IMPORTANT POINTS
It is well settled that when soon after the occurrence the FIR is lodged at the police station, false story being cooked up and/or false implication of accused stands ruled out.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code,1860-Section 302 - Prosecution of appellant along with others for causing death of deceased by gun shot injuries-Conviction by Trial Court-Appeal- Dismissed by High Court-Appeal- Sworn testimony of informant that appellant, who was having a gun, had fired a shot at the deceased as a result of which the deceased had fallen down on the road- Though this witness was cross-examined searchingly, nothing could be elicited to establish that appellant and others were falsely implicated in the case because of enmity- Her testimony was fully corroborated by contents of FIR lodged by her- FIR was neither ante-timed nor delayed and same was filed promptly-The testimony of wife of deceased was also corroborated by testimony of PW-2 son of deceased -PW1 and PW-2 being close relatives of the deceased, no reason for them allow real culprits to go scot free and implicate appellant falsely in the case-The appreciation of evidence by trial court and High Court was neither perverse nor unreasonable-Finding of trial court and High Court that appellant caused death of deceased held liable to be upheld- Prosecution had satisfactorily established that a quarrel between children of two families, i.e., family of the deceased and the family of K had ensued on the day of incident and, in order to see that disputes were settled amicably, deceased had gone to the house of K but he was humiliated by K and his sons and he had to come back- The evidence further showed that accused had decided to liquidate deceased and were, therefore, standing in front of their house with weapons and appellant had killed deceased by firing shot from the gun at him- The eye witnesses, had narrated whole incident before court on oath in a simple manner without any material improvement- No major discrepancy could be brought to the notice of the court by appellant, which would make testimony of eye witnesses unreliable- Conviction of appellant under Section 302 of IPC as well as imposition of sentence of life imprisonment held to be well-founded - No case made out by appellant to interfere with the same- Appeal, having no merit, dismissed. (Paras 7 to 11)
       Facts of the Case :
        Appellant was prosecuted herein in the instant case along with others for causing death of deceased by gun shot injuries. Trial Court convicted appellant along with others. Appeal thereagainst was Dismissed by High Court.
        2. Present appeal has been filed against said order of High Court.
       Findings of the Court :
        The Court held that it was Sworn testimony of informant that appellant, who was having a gun, had fired a shot at the deceased as a result of which the deceased had fallen down on the road. Though this witness was cross-examined searchingly, nothing could be elicited to establish that appellant and others were falsely implicated in the case because of enmity. Her testimony was fully corroborated by contents of FIR lodged by her. FIR was neither ante-timed nor delayed and same was filed promptly.The testimony of wife of deceased was also corroborated by testimony of PW-2. son of deceased .PW1 and PW-2 being close relatives of the deceased, there was no reason for them allow real culprits to go scot free and implicate appellant falsely in the case. Prosecution had satisfactorily established that a quarrel between children of two families, i.e., family of the deceased and the family of K had ensued on the day of incident and, in order to see that disputes were settled amicably, deceased had gone to the house of K but he was humiliated by K and his sons and he had to come back. The evidence further showed that accused had decided to liquidate deceased and were, therefore, standing in front of their house with weapons and appellant had killed deceased by firing shot from the gun at him. The eye witnesses, had narrated whole incident before court on oath in a simple manner without any material improvement. No major discrepancy could be brought to the notice of the court by appellant, which would make testimony of eye witnesses unreliable. The appreciation of evidence by trial court and High Court was neither perverse nor unreasonable. Finding of trial court and High Court that appellant caused death of deceased was held liable to be upheld. Conviction of appellant under Section 302 of IPC as well as imposition of sentence of life imprisonment was held to be well-founded .No case was made out by appellant to interfere with the same. Appeal, having no merit was dismissed.
       Result : Appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT

J.M. Panchal, J.—

This appeal, by special leave, is directed against judgment dated July 11, 2005, rendered by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Appeal No. 2402 of 1985 by which the conviction of the appellant recorded under Section 302 IPC and imposition of sentence of life imprisonment on him by learned V Additional Sessions Judge, Moradabad in ST No. 622 of 1983, is confirmed

