, where it seems that the court has committed some mistakes which are
as follows:
1. Regarding Devesh Agnihotri, Accused No. 2, who argued that he was not present at
the spot and raised a plea of alibi. He should not have been convicted.
2. Where the appellants raised the issue that there are material contradictions in the IOs
statement, in my view, those were actually material as the person cant be mistaken as
to the date when he went and inspected the scenario.
3. The statement of the mother of Accused No. 5, Lalla Giri has been kept out of
consideration, which in my view was incorrect.
Page | 26
RICHHPAL SINGH MEENA V. GHASI5
FACTS OF THE CASE
On 14th December, 1996 the Appellant (Richhpal Singh Meena) and a few others were sitting
beside a well near the agricultural fields. Richhpal's father Sunderlal Meena (deceased) had
gone to inspect the fields. While he was there, Sunderlal met Kailash, Ghasi, Lala and their
respective wives and their mother. Soon thereafter, there was a hot exchange of words
between them regarding damage to the embankment in the agricultural fields. Kailash, Ghasi
and Lala told Sunderlal that they were looking for him and he had now walked into the trap.
Saying this, Kailash caught hold of Sunderlal while Ghasi gave him a blow with a shovel and
Lala gave him a blow with a lathi on his back. On receiving the blows Sunderlal fell down
and on hearing noises, Richhpal and others ran towards the spot and found that Sunderlal was
being beaten up by the ladies. With the assistance of those who were with him, Richhpal
managed to take Sunderlal to a hospital in Alwar but he succumbed to the injuries. A post-
mortem examination was carried out by Dr. Amar Singh Rathore and he deposed that shock,
haemorrhage and lung injuries resulted in his death. The injuries were sufficient to cause
death in the normal course.
On these broad facts, a charge sheet was filed against Ghasi and Lala for an offence
punishable Under Sections 302, 302/34 and 447 of the Indian Penal Code. On the evidence
adduced before him, the Additional District and Sessions Judge-III, Alwar convicted Ghasi
and Lala for an offence punishable Under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code as well as for
an offence punishable Under Section 447 of the Indian Penal Code. However, they were
acquitted of the charge framed Under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Feeling aggrieved, the convicts preferred D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 403/1997 in the Jaipur
Bench of the Rajasthan High Court. By a judgment and order dated 16 th April, 2003 the High
Court concluded that Ghasi and Lala could be convicted only Under Section 325/34 of the
Indian Penal Code and not Under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The High Court
also held that they could not be convicted Under Section 447 read with Section 302 of the
Indian Penal Code. The sentence awarded to them was imprisonment for the period
undergone; that is, about 18 months imprisonment.
5 AIR 2014 SC 3595.
Page | 27
It will be noticed that Ghasi and Lala were not convicted by the Trial Judge Under Section
302/34 of the Indian Penal Code but were convicted only Under Section 302 and Section 447
of the Indian Penal Code. Clearly, therefore, the High Court did not correctly record the final
conclusion of the Trial Judge. However, this is a minor matter.
ISSUE INVOLVED
The question related to the circumstances (if any) under which a conviction for murder Under
Section 300/302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Indian Penal Code) could be altered into a
conviction Under Section 322/325 of the Indian Penal Code (voluntarily causing grievous
hurt) or Under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code (voluntarily causing grievous hurt by
dangerous weapons or means), ignoring or overlooking the intermediate possibility of a
conviction Under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code.
DECISION OF THE COURT
The court gave the following decision:
[48] Applying the five-step inquiry, it is clear that: (i) there was a homicide,
namely the death of Sunderlal; (ii) the assailants gave two lathi blows to
Sunderlal which resulted in the fracture of his ribs and piercing of his lungs.
The injuries were not accidental or unintentional-the assailants had a
common intention of grievously injuring Sunderlal and it is not as if they
intended to cause some injury to him other that the ones inflicted, (iii) the
opinion of Dr. Amar Singh Rathore confirmed that the injuries caused to
Sunderlal were sufficient to cause death in the normal course. Consequently,
the homicide was a culpable homicide. Applying the law laid down in Virsa
Singh it is clear that Ghasi and Lala are guilty of the murder of Sunderlal,
the offence falling Under Section 300 (thirdly) of the Indian Penal Code and
punishable Under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
[49] Under the circumstances, we set aside the decision of the High Court and
restore the decision of the Trial Court and convict Ghasi and Lala of the
offence of murdering Sunderlal. The State will take necessary steps to
apprehend the convicts so that they undergo life imprisonment as required
by law.
Page | 28
SHEO SHANKAR SINGH V. STATE OF JHARKHAND6
FACTS OF THE CASE
Briefly stated the prosecution case is that on 14th April, 2000, the deceased-Shri Gurudas
Chatterjee, a sitting member of Jharkhand State Legislative Assembly was returning to Nirsa
from Dhanbad riding the pillion seat of a motorcycle that was being driven by the first
informant Apurba Ghosh, examined at the trial as PW 16. At about 2.45 p.m. when the duo
reached a place near Premier Hard Coke, Apurba Ghosh, the informant heard the sound of a
gunshot from behind. He looked back only to find that Appellant-Sheo Shankar Singh was
driving a black motorcycle on the left of the informant with an unknown person, later
identified as Umesh Singh, sitting on the pillion seat carrying a pistol in his hand. Umesh
Singh, the pillion rider, is alleged to have fired a second time from close range which hit the
deceased-Gurudas Chatterjee in the head, who slumped on the back of the informant thereby
disturbing the balance of the motorcycle and bringing both of them to the ground. The
motorcycle driven by Sheo Shanker Singh was stopped by him a little ahead whereupon
Umesh Singh the pillion rider got down; walked back to the place where the deceased had
fallen, abused the informant verbally and asked him to run away from there failing which
even he would be killed. So threatened the informant hurried away from the spot whereupon
Umesh Singh-Appellant fired a third bullet at the deceased, pushed his dead body down the
side slope of the road, walked back to the motorcycle whose engine was kept running by
Sheo Shankar Singh and fled towards Nirsa. Some people are said to have run towards them
but were scared away by Umesh Singh with the gun. The motorcycle did not have a
registration number. A crowd is said to have gathered on the spot that included Abdul Kudus
Ansari (PW1) and Lal Mohan Mahto (PW2) who disclosed that they had seen Sheo Shankar
Singh and one unknown person moving on a motorcycle without a registration number
sometime before the occurrence.
ISSUE INVOLVED
Whether the case falls in the rarest of the rare category?
6 AIR 2011 SC 1403.
Page | 29
The court was to arrive at a decision after considering Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab
(1980) 2 SCC 684, Farooq alias Karattaa Farooq and Ors. v. State of Kerala (2002) 4 SCC
697, Machhi Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab (1983) 3 SCC 470, Santosh Kumar
Satishbhushan Bariyar v. State of Maharashtra (2009) 6 SCC 498.
DECISION OF THE COURT
The court arrived at the opinion that the High Court was not justified in imposing the extreme
penalty of death upon the Appellants because of the following reasons:
1. Firstly, because the Appellants are not professional killers. Even according to the
prosecution they were only a part of the coal mafia active in the region indulging in
theft of coal from the collieries. The deceased being opposed to such activities
appears to have incurred their wrath and got killed.
2. Secondly, because even when the deceased was a politician there was no political
angle to his killing.
3. Thirdly, because while all culpable homicides amounting to murder are inhuman,
hence legally and ethically unacceptable yet there was nothing particularly brutal,
grotesque, diabolical, revolting or dastardly in the manner of its execution so as to
arouse intense and extreme indignation of the community or exhaust depravity and
meanness on the part of the assailants to call for the extreme penalty.
4. Fourthly, because there was difference of opinion on the question of sentence to be

