{"id":118469,"date":"1993-09-21T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1993-09-20T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jamna-vs-state-of-u-p-on-21-september-1993-2"},"modified":"2017-09-27T01:24:54","modified_gmt":"2017-09-26T19:54:54","slug":"jamna-vs-state-of-u-p-on-21-september-1993-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jamna-vs-state-of-u-p-on-21-september-1993-2","title":{"rendered":"Jamna vs State Of U.P on 21 September, 1993"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Jamna vs State Of U.P on 21 September, 1993<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 1994 AIR   79, \t\t  1994 SCC  Supl.  (1) 185<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: K J Reddy<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Reddy, K. Jayachandra (J)<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nJAMNA\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF U.P.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT21\/09\/1993\n\nBENCH:\nREDDY, K. JAYACHANDRA (J)\nBENCH:\nREDDY, K. JAYACHANDRA (J)\nRAY, G.N. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1994 AIR   79\t\t  1994 SCC  Supl.  (1) 185\n JT 1993 (5)   334\t  1993 SCALE  (3)824\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>The Judgment of the Court was delivered by<br \/>\nK.   JAYACHANDRA REDDY, J.- This is an appeal under  Section<br \/>\n379   CrPC  read  with\tSection\t 2  of\tthe  Supreme   Court<br \/>\n(Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act.  There<br \/>\nare  eight  appellants.\t They along with eight\tothers\twere<br \/>\ntried  for  offenses  punishable under\tSections  147,\t148,<br \/>\n302\/149, 324\/149 and 323\/149 IPC.  The trial court acquitted<br \/>\nall  of\t them.\tThe State preferred an appeal and  the\tHigh<br \/>\nCourt  while confirming the acquittal of the other  accused,<br \/>\nconvicted  the appellants.  Appellants 1 to 4 are  convicted<br \/>\nunder  Sections\t 302 read with 149 IPC and each of  them  is<br \/>\nsentenced  to undergo imprisonment for life.  The  remaining<br \/>\nfour appellants are convicted under Sections 326\/149 IPC and<br \/>\neach  of  them\tis  sentenced  to  undergo  two\t years&#8217;\t RI.<br \/>\nGhanshyam,  appellant  4  and Shyam  Lal,  appellant  5\t are<br \/>\nfurther\t convicted  under Section 147 IPC and  sentenced  to<br \/>\nundergo six months&#8217; RI and the remaining six appellants\t are<br \/>\nconvicted under Section 148 IPC and sentenced to undergo one<br \/>\nyear&#8217;s\tRI.  All the eight appellants are further  convicted<br \/>\nunder  Sections 324\/149 and 323\/149 IPC and each of them  is<br \/>\nsentenced   to\t undergo  one  year  and  six\tmonths&#8217;\t  RI<br \/>\nrespectively.  Appellant 1, Jamna is reported to be dead and<br \/>\na  death  certificate is filed.\t Permanand, appellant  3  is<br \/>\nalso reported to be dead as per the office report dated July<br \/>\n21, 1988.  Therefore the appeal stands abated in respect  of<br \/>\nthese two appellants.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.   The  prosecution  case is as follows:  One\t Shakoor,  a<br \/>\nnephew\tof  PW 6 is the deceased in the case.  PW 6  is\t the<br \/>\nwife  of  PW 4. Roshan Khan, PW 1 is the  informant.   These<br \/>\nthree  witnesses  and  two other women, members\t of  PW\t 6&#8217;s<br \/>\nfamily\treceived injuries in the occurrence. 20 or  25\tdays<br \/>\nprior  to the present occurrence, Kallu, a member of PW\t 6&#8217;s<br \/>\nfamily attempted to outrage the modesty of the wife of Shyam<br \/>\nLal (appellant 5), who lodged a report to the police.  Kallu<br \/>\nwas  arrested and released on bail about one week  prior  to<br \/>\nthe  present occurrence.  On account of this  incident,\t all<br \/>\nthe  16 accused bore grudge and were inimical towards  Kallu<br \/>\nand  other members of the family.  The feelings got  further<br \/>\nstrained because of initiation of proceedings under  Section<br \/>\n107  CrPC.  On February 7, 1974, it is alleged that  the  16<br \/>\naccused went to the house of PW 6 at about 1 p.m. armed with<br \/>\nspears, guptis, sangs and lathis.  