SUKHBIR SINGH Vs. KIRTAN SINGH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Three accused persons were tried by the Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad alleging that they caused the death of one Ran Veer Singh and caused injury to his brother Sukh Veer Singh. There was another accused also in the company of these accused persons and as he was a juvenile he was tried separately by the Juvenile Court. All the three accused persons - Lakshman Singh, Kirtan Singh and Surendra alias Bablu were convicted by the Sessions Court for the offence under Sec. 302 read with Sec. 34 IPC. All of them were found guilty of offence punishable under Sec. 307 read with Sec. 34 IPC for having caused injuries to Sukh Veer Singh. Though there was conviction also under Sec. 324 read with Sec. 34 IPC, no separate sentence was awarded to them. These accused persons filed appeal before the High Court and the Division Bench of the High Court held that the prosecution was not successful in proving that there was any common intention on the part of all the accused and there could only be conviction and sentence based on their individual acts. First accused Lakshman Singh was, thus, found guilty of offence punishable under Sec. 302 IPC for having caused the death of Ran Veer. The second accused Kirtan Singh was found guilty of offence punishable under Sec. 307 IPC for having caused injury to PW 2 Sukh Veer and he was also found guilty of offence punishable under Sec. 324 IPC for causing injury to Ran Veer, the deceased. The conviction of the second accused Kirtan Singh for the offence punishable under Ss. 302/34 IPC was set aside. The third accused Surendra @ Bablu was acquitted of all the charges filed against him. Aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court PW 2 Sukh Veer Singh, brother of the deceased Ran Veer has filed this appeal.1

(2.) Therefore, in this appeal, we are only concerned with the acquittal of third accused Surendra @ Bablu and the failure of the Division Bench in convicting second accused Kirtan Singh for the offence punishable under Ss. 302/34 IPC.

(3.) We heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents.