Baddu Singh @ Saty Vir Singh vs State of U.P.

Amar Saran and S.K. Jain, J.—A prayer for bail has been made in this criminal appeal which has been filed by the appellant Baddu Singh alias Satyavir against the judgment and order dated 18.8.2004 passed by the Sessions Judge, Mahoba whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment under section 302 I PC and a fine of rupees five thousand.

Heard Shri S.P.S. Raghav, learned Senior Advocate for the appellant and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the judgment and record of the case.

The allegations in this case were that on 8.10.2003 the deceased Pinru Singh and the acquitted coaccused Chhuttu Singh alias, Udaiveer Singh were drinking liquor in the shop of Raju Singh, P.W. 3. At that time there was some quarrel between the deceased Pintu Singh and the appellant Baddu Singh over drinking of liquor, after that they left for their homes. On the way, the informant Ashok Singh, P.W. 1, his grandfather Ranjit Singh, P.W. 2 and Maan Singh met the appellant and the deceased at about 8.30 P.M. when the accused and the deceased had reached near the house of Brahamdutt Pandey. Then the accused told the deceased that he would have to get liquor otherwise it would be his last day. At that the coaccused Chhuttu Singh exhorted, then Baddu Singh fired with a gun at the deceased resulting in his death. The report of this incident was lodged by the informant at case crime No. 243 of 2003 at 2.00 A.M. on 9.10.2003 at police station Kabrai, district Mahoba.

It was argued by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the appellant had been in jail for about 4 years and the case would not go beyond section 304 IPC as the incident had taken place as a result of a sudden quarrel over drinking of liquor. Also that the appellant would be entitled to the benefit of section 80 of the Indian Penal Code.

On the other hand, it was contended by the learned Additional Government Advocate that there was no question of the application of section 80 of the Code, which refers to an act which is done by accident or misfortune and without any criminal intention or knowledge in the doing of a lawful act in a lawful manner by lawful means and with proper care and caution.

The incident has not taken place as a result of a sudden quarrel and there was no question of application of section 3041 PC as the incident had taken place not at the shop, but in front of the house of Brahamdutt.

We think that learned Counsel has wrongly mentioned section 80, which is wholly inapplicable to the facts, but he was actually meaning section 86. This section is meant for cases where an offence requiring a particular intent or knowledge is committed by one who is intoxicated. The said section, however, makes it clear that simply because an offence is committed when a person is intoxicated, it shall be dealt with as if the person had the same knowledge as he would have had if he was not intoxicated, unless the thing which intoxicated him was administered to him without his knowledge or against his will.

Here, it is the prosecution case that the accused and the deceased were voluntarily, consuming liquor at the shop of Raju Singh. Therefore, there is no force in the prayer for bail. It is accordingly rejected.