Shyam Lal exhorted others<br \/>\nand  thereafter all the 16 accused started assaulting PW  4.<br \/>\nwho  happened to be present outside his house at that  time.<br \/>\nHearing\t the  noise, the deceased, PW 6 and  the  other\t two<br \/>\nladies\tcame  out of the house.\t Thereupon  they  were\talso<br \/>\nassaulted by the accused.  Shakoor, the deceased, who had  a<br \/>\nlathi,\tstarted\t wielding it in defence of  members  of\t his<br \/>\nfamily.\t  Thereupon Kanhiya, appellant 2 said  that  Shakoor<br \/>\nshould\tbe dead.  Thereupon he himself, Jamna, appellant  1,<br \/>\nPermanand,  appellant 3 and Ghanshyam, appellant 4  attacked<br \/>\nthe  deceased.\tGhanshyam inflicted some blows\twith  lathis<br \/>\nand  the  others  who  were armed  with\t guptis\t and  spears<br \/>\nattacked  the  deceased and inflicted a\t number\t of  incised<br \/>\ninjuries  and killed him on the spot.  Thereafter  they\t ran<br \/>\naway.\tThe occurrence was also witnessed by PW 9  and\tsome<br \/>\nothers who arrived at the scene of occurrence on hearing the<br \/>\nnoise.\t PW 1 went to the police station, seven miles  away,<br \/>\nand  lodged  an\t FIR  at 3.50 p.m. on  the  same  day.\t The<br \/>\ninvestigation<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">187<\/span><br \/>\ncommenced and S.I. reached the scene of occurrence.  He sent<br \/>\nthe  injured  for medical examination who were\texamined  by<br \/>\nDoctor,\t PW  2\ton the same night.  The\t dead  body  of\t the<br \/>\ndeceased  was  sent for postmortem and PW  2  conducted\t the<br \/>\npostmortem.   He  found a number of  incised  and  punctured<br \/>\nwounds,\t four  contusions and some abrasions.\tOn  internal<br \/>\nexamination  he\t found\tthat  several  ribs  had  been\tcut,<br \/>\noccipital  (sic) was cut and lungs were also  injured.\t The<br \/>\nDoctor\topined\tthat  the deceased died\t due  to  shock\t and<br \/>\nhaemorrhage due to these punctured and incised wounds.\t All<br \/>\nthe accused pleaded not guilty.\t The learned Sessions  Judge<br \/>\ndiscarded  the\tevidence of the eyewitnesses  including\t the<br \/>\ninjured\t witnesses on the ground that the time and place  of<br \/>\noccurrence are in doubt.  According to the learned  Sessions<br \/>\nJudge, in view of the medical evidence that there was  semi-<br \/>\ndigested food in the stomach of the deceased, the occurrence<br \/>\nmust  have taken place earlier some time in the morning\t and<br \/>\nnot  in\t the midday.  The place of  occurrence\twas  doubted<br \/>\nbecause\t the blood stains were not found.  Then the  learned<br \/>\nSessions  Judge\t proceeded  to consider\t the  omissions\t and<br \/>\ndiscrepancies and ultimately held that the witnesses  cannot<br \/>\nbe  relied upon particularly when they are  all\t interested.<br \/>\nThe  High  Court, on the other hand, held that\tthe  injured<br \/>\nwitnesses  are\treliable to the extent that  specific  overt<br \/>\nacts were attributed to the accused.  The High Court further<br \/>\nheld that the common object of the unlawful assembly was not<br \/>\nto  commit murder but was only to cause grievous hurt.\t But<br \/>\nthe first four appellants who attacked the deceased, I could<br \/>\nbe  held guilty under Sections 302\/34 IPC.  The\t High  Court<br \/>\nalso  convicted\t all  of them for causing  injuries  to\t the<br \/>\nwitnesses.   Since  no\tovert acts were\t attributed  to\t the<br \/>\nremaining  eight  accused, the High  Court  confirmed  their<br \/>\nacquittal.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.Shri\tR.K Garg, learned senior counsel appearing  for\t the<br \/>\nappellants  submitted  that the learned Sessions  Judge\t has<br \/>\ngiven a number of reasons for not relying upon the  evidence<br \/>\nof the injured witnesses and the view taken by him is  quite<br \/>\nreasonable and therefore the High Court erred in interfering<br \/>\nwith  the  findings of the trial court.