Title: MADAN V STATE OF UP
Citation: CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 1381-1382 OF 2017
Dated on: 23.1.2024
Corum: HON’BLE JUSTICE B.R. GAVAI , JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA & KJUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA
Facts of the case
The present case is before the Supreme Court of India in a criminal appeal case involving the murder of six persons by the appellants Madan and Sudesh Pal and other accused persons in 2003 in Uttar Pradesh. The prosecution alleged that the appellants and their associates fired indiscriminately at the victims near the house of Rashid and the house of Up-Pradhan Rizwan, due to political rivalry over the election of Gram Pradhan. The appellants denied their involvement and claimed to be falsely implicated. The prosecution examined 11 witnesses, but only four backed the prosecution’s case. Lokendra witnessed the first occurrence, in which the accused opened fire on Satendra, Sunil, Masooq Ali, Ram Kishan, and Sukhpal Singh near Rashid’s house. He also testified about the accused’s motive, which was political hatred from prior elections. Irshad Khan is the father of slain Rizwan and Rihan, who were murdered by the accused in their home alongside Ram Kishan. He is an eyewitness to the event and his testimony is consistent with Lokendra’s. Harpal Singh and Sudhir were also eyewitnesses to the incident, and their testimony backs up Lokendra’s account. They witnessed the accused firing at the victims and chasing Ram Kishan to Rizwan’s house. They also testified about the hatred between the families of Ishwar and Ram Kishan. The trial court convicted the appellants and co-accused Ishwar of several offenses under the IPC and the Arms Act, and sentenced them to death and Ishwar to life in prison. The High Court denied their appeals and upheld the trial court’s decision, except for commuting Sudesh Pal’s death sentence to life imprisonment.
Legal provision
In the present case the accused were charged with:
Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) deals with rioting. It states that whoever is guilty of rioting shall be punished with imprisonment for a term that may extend to two years, or with a fine, or both.
Section 148 pertains to rioting armed with a deadly weapon. If someone participates in a riot while carrying a dangerous weapon, they can be punished under this section.
Section 149 addresses the offence committed by members of an unlawful assembly. When members of an unlawful assembly engage in criminal acts, each member can be held liable for the offence committed in pursuit of their common objective.
Section 302 deals with murder. It states that whoever commits murder shall be punished with death or imprisonment for life.
Section 307 pertains to attempt to murder. If someone attempts to cause the death of another person, they can be charged under this section.
Section 323 deals with voluntarily causing hurt. It covers situations where someone intentionally causes bodily harm to another person.
Section 452 addresses house-trespass after preparation for hurt, assault, or wrongful restraint. If someone enters a building with the intention of committing any of these offences, they can be charged under this section.
A chargesheets was filed and an FIR was registered against all the accused for the said sections under the provision of IPC for the crimes conducted by them against the victims.
Court analysis and judgement
In the present case The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions made by Madan and Ishwar, who were convicted of murdering six people in a village in Uttar Pradesh. The Supreme Court confirmed the appellants’ death sentences imposed by the trial court and the High Court, concluding that the case fell into the category of the rarest of rare cases and that there was no room for the appellants’ reform or rehabilitation. Given Sudesh Pal’s youthful age and the potential of reformation, the Supreme Court remitted his life sentence to 25 years without remission. The Supreme Court applied the legal principles established in numerous cases involving the imposition of the death penalty, the rarest of rare doctrine, aggravating and mitigating circumstances, and the substitution of death by life imprisonment or a period of more than 14 years.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by- Namitha Ramesh