awarded to the convicts. The Trial Court did not find it to be a rarest of rare case and
remained content with the award of life sentence only which sentence the High Court
enhanced to death.
Considering all these circumstances, the death sentence awarded to the Appellants in our
opinion deserves to be commuted to life imprisonment.
Page | 30
DATA BY NCRB
The following data has been provided by the national crime records bureau regarding the
crime of murder, attempt to commit murder and riots in the year 2014:
S. NO. CRIME HEADS CASES % TO RATE CHARGE- CONVICT

REPORTED TOTAL IPC OF SHEETIN ION RATE
CRIMES CRIM G RATE
E
1. Murder 33981 1.2 2.7 88.8 39.1
2. Attempt to commit 41791 1.5 3.4 93.1 26.9

Murder
3. Riots 66042 2.3 5.3 91.5 17.2
Source: Crimes in India 2014, Figures at a Glance-2014, assessed from ncrb.nic.in.
crime of murder, attempt to commit murder and riots in the past few years:
S. CRIME HEADS YEARS

NO 2004 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
.
1. Murder Case 33608 32369 33335 34305 34434 33201 33981
s
ROC 3.1 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.7 2.7
2. Attempt to Case 27890 29038 29421 31385 35138 35417 41791
commit murder s
ROC 2.6 2.5 2.5 2.6 2.9 2.9 3.4
3. Riots Case 59971 62942 67571 68500 74633 72126 66042
s
ROC 5.5 5.4 5.7 5.7 6.2 5.9 5.3
Source: Crimes in India 2014, Statistics- Table 1.3, assessed from ncrb.nic.in.
crime of murder and attempt to commit murder for different states in the year 2014:
Page | 31
S. STATE/UT MURDER ATTEMPT TO COMMIT MURDER
I V R I V R
NO.
STATES:
1. Uttar Pradesh 5150 5333 2.4 5223 5283 2.5
2. West Bengal 2217 2247 2.4 7248 7272 7.9
3. Arunachal Pradesh 86 102 6.7 48 49 3.7
4. Manipur 96 106 3.8 227 229 8.9
5. Kerala 367 388 1.0 676 739 1.9
6. Himachal Pradesh 130 134 1.9 63 65 0.9
7. Haryana 1106 1157 4.1 783 822 2.9
8. Punjab 767 804 2.7 864 932 3.0
9. Sikkim 12 13 1.9 14 15 2.2
UTS:
10. Delhi UT 586 616 2.9 770 799 3.8
11. Chandigarh 24 24 1.4 11 11 2.0
12. D&N Haveli 4 4 1.0 1 1 0.2
13. Lakshadweep 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0
Source: Crimes in India 2014, Statistics- Table 1.6 (Columns 4 to 9), assessed from
ncrb.nic.in.
crime of rioting in the year 2014:
S. NO. STATE/UT RIOTS

