SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1978 Supreme(SC) 243

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R.S. SARKARIA, O. CHINNAPPA REDDY AND A.P. SEN, JJ.
Sadhu Singh, Appellant
Versus
State of U.P., Respondent.
Criminal Appeal No. 86 of 1976
Decided on 4-9-1978.
Advocate Appeared
Mr. D. Mookerjee, Sr. Advocate (Mr. D. N. Mukherjee Advocate with him), for Appellant; M/s. S. N. Singh and O. P. Rana Advocates, for Respondent.

Headnote:

Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 - House of armed with pistol - Investigation - Appellant alias Surya was convicted of murders of and sentenced to death by VI Additional District and Sessions Judge Allahabad - Sentence of death was confirmed by High Court and appellant has come up in appeal by special leave - Father were also tried by learned Sessions Judge were acquitted was convicted Section Indian Penal Code read with Section and sentenced to imprisonment for life by Sessions Judge - There was an appeal by against his conviction while State preferred an appeal against order of acquittal– Held, Appellant himself in his statement did not choose to dispute fact that she was living with her grandfather - He was content to say that used to come to village sometimes - Very details of topography of village which has given do not leave any doubt in our minds that was residing with her grandfather since long - If she was living in house of her grandfather she would undoubtedly be a natural witness to occurrence - No doubt she is a child witness but she is an unusually intelligent child - Court do not think her evidence suffers from any infirmity which would entitle us to discredit her - In regard to remaining witnesses High Court found that they were inimically disposed towards accused persons but by itself that cannot be ground for total rejection of their evidence -Their evidence also implicates appellant fully - It may be noticed here that firing of all shots both has been attributed to appellant only - If witnesses were going all out to falsely implicate their enemies principal of whom was nothing could have been easier than to attribute one or more of three shots fired at each of deceased persons - That was not done by any of witnesses - Court do not consider it necessary to discuss evidence of these witnesses in any great detail having regard to what court have said about evidence - Appeal partly allowed

JUDGMENT

CHINNAPPA REDDY, J. :— The appellant Sadhu Singh alias Surya Pratap Singh was convicted of the murders of the Shyama Devi and Randhir Singh and sentenced to death by the learned VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Allahabad. The sentence of death was confirmed by the High Court and the appellant has come up in appeal by special leave. Sadhu Singhs father Udai Raj Singh, Nagendra Nath Singh and Bhuleshwar Nath were also tried by the learned Sessions Judge. Nagendra Nath Singh and Bhuleshwar Nath were acquitted and Udai Raj Singh was convicted under Section 302 Indian Penal Code read with Section 34 and sentenced to imprisonment for life by the learned Sessions Judge. There was an appeal by Udai Raj Singh against his conviction while the State preferred an appeal against the order of acquittal of Nagendra Nath Singh and Bhuleshwar Nath. Udai Raj Singhs appeal was allowed and he was also acquitted. The appeal by the State was dismissed.

2. The case of the prosecution briefly was as follows : Randhir Singh owned about 45 bighas of land in the village of Nadula. His only son had died about 14 years before the occurrence and his widowed daughter-in-law Shyama Devi was living with him. Randhir Singh was aged about 70 years at the time of his death. Shyama Devi was aged about 35 years. Randhir Singh and Shyama Devi used to attend to the cultivation of land. Randhir Singh had a daughter who was living with her husband in another village about 20 miles from Nadula. Their daughter Deomani was living with her grand father Randhir Singh and aunt Shyama Devi in the Village of Nadula. At the time of the occurrence Deomani was aged about 13 years. As Randhir Singh had no male issue, Udai Raj Singh and his son Sadhu Singh wanted to grab his property. Randhir Singh apprehended danger to his life and in fact made a complaint Exh. Ka 53 and sought police protection. On 26th March, 1973, at about 7-30 a.m. Deomani (P. W. 2) was sitting at the door of her house while Shyama Devi was tethering a cow in front of the house. At that time Randhir Singh was sitting in front of a cycle repair shop about 100 yards away and attending to the harvesting of his wheat crop. The four accused came to the house of Randhir Singh. Sadhu Singh was armed with a pistol, Udai Raj Singh was armed with a gun while Nagendra Nath Singh and Bhuleshwar Nath were armed with a spear and a Gandasa respectively. Seeing Shyama Devi, Udai Raj Singh and the others shouted "Kill the Sali, she has become the owner of the property". Shyama Devi started running. Sadhu Singh chased her and shot at her with his pistol. He fired three shots. Shyama Devi fell down dead. Deomani (P. W. 2) started running to the place where her grandfather Randhir Singh was sitting in order to convey the information to him. While she was going towards her grandfather crying and shouting, the four accused also came to the place where her grandfather was sitting. Randhir Singh tried to escape by attempting to run into the house of Jagdeo. Sadhu Singh chased him and fired three shots at him. Randhir Singh also fell down dead. Thereafter the accused persons ran away. The occurrence was witnessed, amongst others, by Mataphal (P. W. 3), Jagbir Singh (P. W. 4) and Amar Nath (P. W. 5). Mataphal and Amar Nath witnessed the shooting of Randhir Singh only while Jagbir Singh witnessed the shooting of both Randhir Singh and Shyama Devi. After the accused persons ran away Deomani, Mataphal and other witnesses went to the spot where Randhir Singh had fallen and found him dead. Deomani got a report Ex. Ka 1 prepared by Mataphal. Deomani and Mataphal went to the Police Station at Sarai Mamrez, four miles away, and presented the report to the Sub-Inspector (P. W. 11) at 10.05 a.m. On receipt of the report P. W. 11 recorded the statement of P. W. 3 and then proceeded to the village for investigation. After holding the inquest, he arranged to send the two dead bodies for autopsy. P. W. 8 the Reader in Forensic Me












Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top