Back
2009(5) Supreme 438
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dr. Mukundakam Sharma and Dr. B.S. Chauhan, JJ.
Ramvir & Ors. — Appellants
versus
State of U.P. — Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1108 of 2007
Decided on : 06-07-2009
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302r\w 34–Conviction of appellants three in number for causing death of deceased by knife injury – Appeals against conviction – Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, held that story put up by the prosecution regarding the role of appellant Nos. 2 and 3 was exaggerated and improbable – No allegation that these two persons appellant No. 2 and 3 were carrying any weapon in their hands – Apart from that it was also proved that they were coming to place of occurrence from another direction – Hence role ascribed to appellant Nos. 2 and 3 was found to be unbelievable-Their presence at the place of occurrence being also doubtful benefit of doubt extended so far as appellant Nos. 2 and 3 were concerned – However, the fact that appellant No. 1 had given knife blow which had pierced through the chest and had also pierced the lung, the gravity of the blow and the dimension of the injury clearly proved that appellant No.1 had intention and knowledge of killing the deceased – Conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant No. 1 by both the trial Court as well as High Court was affirmed. (Paras 14 to 20)
Facts of the Case :
Appellants three in number were convicted herein in the instant case for causing death of deceased by knife injury. Present appeals have been filed against said order of conviction.
Findings of the Court :
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, held that story put up by the prosecution regarding the role of appellant Nos. 2 and 3 was exaggerated and improbable. No allegation that these two persons appellant No. 2 and 3 were carrying any weapon in their hands. Apart from that it was also proved that they were coming to place of occurrence from another direction. Hence role ascribed to appellant Nos. 2 and 3 was found to be unbelievable. Their presence at the place of occurrence being also doubtful benefit of doubt extended so far as appellant Nos. 2 and 3 were concerned. However, the fact that appellant No. 1 had given knife blow which had pierced through the chest and has also pierced the lung, the gravity of the blow and the dimension of the injury clearly proved that appellant No.1 had intention and knowledge of killing the deceased. Conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant No. 1 by both the trial Court as well as High Court was affirmed.
Result : Ordered accordingly.
JUDGMENT
Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, J.—
1. The appellants herein are the real brothers who have been convicted and sentenced under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (in short “the IPC”) and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. The Trial Court found the appellant No. 1 herein, Ramvir guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC whereas the appellant Nos. 2 and 3, namely, Ranpal Singh and Chatar Singh respectively were found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and each of them was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment.
2. The First Information Report (in short “the FIR”) reveals that on 17.04.1978 at about 6.15 p.m. when the deceased Yashpal while going to his Gher was surrounded by the appellants namely Ramvir, Ranpal Singh and Chatar Singh near the field of Nek Ram. After surrounding the deceased, Chatar Singh and Ranpal Singh embraced the deceased while Ramvir gave a knife blow on the chest of the deceased. The deceased cried out upon which the complainant and the witnesses reached the place of occurrence. On seeing the complainant and the winesses, the appellants fled away from the place of occurrence. Deceased Yashpal instantaneously died on account of the injury received.
3. The prosecution proved the motive of the accused - appellant against the deceased Yashpal stating it to be a case of election rivalry inasmuch as election of the Society had taken place in the village in which three candidates contested the election against the complainant. The deceased Yashpal took active part in the election and during the campaign an altercation had taken place between the deceased - Yashpal and the appellant No. 1 Ramvir upon which Ramvir threatened to kill the deceased and since then the appellants were having enmity with the deceased - Yashpal.
4. The aforesaid FIR was lodged immediately at the Police Station after the occurrence. As already noted the incident took place at about 6.15 p.m. whereas the FIR was lodged at 7.35 p.m.
5. On receipt of the aforesaid FIR the Police started the investigation during the course of which the statement of the witnesses were recorded and on completion of the investigation a charge sheet was submitted against all the accused appellants. At the time of framing of the charge, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6. The Sessions Judge framed the charge against appellant - Ramvir under Section 302 IPC while the other two accused, namely, Ranpal Singh and Chatar Singh were charged under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. During the trial eight witnesses were examined including PW-1 (Giriraj Singh), PW-2 (Rajpal), PW-3 (Nek Ram) and PW-4 (Deopal Singh), who are stated to be the eye witnesses of the occurrence. All four of them in their examination-in-chief have supported the prosecution version of the case. The said witnesses were also cross-examined at length by the defence. The other witnesses examined are of formal nature. PW-5 (Dr. Aqil Ahmed) who conducted the post mortem examination of the deceased Yashpal found the following antemortem injuries:-
“Star wound 1 =” X 1" (chest cavity) on right side chest 2 above right nipple at 12 O’ clock position.”
7. PW-6 (S.I. Mahendra Singh) and PW-7 (S.I. Ranvir Singh) are the investigating officers whereas PW-8 (Jag Mohan) is the constable who had taken the dead body for post mortem examination. The accused was examined under Section 313 of the Code fo Criminal Procedure, 1973.
8. The defense also examined one witness on his behalf namely Sri Krishna Kumar Bhardwaj as DW-1. The aforesaid witness was examined by the defense with a plea that the FIR was ante timed and for that reason the special report was sent late to the District Magistrate, Bulandshahr.
9. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has raised many submissions before us. His first submission was that the FIR is ante timed and that the time of incident has also been changed by the prosecution to sui
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