I V R
Page | 32
STATES:
1. Bihar 13566 16810 13.3
2. Kerala 5820 6828 16.5
3. Haryana 1944 2244 7.3
4. Meghalaya 8 8 0.3
5. Mizoram 0 0 0.0
6. Punjab 0 0 0.0
UTS:
7. Delhi UT 160 217 0.8
8. Chandigarh 33 52 2.0
9. Lakshadweep 9 0 11.4
10. Daman and Diu 4 4 1.3
Source: Crimes in India 2014, Statistics- Table 1.6 (Columns 94 to 96), assessed from
ncrb.nic.in.
(I- Incidents
V- Victims
R- Rate of Crime
ROC- Rate of Crime)
Page | 33
REFERENCES
BOOKS REFERRED
1. DR. K.I. VIBHUTE, P.S.A. PILLAIS CRIMINAL LAW (12th ed. Lexis Nexis, Gurgaon,
2015).
2. BATUK LAL, THE LAW OF EVIDENCE (7th ed. Orient Publishing Company, New
Delhi, 2015).
3. PROF. S.N. MISHRA, INDIAN PENAL CODE (19th ed. Central Law Publications,
Allahabad, 2014).
WEB LINKS REFERRED
1. manupatrafast.in
2. indiankanoon.org
3. ncrd.nic.in
Page | 5

Ipc Project

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Descrição original:

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Ipc Project

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Indian Penal Code- II

Pawan Kumar & Ors.

State of Uttar Pradesh

Dr. Pushpinder Kaur,

Panjab University, Chandigarh.

127/13, Sec-C, B.Com LL.B.,

UILS, Panjab University,

S. NO. PARTICULARS PAGE NO.

2. TABLE OF CASES (iv)

3. INTRODUCTION TO THE CASE 1

4. CLUBBING THE APPEALS 2

5. BASIC INFORMATION ABOUT THE CASE 3

6. FACTS OF THE CASE AS PER THE PROSECUTION 4-5

o Inspection of the Petrol Pump

8. VERDICT OF THE TRIAL COURT 7

9. APPEAL TO THE HIGH COURT 8

10. ARGUMENTS FOR THE APPELLANTS 9-13

o Confession before police officer is not admissible

o Chain of circumstances not complete: Loopholes in the

o Plea of alibi on behalf of Accused No. 2

o Other Circumstances linking all the accused

13. CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGMENT 18

14. RICHHPAL SINGH MEENA V. GHASI, AIR 2014 SC 3595 19-20

o Facts of the case

o Decision of the court

15. SHEO SHANKAR SINGH V. STATE OF JHARKHAND, AIR 2011 SC 21-22

o Facts of the case

16. DATA BY NCRB 23-24

17. REFERENCES (v)

O Web Links Referred

1. Aghnoo Nagesia v. State of Bihar, (1966) 1 SCR 134.9

2. Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 684...21

3. Dalbir Kaur v. State of Punjab, (1976) 4 SCC 158.15

5. Machhi Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab (1983) 3 SCC 470.22

6. Richhpal Singh Meena v. Ghasi, AIR 2014 SC 3595..19

7. Santosh Kumar Satish Bariyar v. State of Maharashtra (2009) 6 SCC 498...22

8. Sheo Shankar Singh v. State of Jharkhand, AIR 2011 SC 1403..21

9. Shivnarayan Laxminarayan Joshi v. State of Maharashtra, (1980) 2 SCC 465.15

10. State of Punjab v. Barkat Ram, (1962) 3 SCR 3389

(Criminal Appeal Nos. 2194, 2195-2196, 2198, 2199 and 2200/2011)

Pawan Kumar & Ors.

State of Uttar Pradesh

Criminal Appeal No. 2194 OF 2011

Pawan Kumar @ Monu Mittal ... Appellant

State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. ... Respondents

Criminal Appeal Nos. 2195-2196 OF 2011

Rakesh Anand and Anr. ... Appellants

State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. ... Respondents

Criminal Appeal No. 2198 OF 2011

Shiv Kesh Giri @ Lalla ... Appellant

State of Uttar Pradesh ... Respondent

Criminal Appeal No. 2199/2011

Devesh Agnihotri ... Appellant

State of Uttar Pradesh ... Respondent

Criminal Appeal No. 2200/2011

Rajesh Verma ... Appellant

State of Uttar Pradesh ... Respondent

Evidence Act - 25 and 27;

RESULT OF THE CASE

INSPECTION OF THE PETROL PUMP

CONFESSION OF ACCUSED NO. 4 AND 7

ARREST OF OTHER ACCUSED

All the sentences were, however, directed to run concurrently.