\t He  also  submitted<br \/>\nthat  PW 1, who is the author of the earlier report,  was  a<br \/>\nhighly\tinterested witness and the version given by him\t was<br \/>\nrepeated  by the other witnesses and having regard  to\tmany<br \/>\ndiscrepancies  and  omissions,\tthe  evidence  of  all\t the<br \/>\nwitnesses has to be rejected.  Learned counsel also  pointed<br \/>\nout  that  the High Court has not examined all\tthe  reasons<br \/>\ngiven  by the Sessions Court and therefore the\tjudgment  of<br \/>\nthe High Court is liable to be set aside.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.From the above-stated facts, it can be seen that PWs 1,  4<br \/>\nand  6\tare  the injured witnesses.   The  learned  counsel,<br \/>\nhowever,  tried to show that the injury on PW 1 was  only  a<br \/>\ntraumatic swelling.  But the Doctor says that the same could<br \/>\nhave  been caused by a blunt weapon and that is the  version<br \/>\nof PW 1. PWs 4 and 6 received quite a few injuries and their<br \/>\npresence at the scene of occurrence cannot be doubted.\t The<br \/>\nevidence of PWs 5 and 9 was not treated to be very material.<br \/>\nTherefore  we have to proceed on the footing that PWs  1,  4<br \/>\nand  6\twere  present at the scene  of\toccurrence  and\t had<br \/>\nwitnessed   the\t  same.\t  When\tonce   their   presence\t  is<br \/>\nestablished, even assuming that there are some discrepancies<br \/>\nregarding the actual time of occurrence, that is not at\t all<br \/>\nmaterial.   Learned counsel, however, submitted that if\t the<br \/>\noccurrence had taken place in the morning then having regard<br \/>\nto the fact that the FIR was given only at 3.50 p.m. then it<br \/>\nmust   be   presumed  that  there  was\tlot  of\t  time\t for<br \/>\nconsultations and<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">188<\/span><br \/>\ntherefore it must be held that the FIR was a result of\tsuch<br \/>\nconsultations.\t It  is needless to say that  the  delay  by<br \/>\nitself is not a circumstance to doubt the prosecution  case.<br \/>\nFurther, in the instant case, the presence of  semi-digested<br \/>\nfood in the stomach by itself is not an indication that\t the<br \/>\noccurrence must have taken place in the early hours.  On the<br \/>\nother hand, it stands to reason that the deceased might have<br \/>\ntaken  his food some time in the morning at about 9 or\t9.30<br \/>\na.m.  In  any  event,  in our view, this is  not  at  all  a<br \/>\nsignificant factor.  PW 1 in his chief-examination has given<br \/>\nall  the details about the relationship of the deceased\t and<br \/>\nother  witnesses and the relationship of the  accused  among<br \/>\nthemselves.   He  has also given details about\tthe  earlier<br \/>\nincident where Kallu was said to have misbehaved with a lady<br \/>\nand the consequent ill-feelings.  Coming to the\t occurrence,<br \/>\nhe has mentioned the names of all the 16 accused who came in<br \/>\na  group.  Then he deposed that among the  accused  Kanhiya,<br \/>\nappellant  2, Jamna, appellant 1 and Permanand, appellant  3<br \/>\nwere armed with ballams and Ghanshyam, appellant 4 was armed<br \/>\nwith a lathi and all the four of them attacked Shakoor,\t the<br \/>\ndeceased.  He has also mentioned about the presence of PWs 4<br \/>\nand  6 and that they received injuries.\t He further  deposed<br \/>\nthat on the same day, he went to the police station and gave<br \/>\na  report  at about 4 p.m. He was crossexamined\t at  length.<br \/>\nThe  first part of the cross-examination was with  reference<br \/>\nto the motive to which we need not advert.  The next part of<br \/>\nthe crossexamination was about Section 107 CrPC proceedings.<br \/>\nThen   coming  to  the\toccurrence,  the   cross-examination<br \/>\nproceeded  to elicit about the nature of the weapons and  as<br \/>\nto who attacked first etc.  This witness specifically stated<br \/>\nthat these four accused attacked the deceased as  instigated<br \/>\nby Kanhiya.  Some of the discrepancies elicited are that  in<br \/>\nthe  earlier statement, he failed to state about  Shyam\t Lal<br \/>\nbeing  incited\tin the first incident and that\the  has\t not<br \/>\nstated that the deceased was also beaten after he fell down.