BHOOPAT SINGH Vs. J B KATARIYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this order we are disposing of the appeals filed by the complainant, State of U.P. and one of the three accused, namely, J.B. Katariya (hereinafter referred to as the appellant') against judgment dated 14.2.2002 rendered by the Division Bench of Allahabad High Court in Criminal Appeal Nos.2350 of 1997, 22 of 1998 and 1315 of 1998.

(2.) The appellant was tried for offences under Sections 302 and 342 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'the I.P.C.') and Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The other two accused, namely, Ghanshyam Sharma and Ram Narain were tried for offences under Sections 302 read with Section 34 and 342 I.P.C. The trial Court convicted the appellant under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life. He was further convicted under Section 342 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. However, he was acquitted of the charge under Section 7 read with Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Ghanshyam Sharma and Ram Narain were acquitted of the charge under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. but were convicted under Section 323 read with Section 34 I.P.C. as also under Section 342 I.P.C and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(3.) Learned counsel for the parties took us through the entire evidence and made their submissions. Shri Jaspal Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for the complainant and Shri Ratnakar Dash, learned senior counsel appearing for the State of U.P. argued that charge under Section 302 I.P.C. was established against the appellant beyond any pale of doubt and the High Court committed serious error by converting his conviction from one under Section 302 I.P.C. to Section 304 Part II I.P.C. Shri Jaspal Singh emphasized that the appellant's case falls under clause III of Section 300 inasmuch as he had inflicted as many as 18 injuries on the person of the deceased and the same were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Learned Counsel submitted that after arresting the deceased Virendra Singh in a false case registered under Section 307 I.P.C., the appellant mercilessly assaulted him while in custody and inflicted injuries on different parts of his body which were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Shri Jaspal Singh made a pointed reference to paragraph 6 of the statement of Dr. C.N. Shukla (PW-8) and argued that in view of unequivocal assertion of the witness that the injuries inflicted on the person of the deceased were sufficient to cause death, the High Court was not justified in altering the appellant's conviction from Section 302 I.P.C. to Section 304 Part II I.P.C. Both, Shri Jaspal Singh and Shri Ratnakar Dash argued that even if this Court comes to the conclusion that the High Court has rightly altered the conviction of the appellant, the sentence of 2 years of imprisonment awarded to him is wholly disproportionate to the seriousness of the crime and, therefore, the same should be suitably enhanced.