LAWS(SC)-2022-1-109

STATE OF U.P. Vs. JAI DUTT

Decided On January 19, 2022
STATE OF U.P. Appellant
V/S
JAI DUTT Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 18.09.2019 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Appeal No. 870 of 1987, by which the High Court has allowed the said appeal in part and has converted the conviction of the accused from that of Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC to Section 326 IPC, the State of Uttar Pradesh had preferred the present appeal.

(2.) As per the case of the prosecution when the deceased was working in his agricultural field all the accused persons reached there and started abusing him. That the deceased was beaten by the accused persons. All the accused persons were having different weapons with them. All of them started beating the deceased resulting in a number of injuries and later considering his serious condition, he was taken to hospital at Lucknow where after about six days, he succumbed to the injuries. All the accused persons were charged and tried for the offences under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC except accused no. 1 Jai Dutt who was charged and tried for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. To prove the charge against the accused, the prosecution examined a number of witnesses of which, PW1 and PW2 were the eye-witnesses to the incident. By examining PW8 - Dr. P.R. Mishra who conducted the postmortem on the body of the deceased, the prosecution brought on record the post-mortem report. The trial Court convicted Jai Dutt for the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment. The learned trial Court also convicted other accused Lal Bahadur, Sher Singh and Shastri for the offences under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC and sentenced them to undergo life imprisonment.

(3.) Shri Rana Mukherjee, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant - State has vehemently submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case the High Court has materially erred in converting the conviction from Section 302 IPC to Section 326 IPC.