<br \/>\nThen  he was cross-examined with reference to  the  injuries<br \/>\nfound  on him.\tThe witness denied the suggestion that\tsome<br \/>\nstrangers had attacked the witnesses and the deceased in the<br \/>\nearlier\t part of the day.  Having gone through the  evidence<br \/>\nin general as well as the crossexamination, we are not\table<br \/>\nto  find  any  material\t discrepancy  or  infirmity  in\t the<br \/>\nevidence of PW 1. He has stated almost all these particulars<br \/>\nin  the FIR also.  Learned counsel, however, submitted\tthat<br \/>\nsome of the details given in respect of the attack have\t not<br \/>\nbeen  mentioned.  Further, with regard to the attack on\t the<br \/>\ndeceased,  it is specifically mentioned in the FIR that\t the<br \/>\nfour  appellants  attacked the deceased\t and  inflicted\t the<br \/>\ninjuries.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.   PW 4 is the next important witness.  He had a number of<br \/>\ninjuries on him and his presence at the scene of  occurrence<br \/>\nis not in dispute.  This witness also has given the  details<br \/>\nand  descriptions  of  the  accused.   Now,  coming  to\t the<br \/>\noccurrence,  PW 4 deposed that all the 16 accused came in  a<br \/>\nbody  and stated that his family members are insulting\tthem<br \/>\nand  the accused started beating him.  On his shouting,\t his<br \/>\nwife  PW 6, the deceased and the two other ladies  came\t out<br \/>\nfrom  the  house.   Thereafter he gave the  details  of\t the<br \/>\nattack on the deceased.\t Then, he further stated that Kamla,<br \/>\nappellant  6 hit him on the head with a pharsa and  somebody<br \/>\nalso  hit him with a ballam and he also received some  lathi<br \/>\ninjuries.   In\tthe cross-examination, this  witness  stated<br \/>\nthat  he  had  no  personal  knowledge\tabout  Kallu  having<br \/>\ninsulted the wife of Shyam Lal.\t He was also  cross-examined<br \/>\nat  length with reference to the earlier incident.  Then  he<br \/>\nwas  cross-examined  with reference to his  statement  under<br \/>\nSection 161 CrPC.  It<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">189<\/span><br \/>\nappears\t that in that statement he stated that first  Dullan<br \/>\nhad  tried  to\trescue him and\tthen  the  deceased  Shakoor<br \/>\nwielded\t his  lathi whereas in the present  version  he\t has<br \/>\nstated\tthat  Shakoor, the deceased wielded  his  lathi\t and<br \/>\ntried  to save them.  Then the other discrepancy is  whether<br \/>\nKallu was at the door and ran away after seeing the  people.<br \/>\nWe  think these two discrepancies are not at  all  material.<br \/>\nThen he was cross-examined with reference to the proceedings<br \/>\nunder  Section 107 CrPC.  Thereafter he\t was  cross-examined<br \/>\nwith   reference  to  the  injuries  and  when\t he   became<br \/>\nunconscious.   This  witness clearly stated that he  had  no<br \/>\nenmity\tas  such with Shyam Lal.  PW 6 is the  next  injured<br \/>\nwitness,  who is none other than the wife of PW 4. She\talso<br \/>\nhad  fairly  serious injuries.\tShe deposed  in\t the  chief-<br \/>\nexamination  that accused Kanhiya, Permanand,  Jamna,  Mavnu<br \/>\nand  Shyam  Lal were holding ballams and  some\tothers\twere<br \/>\nholding\t guptis and the rest were holding sticks.   She\t has<br \/>\ngiven a detailed account of the occurrence.  She also stated<br \/>\nthat  she  pleaded with the accused not to beat\t them.\t She<br \/>\nspecifically   stated  that  the  accused  Kanhiya,   Jamna,<br \/>\nPermanand  and Ghanshyam attacked and inflicted injuries  on<br \/>\nthe  deceased.\t She further stated that Shyam Lal  hit\t her<br \/>\nwith a ballam and other accused also hit her.  She was\talso<br \/>\ncross-examined at length with reference to the\tmisbehaviour<br \/>\nof  Kallu.  As far as the occurrence is concerned, she\talso<br \/>\nasserted   in\tthe  cross-examination\tthat   the   accused<br \/>\nsurrounded them and beat them.\tShe was cross-examined\twith<br \/>\nreference  to her earlier statement under Section 161  CrPC.