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

2009 Supreme(SC) 1599

Supreme Court of India
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DALVEER BHANDARI & THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA
Raj Narain Singh
Versus
State of U. P. & Others
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOs. 891-892 OF 2002 With Criminal Appeal Nos. 18111812 of 2009 (Arising out of S.L.P (Crl.) Nos. 3595-3596 of 2002)
Decided On : 18-09-2009

Advocates Appeared: For the Appearing parties:U.U. Lalit, Senior Advocate, Shail Kumar Dwivedi, AAG, P.K. Jain, Sudhakar Diwedi, Arun Chaudhaury, S.P. Singh, Prashant Choudhary, Garvesh Kabra, Shrish Kumar Misra, Vijay Kumar, C. Jay Raij, Venkateswara Rao Anumolu, Pankaj Kumar, Prashant Choudhary, Advocates.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860-Sections 302, 307, 323, 342 r/w 34-Murder and wrongful confinement-Acquittal by High Court-Place of occurrence not in dispute-Eye-witnesses fully proved incident and corroborated statements mentioned in FIR-There is no inconsistency in statement of all three witnesses-Injuries on deceased persons found to be on chest which is a vital part of body-Nothing on record to suggest that act of accused persons was in exercise of their right of private defence-Prompt registration of FIR not in doubt-High Court clearly erred in reversing order of conviction recorded by Trial Court-Impugned judgment set aside-Judgment and decision of Trial Court restored-Appeals allowed. (Paras 7, 12, 13, 16, 17, 18, 22 to 25)

       Constitution of India-Article 136-Appeal-Scope of appeal under Article 136 is very limited-Even if two views are reasonably possible, one indicating conviction and other acquittal Apex Court will not interfere with order of acquittal-But, Apex Court will not hesitate to interfere if acquittal is perverse. (Para 8)

       (2000)3 SCC 454; (2007) 4 SCC 415; (2008) 10 SCC 450-Relied upon

       Indian Evidence Act, 1872-Section 134-Number of witnesses-It is not necessary that all those persons who were present at the spot must be examined by prosecution in order to prove guilt of accused-No particular number of witnesses is required for proof of any fact-It is not number of witnesses but it is quality of evidence which is required to be taken note of by Courts for ascertaining truth of allegations made against accused-If testimonies of those witnesses, who have deposed during trial are otherwise found to be reliable, trustworthy and cogent said evidence cannot be disbelieved merely because prosecution has failed to examine other witnesses allegedly present on spot. (Paras 20 and 21)

       (2001) 6 SCC 145-Relied on

Judgment :

Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, J.

1.1. Leave Granted.

2.2. The present Criminal Appeals have been preferred against the judgment and order passed by the Allahabad High Court whereby it reversed the judgment and order of conviction passed by the trial Court under Sections 302, 307, 323, 342 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short "the IPC") and Sections 27 and 30 of the Arms Act.

3.3. The facts leading to the filing of the present appeals, as per the prosecution, in brief are that on 23.05.1994, i.e., a day prior to the date of the occurrence, Sunil Singh alias Guddoo (PW-2), a resident of village Vasnari, Police Station, Kerakat, District Jaunpur came to visit the house of Raj Narain Singh (PW-1), complainant/appellant herein who is a resident of village Pravaspur, Police Station, Mariyahun, District Jaunpur for the

`Bidai of his sister in connection with a marriage in PW-2s family. On the fateful day, i.e., 24.05.1994 at around 8.30 a.m., PW-2 went to the petrol pump known as the Dharamraj Service Station, Pali owned by the accused persons for procuring petrol for his scooter. At the petrol pump, an altercation arose between PW-2 and Prabhakar Pandey (Accused No.3), and the same ended up in a fight between them. Shortly after PW-2 had left the house of PW-1, PW-1 alongwith one Adya Prasad also left the house for going to the examination centre where they were to evaluate the board examination answer books. On their way to the said examination centre, PW-1 and said Adya Prasad saw that PW-2 was being dragged and beaten by the accused persons. On seeing this, PW-1 and Adya Prasad tried to intervene. At this, Accused No. 3 exhorted Pushkar Pandey (Accused No. 2) to shoot the interveners, whereupon, Accused No. 2 fired a shot from his double barrel gun which compelled PW-1 and his companion to retreat to safety. The gunshot and the resulting commotion attracted the attention of Rajesh and Brijesh, both sons of PW-1, who then emerged from the village pathway on their motorcycle and reached the spot. Karunakar Pandey (Accused No.1) and Accused No. 3 exhorted Accused No. 2 to kill both Rajesh and Brijesh. Shots fired by Accused No. 2 hit Rajesh and Brijesh, as a result of which, both fell down from their motorcycle and died on the spot. The aforesaid incident was witnessed by Ramjee Maurya (PW-3), Virendra Singh, Bhola Nath Singh and several other persons. PW-2 was taken captive by the accused persons inside the said service station showroom. Immediately thereafter, PW-1 went to the Police Station, Mariyahun and lodged a written report at about 9.10 a.m. on the same day. On the basis of the aforesaid written report, the First Information Report (in short "the FIR") was registered by the Head Constable Jeet Bahadur Singh (PW-8) and a Crime Case No. 178/1994 was registered in the presence of SSI Narendra Pratap Singh (PW-11) under Sections 323, 342, 307, 302 of the IPC. Thereafter, PW-11 proceeded to the spot of occurrence. On reaching the spot of occurrence, PW-11 noticed PW 2 being kept captive by the accused Nos. 1 and 2 inside the showroom. Thereupon, he proceeded towards the showroom and on seeing him the two accused tried to flee away from the place of occurrence. They were, however, apprehended and on searching them, PW-11 recovered a pistol and a gun from their possession. Accused No.3 was found to be absconding from the spot of occurrence. PW-2 was then freed from the custody and sent to the police station along with Constable Sunil Kumar Singh for the purpose of medical treatment. The statement of PW-1 was recorded on the spot and that of PW-2 was recorded after he returned back after undergoing medical examination. Subsequently, with the help of PW-1 and PW-2, a site plan was prepared and four empty cartridges of 12 bore were seized by the police. Dr. M. L. Srivastava (PW-4), who had examined PW-2 on 24.05.1994 at 1.50

p.m. in his report, mentioned about four injuries on the person of PW-2. Dr. C.K. Gupta (PW-7) h












































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