Amrik Singh, Satnam Singh vs State Of Rajasthan

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1993 Supreme(SC) 1182

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(BEFORE DR A.S. ANAND AND N.P. SINGH, JJ.)
AMRIK SINGH, SATNAM SINGH AND ANOTHER
Versus
STATE OF RAJASTHAN.
Criminal Appeal Nos. 859 and 232 of 1985 {From the Judgment and Order dated April 27, 1983 and December 7, 1984 of the Rajasthan High Court in D.B. Crl. A. No. 487 of 1980 and D.B. Crl. A. No. 73 of 1979}, decided on December 17, 1993
Advocates appeared
Sushil Kumar and U.R. Lalit, Senior Advocates (S.K. Jain, Kailash Mutha Jain, S.K. Jain and Sudhanshu Atreya, Advocates, with them) for the Appellants;
R. Sasiprabhu and Mahabir Singh, Advocates, for the Respondent.

Advocates:
Kailash Mutha Jain, Mahabir Singh, R.SASIPRABHU, S.K.JAIN, SUDHANSHU ATREYA, SUSHIL JAIN, U.R.Lalit

Headnote:(i) Indian Penal, Code, 1860 - Sections 3021 34 and 307/34 - Conviction under - Appeal - Solitary eye-witness was himself injured during the occurrence - He disclosed names of all the accused persons in his voluntary statement made in the hospital - Time of occurrence and weapons used by assailants also stated - He had no enmity with the accused to falsely involve them - Highly reliable witness - His testimony corroborated from medical evidence and other evidence - Fact of appellant absconding from the date of occurrence on October 31,1976 - He surrendered only on May 3, 1979 - Long absence not to be ignored - Conviction recorded is sustainable - Appreciation of evidence by both the courts is sound and proper - Acquittal of co-accused not to warrant acquittal of the appellant.
       Held: The High Court was aware of the acquittal of the co-accused and has after considering the evidence independently confirmed the order of the learned Sessions Judge convicting appellant Amrik Singh. We find that the appreciation of evidence by both the courts is sound and proper. We agree with the reasoning of the High Court in holding that the prosecution has established the case against appellant Amrik Singh beyond a reasonable doubt. In the established facts and circumstances of the case. We, however, alter the conviction of Amrik Singh from the offence under Section 302/149 I.P.C. to one under Section 302/34 I.P.C. and sentence him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,0001- (para 10)
       (ii) Evidence - Sole eye-witness -Conviction based on the testimony of - Sustainable when the testimony suffers from no infirmity. (Para 8)
       (iii) Evidence - Fact of absconding of accused - Not conclusive evidence but is a circumstance, which cannot be ignored while considering other evidence connecting the accused with the crime.
       Held: Where the other evidence is convincing and reliable, absconding assumes some importance. Amrik Singh was named at the earliest opportunity as one of the assailants in Ex. Pl. He absconded from October 31, 1976, the date of the occurrence and surrendered only on May 3,1979. It may be a coincidence but is a rather curious one, that he surrendered only after the learned Sessions Judge had acquitted all the six co-accused in Sessions Case No. 33n7 vide judgment dated August 4, 1978. No explanation, much less a reasonable one has been offered by Amrik Singh for his long absence from October 31, 1976 to May 3, 1979. Both the trial court and the High Court were therefore, quite justified in taking note of that circumstance while considering the guilt of Amrik Singh and using the same against him. (Para 9)
       (iv) Appeal- Jurisdiction and obligation of the High Court to re-appreciate the evidence is identical in case involving acquittal and conviction - In appeal against acquittal it shall take into consideration and be alive of the factors which influenced the trial Court to record an order of acquittal. (Paras 17 & 18)

Judgment

DR ANAND, J.- These two appeals arise out of an occurrence which took place on October 31, 1976, resulting in the deaths of Satveer and Lal Chand and injuries to Trilok Kumar and Bal Chand and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. Satnam Singh, Mohar Singh, Pritam Singh, Atrik Singh, Jagdish, Harbans, Amrik Singh and Chetan were arrayed as accused persons in respect of that occurrence. Pritam Singh, Harbans, Atrik Singh and Jagdish were committed to stand their trial by an order of the Judicial Magistrate dated January 25, 1977, while Mohar Singh and Satnam Singh were committed to stand their trial by a separate order. However, both the cases were consolidated vide order dated August 19, 1977. Since Amrik Singh and Chetan were absconding, they were not tried along with the other six accused persons. Subsequently Amrik Singh was also apprehended and was committed to stand his trial before the learned Sessions Judge, Jhalawar, in Sessions Case No. 63 of 1979. Chetan accused is still absconding.

3. In the first consolidated trial, the trial court accepted the evidence of alibi of Pritam Singh, Atrik Singh, Jagdish and Harbans and acquitted them. Satnam Singh and Mohar Singh were also acquitted on being granted the benefit of doubt. Thus, all the six accused in the consolidated trial were acquitted by the trial court. The State of Rajasthan filed criminal appeal against their acquittal. The High Court vide judgment dated December 7, 1984 dismissed the appeal filed by the State as against Pritam Singh, Atrik Singh, Jagdish and Harbans but set aside the order of acquittal made against Satnam Singh and Mohar Singh. They were both found guilty of causing murder of Satveer and Lal Chand and for causing injuries to Trilok Kumar and Bal Chand. They were convicted for an offence under Sections 302/34 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs 1000 and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each. They were also convicted for an offence under Sections 307/34 IPC and sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs 1000 and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. The substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. They have filed Criminal Appeal No. 232 of 1985, by special leave to question their conviction and sentence.

4. In Sessions Case No. 63 of 1979 the learned Sessions Judge, Jhalawar, convicted Amrik Singh for an offence under Sections 302/149 IPC and sentenced him to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs 1000 and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. He was also convicted for an offence under Sections 307/149 IPC and sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs 1000 and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. Conviction was also recorded against him for an offence under Section 148 IPC and he was sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment. The appeal filed by Amrik Singh against his conviction and sentences in the High Court was dismissed by the Division Bench vide judgment dated April 27, 1983 and his conviction and sentences were upheld. He has filed Criminal Appeal No. 859 of 1985 challenging his conviction and sentence.

5. The State has not filed any appeal against the acquittal of Pritam Singh, Atrik Singh, Jagdish and Harbans. Though, the incident in both theappeals is the same, we shall first notice the prosecution case and the arguments in the appeal filed by Amrik Singh (Crl. A. No. 859 of 1985).

6. On October 31, 1976 Satveer (deceased) also known as Bhai Sahab had gone to Mela ground at Bhawani Mandi to play hockey along with Trilok Kumar (PW 2), Bal Chand (PW 3) and Lal Chand (deceased). At about 6.15 p.m. all four of them were returning in the station-wagon bearing registration No. RJO 1057 belonging to Satveer (deceased). Trilok Kumar (PW 2) was driving the station-wag

Click Here to Read the rest of this document