<br \/>\nShe  stated that the next day her statement was recorded  by<br \/>\nthe police officer at 2 p.m. She denied the suggestion\tthat<br \/>\nsome unknown persons entered their house in the darkness and<br \/>\nattacked them.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.   The evidence of these three injured witnesses is simple<br \/>\nand straightforward at least with reference to the attack on<br \/>\nthe  deceased and on themselves.  The reasons given  by\t the<br \/>\nlearned Sessions Judge for doubting their evidence are\tvery<br \/>\nmuch  strained.\t  We have gone through the judgment  of\t the<br \/>\nlearned\t Sessions  Judge carefully and he is  right  to\t the<br \/>\nextent\tthat the witnesses are all interested.\tBut that  by<br \/>\nitself\tis not a ground to reject their evidence.   Much  of<br \/>\nthe criticism of the prosecution case was about Kallu having<br \/>\nnot  been  attacked.  But it is the  prosecution  case\tthat<br \/>\nKallu  was  not there and he managed to\t go  away.   Learned<br \/>\nSessions  Judge has commented much about the motive  aspect.<br \/>\nBut when once there are direct witnesses, the motive assumes<br \/>\nless  or  little importance.  The  other  discrepancies\t and<br \/>\nomissions pointed out are not at all material.\tThe omission<br \/>\nwhich  was  very  much highlighted  was\t that  the  deceased<br \/>\nstarting wielding his lathi and on this question the earlier<br \/>\nstatement   and\t  the  present\tversion\t are   compared\t  so<br \/>\nmeticulously,  which,  in our view, is not at  all  such  an<br \/>\nimportant thing.  In the evidence of PW 1, the discrepancies<br \/>\nin his statement about the presence of interconnecting\tdoor<br \/>\nin between the two houses is also commented upon very  much.<br \/>\nWe are only pointing out some of these discrepancies just to<br \/>\nshow  that the appreciation of the evidence by\tthe  learned<br \/>\nSessions  Judge\t was wholly unsound and we think it  is\t not<br \/>\nnecessary to examine every such finding in respect of  these<br \/>\ndiscrepancies.\t The  High  Court  has\trightly\t come  to  a<br \/>\ndifferent conclusion.\n<\/p>\n<p>7.   The High Court has further held that the common  object<br \/>\nof  the unlawful assembly was not to commit murder and\tthat<br \/>\nthe deceased was not killed in prosecution of such a  common<br \/>\nobject.\t On the other hand, the finding was that the  common<br \/>\nobject\tof the unlawful assembly was only to cause  grievous<br \/>\nhurt<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">190<\/span><br \/>\nand  in fixing the membership of the unlawful assembly,\t the<br \/>\nHigh Court applied overt acts test namely that only such  of<br \/>\nthose accused to whom specific overt acts in respect of\t the<br \/>\nattack\ton the deceased and the witnesses  were\t attributed,<br \/>\ncan be taken to be the members of the unlawful assembly, the<br \/>\ncommon object of which was only to cause grievous hurt.\t The<br \/>\nHigh  Court,  however,\tconvicted appellants 1\tto  4  under<br \/>\nSections  302\/149 IPC on the ground that they alone had\t the<br \/>\ncommon\tintention to kill the deceased and the same was\t not<br \/>\nshared by the other accused, who did not participate in\t the<br \/>\nattack on the deceased.\t Therefore the High Court  confirmed<br \/>\nthe  acquittal of the eight accused to whom  specific  overt<br \/>\nacts were not attributed.  The High Court convicted all\t the<br \/>\neight  appellants under Sections 326, 323 and 324 read\twith<br \/>\nSection\t 149 IPC having held that the common object  of\t the<br \/>\nunlawful assembly was to cause grievous hurt.  So far as the<br \/>\nfirst four\\appellants are concerned, they are convicted\t for<br \/>\ntheir  specific\t overt\tacts  of  attacking  the   deceased.<br \/>\nAppellants 1 to 4 are held to share the common intention and<br \/>\nin the result Section 34 IPC was applied.  Learned  counsel,<br \/>\nhowever,  submitted  that the first four appellants  can  be<br \/>\nconvicted under Sections 326\/149 IPC since against them also<br \/>\nthere is an omnibus allegation.