Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2009 Supreme(SC) 82

2009(1) Supreme 364
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Lokeshwar Singh Panta and B. Sudershan Reddy, JJ.
Satvir — Appellant
versus
State of Uttar Pradesh — Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 551 of 2005
Decided on : 21-01-2009

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant :Shakil Ahmed Syed, Advocate.
For the Respondent:T.N. Singh, Rajeev Dubey and Kamlendra Mishra, Advocates.

IMPORTANT POINT
Where no reliable and clinching evidence was led by prosecution to prove guilt of acquitted accused and where evidence of eyewitnesses proved that appellant along with other co-accused persons caused grievous injuries to deceased with knife, then contention of appellant that he was entitled to benefit of doubt in same manner as other acquitted accused was held unacceptable.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302, 148, 149, 147 – Prosecution of accused persons eight in number for causing death of deceased by assaulting him with knives – Conviction by trial court – Appeal – High Court while acquitting A1 to A4, convicted appellant and other accused persons u/s 302 IPC r/w 34 – Appeal – Plea of appellant that his case ought to have been treated at par with evidence appearing against acquitted persons – Evidence of eyewitnesses Pw1, Pw2 and Pw4 concise, precise and satisfactory on point that they had seen appellant and other co-accused persons causing grievous injuries to deceased with knife which each was carrying with him and due to fatal injuries, he died on spot – Evidence of said three eyewitnesses neither embellished nor embroidered – No particular reason for Pw1, Pw2, Pw4 to falsely depose against appellant – Simply because eyewitnesses did not make any attempt to save life of deceased from clutches of accused persons, their abnormal conduct by itself could not be taken as a ground to disbelieve and discard their testimony in regard to genesis of occurrence and part played by appellant and other convicted persons in the commission of offence – Ocular version of eyewitnesses was also corroborated by post-mortem report – Courts below properly and rightly reassessed and reappraised entire evidence on record – No infirmity or perversity found in findings recorded by Courts below warranting interference – High Court had not found any reliable and clinching evidence led by prosecution to prove guilt of acquitted accused – Hence contention that appellant was entitled to benefit of doubt in same manner as other acquitted accused held unacceptable – Appeal having no merit, dismissed. (Paras 22 to 27)
       Facts of the case :
        1. Appellant herein in the instant case was convicted by trial Court alongwith coaccused persons for causing death of deceased by assaulting him with knife blows. On appeal, High Court while acquitting A1 to A4, upheld conviction of appellant and rest of accused persons.
        2. Aggrieved, by said order of conviction recorded by High Court, appellant has preferred present appeal.
       Findings of the Court :
        Evidence of eyewitnesses concise, precise and satisfactory on point that they had seen appellant A5 and A6 and A7 causing grievous injuries to deceased with knife which each was carrying with him and due to fatal injuries he died on spot. No particular reason for eyewitnesses to falsely depose against appellant. Ocular version of eyewitnesses was corroborated by post-mortem report. No reliable and clinching evidence was led by prosecution to prove guilt of acquitted accused. Hence contention of appellant that he was entitled to benefit of doubt in same manner as other acquitted accused was held to be unacceptable. Appeal having no merit was dismissed.
       Result : Appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT

Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J. —

1. Eight accused, namely, (1) Fateh Singh, (2) Ram Chander, (3) Brahma, (4) Satvir, (5) Ram Saran, (6) Harbir, (7) Pratap and (8) Genda were tried by learned VI Additional District & Sessions Judge, Meerut, in Sessions Trial No. 70 of 1978 for committing the murder of Hari Dutt Singh.

2. By judgment and order dated 05.12.1979, the learned trial judge convicted all the accused under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (for short “IPC”) and sentenced each to imprisonment for life. The accused - Ram Saran, Satvir and Harbir have been further convicted under Section 148 IPC and each sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment, whereas Fateh Singh, Genda, Pratap, Brahma and Ram Chander have been convicted under Section 147 IPC and sentenced to one year rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences were, however, ordered to run concurrently.

3. The accused persons filed joint appeal in the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. The High Court by final judgment and order dated 25.02.2003 modified the judgment of the trial court. It converted the conviction of accused Satvir, Ram Saran and Harbir to Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced them to undergo life imprisonment. It, however, acquitted Ram Chander, Brahma, Pratap and Genda. Fateh Singh accused, during the pendency of the appeal before the High Court, had died; therefore his appeal stood abated.

4. Satvir appellant herein, has now approached this Court in this appeal. The learned counsel for the parties stated before us that no appeal appears to have been filed by other convicts, namely, Ram Saran and Harbir against the judgment and order of the High Court.

5. The incident leading to the prosecution of the appellant occurred on 31.10.1977 at about 4 P.M. in the jungle of village Ahmadpuri, Police Station Parikshatgarh, District Meerut (U.P.). The report of the incident was lodged by Mahendra Singh (PW-1) an eyewitness, son of the deceased Hari Dutt Singh at about 5.30 P.M. in the Police Station in which the names of all the accused persons were mentioned.

6. The following pedigree relevant for the purpose of noticing the relationships between the parties involved in the case is as under:-

Hari Dutt Singh -----------------------Kaley -----------------Shiv Saran (Deceased) (brother of (brother of deceased) deceased)

Mahendra Singh Ram Saran Ram Chander Brahma PW-1 (son of Accused (son Accused (son of Accused (son of deceased) of Kaley) Shiv Saran) Shiv Saran)

Harbir Satvir - Appellant Accused (son of Accused (son of Ram Saran) Ram Chander)

Pratap accused is the brother-in-law of Ram Chander accused; whereas Genda is ‘Samdhi’ of accused Ram Saran and accused Fateh Singh (deceased) was uncle of Mahendra Singh (PW-1).

7. It was the prosecution case that Mahabir son of Ram Saran was murdered in the year 1976 and for the said incident; Hari Dutt Singh [deceased] and his son PW-1 were facing trial before the Court. One more criminal case filed by Smt. Sammo is pending against the deceased and PW-1 in the Court of a Magistrate at Meerut. On the day of incident, i.e. 31.10.1977, both PW-1 and Hari Dutt Singh had gone to the Court of Magistrate at Meerut to attend the proceedings in the said case but the same was adjourned at about 12 0’Clock in the noon. PW-1 and his father had returned to their village by bus. After getting down at Parikshatgarh, they started going to their village Ahmadpuri on foot. At about 4 P.M., they reached on the road dividing the fields of Balley and Muley where PW-1 was going about 20 paces ahead of his father. The accused persons hiding

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2009 Supreme(SC) 82

2009(1) Supreme 364SUPREME COURT OF INDIALokeshwar Singh Panta and B. Sudershan Reddy, JJ.Satvir — AppellantversusState of Uttar Pradesh — RespondentCriminal Appeal No. 551 of 2005Decided on : 21-01-2009

2009(1) Supreme 364
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Lokeshwar Singh Panta and B. Sudershan Reddy, JJ.
Satvir — Appellant
versus
State of Uttar Pradesh — Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 551 of 2005
Decided on : 21-01-2009