Rauf Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh - Court Judgment
|Court||Supreme Court of India|
|Case Number||Criminal Appeal No. 35 of 1972|
|Judge|| P.N. Shinghal and; S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, JJ.|
|Reported in||AIR1978SC1604; 1978CriLJ1474; (1978)3SCC140; 1978(10)LC270(SC)|
|Acts||Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 34 and 307|
|Respondent||State of Uttar Pradesh|
.....& services reservation: [tarun chatterjee & h.l.dattu,jj] appellant appointed as primary school teacher by claiming reservation under group b category of classification for backward class citizens however, on verification, her caste found to be transferred to group d category held, finding that she would not be entitled to retain post cannot be faulted. but in peculiar facts, striking down appointment after so many years would cause great hardship and injustice to appellant and at the same time no prejudice would cause to others if appellants service continued as primary teacher. supreme court in facts and circumstances in order to do complete justice, without going into merits of the order directed respondents not to dislodge appellant from post of primary school teacher. - it..........lallu. the eupon the accused deochand took out his pistol from the folds of his dhoti and fired at lallu. lallu in order to protect himself raised his left palm as a result of which he received injuries. having regard to these circumstances, therefore, we are unable to see any ground to distinguish the case of the appellant from that of deochand. being aware of the fact that his companion deochand was armed with a pistol, the appellant incited the accused deochand to shoot when he (deochand) pointed to the complainant proclaimed that he was doing pairvi against the accused in a previous case. in these circumstances, the evidence unmistakably shows that the appellant shared a common intention with deochand to attempt to kill lallu. this appeal is concluded by finding of fact and is.....
S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, J.
1. In this appeal by special leave the appellant has been convicted under Section 307/34 I.P C. There were two other accused, Deochand and Sarju who are not before us so appellants. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the judgments of the courts below. The short point argued by Mr. Singh was that there is no clear evidence in the case to show that the appellant had any common intention with the other accused to attempt to murder the victim, Lallu. It is, however, clearly mentioned in F.I.R. and also in the statement of the complainant that the accused met him near the corner of Gangoli Shivala and incited the accused Deochand to shoot Lallu. The eupon the accused Deochand took out his pistol from the folds of his dhoti and fired at Lallu. Lallu in order to protect himself raised his left palm as a result of which he received injuries. Having regard to these circumstances, therefore, we are unable to see any ground to distinguish the case of the appellant from that of Deochand. Being aware of the fact that his companion Deochand was armed with a pistol, the appellant incited the accused Deochand to shoot when he (Deochand) pointed to the complainant proclaimed that he was doing pairvi against the accused in a previous case. In these circumstances, the evidence unmistakably shows that the appellant shared a common intention with Deochand to attempt to kill Lallu. This appeal is concluded by finding of fact and is accordingly dismissed. The appellant who is now on bail shall surrender and serve out the remaining portion of the sentence.