\n<\/p>\n<p>8.   The  evidence  of\tPWs 1, 4 and 6,\t the  three  injured<br \/>\nwitnesses  whose  evidence  has been accepted  by  the\tHigh<br \/>\nCourt,\tis  to the effect that appellants 1, 2\tand  3\twere<br \/>\narmed with ballams and the medical evidence establishes that<br \/>\na  number of punctured wounds, many of which  proved  fatal,<br \/>\nshould\thave  been  inflicted only with\t ballams.   To\tthat<br \/>\nextent,\t appellants  1\tto 3 can  even\tbe  convicted  under<br \/>\nSection 302 simpliciter also.  However, so far as Ghanshyam,<br \/>\nappellant  4 is concerned, he was no doubt a member  of\t the<br \/>\nunlawful  assembly, again the common object of which was  to<br \/>\ncause grievous hurt only and he was armed only with a  lathi<br \/>\nand  according\tto  the medical evidence,  there  were\tsome<br \/>\ncontusions  on\tthe  deceased which  were  simple  injuries.<br \/>\nTherefore his case also would be the same as appellants 5 to<br \/>\n8 who are made constructively liable under Sections  326\/149<br \/>\nIPC even in respect of the attack on the deceased.  The case<br \/>\nof  appellant 4 is in no way different from  these  accused.<br \/>\nIt is only appellants 1 to 3 who attacked the deceased\twith<br \/>\nballams and caused a number of fatal injuries.\n<\/p>\n<p>9.   When  the\tfinding\t is that the common  object  of\t the<br \/>\nunlawful  assembly  in general was only\t to  cause  grievous<br \/>\nhurt, if anybody has exceeded the same, he or they would  be<br \/>\nliable\tfor  their  individual acts.  In this  view  of\t the<br \/>\nmatter, Ghanshyam, appellant 4 cannot be said to have shared<br \/>\nthe  common  intention\talong with appellants  1  to  3\t who<br \/>\ninstantly  killed the deceased by inflicting  injuries\twith<br \/>\nballams.   Therefore he would also be liable under  Sections<br \/>\n326\/149 IPC.\n<\/p>\n<p>10.As  already\tnoted appellants 1 and 3 have died  but\t the<br \/>\nconviction  of appellants 1 to 3 under Sections\t 302\/149  is<br \/>\ncorrect\t and in that view of the matter, the conviction\t and<br \/>\nsentence of Kanhiya, appellant 2 have to be confirmed  under<br \/>\nSections 302\/149 IPC.\n<\/p>\n<p>11.In the result, the appeal against appellant 1, Jamna\t and<br \/>\nappellant   3  Permanand,  though  their   convictions\t are<br \/>\nconfirmed,  stands abated.  The appeal against appellant  2,<br \/>\nKanhiya\t is dismissed and all the convictions and  sentences<br \/>\nawarded\t to  him  are confirmed.  So  far  as  appellant  4,<br \/>\nGhanshyam  is  concerned,  his\tconviction  under   Sections<br \/>\n302\/149 IPC and the sentence of imprisonment of life awarded<br \/>\nthereunder  are\t set aside.  Instead he is  convicted  under<br \/>\nSections 326\/149 IPC and sentenced to undergo two years&#8217; RI.<br \/>\nAll other convictions and<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">191<\/span><br \/>\nsentences awarded in respect of all the appellants namely 2,<br \/>\n4,  5,\t6,  7 and 8 are confirmed.  The\t appeal\t is  allowed<br \/>\npartly\tin respect of appellant 4, Ghanshyam  and  dismissed<br \/>\nagainst the remaining appellants namely 2, 5, 6, 7 and 8. If<br \/>\nthey  are  on bail they shall surrender and  serve  out\t the<br \/>\nremaining sentence.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">197<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Jamna vs State Of U.P on 21 September, 1993 Equivalent citations: 1994 AIR 79, 1994 SCC Supl. (1) 185 Author: K J Reddy Bench: Reddy, K. Jayachandra (J) PETITIONER: JAMNA Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF U.P. DATE OF JUDGMENT21\/09\/1993 BENCH: REDDY, K. JAYACHANDRA (J) BENCH: REDDY, K. JAYACHANDRA (J) RAY, G.N. (J) [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-118469","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.0 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Jamna vs State Of U.P on 21 September, 1993 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jamna-vs-state-of-u-p-on-21-september-1993-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Jamna