2. The facts emerging from the record of the case are as under: -

Deceased Ram Kumar Singh was resident of village Dudaila, District Muradabad. Some six months prior to the incident in question, some dispute had taken place between Ram Kumar Singh who lost his life in the incident and Kallu Singh, i.e. original accused No.3 over the question of digging and lifting of the earth from the land of accused No.3 for the purpose of raising of level of a village pathway which was decided to be constructed by village people at a Shramdan Yojna held in the village. Ever since the said dispute, the parties were not on the talking terms with each other. On May 30, 1983 at about 2.00 pm, some quarrel had taken place between the grandsons of original accused No. 3, i.e., Kallu Singh and children of Ram Kumar Singh. The appellant, i.e., Kirpal Singh who was original accused No.1, Vijay Pal Singh, who was original accused No. 2 and Devender Kumar, who was original accused No. 4, are sons of original accused No. 3, i.e., Kallu Singh. Ram Kumar Singh went to the house of original accused No. 3, i.e., Kallu Singh for getting the quarrel settled but Kallu Singh and his sons not only abused him but were found to be ready to assault him. At that point of time Ram Swarup and others, who were present there, intervened. At about 7.00 pm on the same day, Ram Kumar Singh, his wife Mrs. Jishna and his son Rupender Kumar were returning home from the jungle. Ram Kumar Singh was slightly ahead of his wife and son. Whey they reached near the house of the accused, who were standing in front of their house, Kallu Singh is said to have exhorted his sons to kill Ram Kumar Singh and finish the dispute for ever, whereupon the appellant fired a shot from his gun at Ram Kumar Singh which hit his chest. On sustaining the gunshot injury, Ram Kumar Singh tumbled down on the road. On hearing the cries of Mrs. Jishna, wife of Ram Kumar Singh and noise of the gun shot, Hari Raj Singh, Rattu Singh and others reached the place of incident. Another shot at Ram Kumar Singh was fired by original accused No. 2, i.e., Vijay Pal Singh from his country made pistol, which hit Mrs. Shanti Devi, wife of Nathu Singh. As the people gathered at the place of incident, Kallu Singh and his sons made their escape good. Ram Kumar Singh, who had sustained fire arm injuries, was removed to Government Hospital, Kanth in a tractor, which was arranged by his wife Mrs. Jishna. Injured Ram Kumar Singh succumbed to his injuries at the hospital and was declared dead by the Medical Officer at about 10.15 pm. Mrs. Jishna thereafter got a report scribed through one Anand Kumar in the hospital premises and lodged the same at the police outpost Kanth, at 10.50 pm. On the basis of the First Information Report, offences punishable under Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code were registered against the four accused. After necessary investigation, charge-sheet was submitted in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Moradabad. As the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 307 are exclusively triable by a court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Court of learned V Additional Sessions Judge, Moradabad for trial.

3. The learned Judge framed charge against the appellant under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code whereas other accused were charged under Section 302 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. All the four accused, including the appellant, were also charged under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The Charge was read over and ex

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2010 Supreme(SC) 188

2010 (2) Supreme 277SUPREME COURT OF INDIAB. Sudershan Reddy and J.M. Panchal, JJ.Kirpal Singh — AppellantversusState of U.P. — RespondentCriminal Appeal No. 235 of 2006Decided on : 23-02-2010

IMPORTANT POINTS It is well settled that when soon after the occurrence the FIR is lodged at the police station, false story being cooked up and/or false implication of accused stands ruled out.

2010 (2) Supreme 277
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B. Sudershan Reddy and J.M. Panchal, JJ.
Kirpal Singh — Appellant
versus
State of U.P. — Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 235 of 2006
Decided on : 23-02-2010

IMPORTANT POINTS
It is well settled that when soon after the occurrence the FIR is lodged at the police station, false story being cooked up and/or false implication of accused stands ruled out.