vs State Of U.P on 21 September, 1993 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jamna-vs-state-of-u-p-on-21-september-1993-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1993-09-20T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-09-26T19:54:54+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"16 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jamna-vs-state-of-u-p-on-21-september-1993-2#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jamna-vs-state-of-u-p-on-21-september-1993-2\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Jamna vs State Of U.P on 21 September, 1993\",\"datePublished\":\"1993-09-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-09-26T19:54:54+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jamna-vs-state-of-u-p-on-21-september-1993-2\"},\"wordCount\":3094,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jamna-vs-state-of-u-p-on-21-september-1993-2#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jamna-vs-state-of-u-p-on-21-september-1993-2\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jamna-vs-state-of-u-p-on-21-september-1993-2\",\"name\":\"Jamna vs State Of U.P on 21 September, 1993 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1993-09-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-09-26T19:54:54+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jamna-vs-state-of-u-p-on-21-september-1993-2#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jamna-vs-state-of-u-p-on-21-september-1993-2\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jamna-vs-state-of-u-p-on-21-september-1993-2#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Jamna vs State Of U.P on 21 September, 1993\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Jamna vs State Of U.P on 21 September, 1993 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jamna-vs-state-of-u-p-on-21-september-1993-2","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Jamna vs State Of U.P on 21 September, 1993 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jamna-vs-state-of-u-p-on-21-september-1993-2","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1993-09-20T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-09-26T19:54:54+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"16 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jamna-vs-state-of-u-p-on-21-september-1993-2#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jamna-vs-state-of-u-p-on-21-september-1993-2"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Jamna vs State Of U.P on 21 September, 1993","datePublished":"1993-09-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-09-26T19:54:54+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jamna-vs-state-of-u-p-on-21-september-1993-2"},"wordCount":3094,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jamna-vs-state-of-u-p-on-21-september-1993-2#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jamna-vs-state-of-u-p-on-21-september-1993-2","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jamna-vs-state-of-u-p-on-21-september-1993-2","name":"Jamna vs State Of U.P on 21 September, 1993 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1993-09-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-09-26T19:54:54+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jamna-vs-state-of-u-p-on-21-september-1993-2#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jamna-vs-state-of-u-p-on-21-september-1993-2"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jamna-vs-state-of-u-p-on-21-september-1993-2#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Jamna vs State Of U.P on 21 September, 1993"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/118469","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=118469"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/118469\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=118469"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=118469"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=118469"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}