Back
2010 (7) Supreme 349
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B. Sudershan Reddy and Surinder Singh Nijjar, JJ.
Surendra Pal & Ors. — Appellants
versus
State of U.P. & Anr. — Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 662 of 2006
Decided on : 16-9-2010
Constitution of India,1950-Article 136-Scope and Ambit of -Apex Court should not embark upon a reappreciation of the evidence, when both the Sessions Court and the High Court have agreed in their appreciation of the evidence and arrived at concurrent findings of fact- It is always necessary to bear in mind limited scope of the proceedings under Article 136 of the Constitution of India which cannot be converted into a third appeal on facts-Mere errors in appreciation of the evidence are not enough to attract Apex Court’s ‘invigilatory jurisdiction’- It is settled law that this Court may interfere in rare and exceptional cases where there is some manifest illegality or grave and serious miscarriage of justice. (Para 3)
Criminal Trial-Delay in lodging the report and the FIR- The incident had taken place in the midnight at about 12 O Clock- The report was lodged by PW 1 in the early morning at about 5.30 a.m. in the police station which was at a distance of about 4 or 5 kilometers from the place of occurrence- Three persons in the family were killed by a group of persons armed with deadly weapons- The entire village was terror stricken- One did not expect that under those circumstances someone to rush to the police station and lodge the first information report- First information report lodged within 5 to 5= hours immediately after the incident by no stretch of imagination could be characterized as delayed one- Report was received by Station House Officer and FIR was issued immediately thereafter- It was of no consequence whether the first information report contained his signature or not- Again there was no material available on record to arrive at any conclusion that the first information report lodged by PW 1 itself was after some deliberations and consultations in the police station. (Para 11)
Criminal Trial –Non mentioning of names of accused and details of weapons possessed by each one of the accused who participated in the assault in the inquest report-Whether fatal to prosecution case-Held purpose of preparation of inquest report is to ascertain whether a person has died in some suspicious circumstances or an unnatural death and as to the apparent cause of death- The inquest report need not contain details as to how the deceased were assaulted or who assaulted them- The omission of names of the accused and minute details of assault in the inquest report itself is not enough to disbelieve the prosecution case-Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not mandate investigating officer to mention the names of the assailants in the inquest report- There is no other provision in law or practice requiring the purpose to mention the names of the assailants and weapons possessed by them in the inquest report-The omission thereof does not lead to any inference to doubt the prosecution case- Such omissions are not fatal to the prosecution case- It is settled principle that merely because the witnesses on the inquest report who are also eyewitnesses did not give out the name of the accused persons while describing the cause of death in the inquest report does not render the presence of the eyewitnesses on the spot doubtful. (Para 12)
Facts of the Case :
Appellant accused persons four in number along with coaccused persons were prosecuted herein in the instant case for going to village of “A” deceased armed with country made pistols and rifle demanding him to enter into a compromise with regard to a case lodged by “A” complaining about his daughter’s abduction.Since “A” did not agree for proposal and enraged by adamant attitude of “A”, accused all of a sudden started indiscriminate firing from their weapons resulting in death of A and two others and injuries to three persons.Trial Court while acquitting five accused persons convicted appellants.Appeal thereagainst was Dismissed by High Court.
2. Present appeal has been filed against said order of High Court.
Findings of the Court :
PWs 1, 2, 3 & 4 were natural witnesses to the occurrence. The mere fact that they were related to each other itself was no ground to discard their evidence.Evidence of relatives of the deceased is to be carefully scrutinized and appreciated before resting the conclusions to convict accused in a given case. In the instant case, Sessions Court properly appreciated evidence and meticulously analyzed the same and the High Court upon reappreciation of evidence concurred with the view taken by the Sessions Court. Moreover, the very fact that PWs 2 to 4 were injured in the incident established their presence at the scene of offence.No reason to disbelieve their evidence only on the ground that they are interrelated to each other and also to the deceased. Evidence of PWs 1 to 4 was consistent with what had been stated by PW 1 in the very first information report that accused were identified in the moonlight and electric light. High Court had on reappreciation of the evidence concurred with that finding recorded by Sessions Judge.No interference was called for with the concurrent finding of fact arrived at by the Courts below.Appeal was dismissed.
Result : Appeal dismissed
JUDGMENT
B. Sudershan Reddy, J. —
1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the final judgment and order dated 2nd December, 2005 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Appeal No. 4703 of 2004 whereby the Hon’ble High Court dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellants and thereby maintaining the conviction of the appellants under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) with modification of sentence of death by substituting it to imprisonment for life. The conviction and sentences awarded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 4, Meerut against the appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 307 read with 149, IPC have been confirmed. Hence this appeal.
2. The main question that arises for our consideration in the instant appeal is whether the courts below committed any serious error in convicting the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 302? Whether the courts below committed any error in convicting the appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 307 read with Section 149? Whether the findings concurrently recorded by the courts below to convict the appellants under the said provisions are so perverse and ex-facie unacceptable and therefore require our interference in this appeal preferred with leave granted under Article 136 of the Constitution of India?
3. It is fairly well settled and needs no restatement that this Court should not embark upon a reappreciation of the evidence, when both the Sessions Court and the High Court have agreed in their appreciation of the evidence and arrived at concurrent findings of fact. This Court time and again held that it is always necessary to bear in mind the limited scope of the proceedings under Article 136 of the Constitution of India which cannot be converted into a third appeal on facts. Mere errors in appreciation of the evidence are not enough to attract this Court’s ‘invigilatory jurisdiction’. It is settled law that this Court may interfere in rare and exceptional cases where there is some manifest illegality or grave and serious miscarriage of justice.
4. We shall bear this settled legal position in mind and proceed to consider whether the findings of fact reached by the courts below concurrently on appreciation of evidence suffer from any error of law or have resulted in miscarriage of justice requiring our interference in this appeal. Whether the view taken by the High Court on reappreciation of the evidence to agree with the appreciation of evidence by the Sessions Court is so perverse resulting in miscarriage of justice.?
5. In all there were 11 accused sent up for trial before the learned Sessions Judge, the Sessions Court, however, acquitted five accused and found them not guilty of charges framed against them. Accused Rajneesh is absconding. Accused Aman Singh did not file any appeal. Hence, in this appeal, we are concerned with conviction and sentence of only the present appellants i.e. accused nos. 1 to 4.
BACKGROUND FACTS
6. The prosecution case in short is that an incident occurred on the intervening night of 24/25th May, 1999 at about 12 O’ clock in Lalpur village, Police Station Bhawanpur, District Meerut. It is the case of the prosecution that on that intervening night the appellants along with other accused and two unknown persons armed with country made pistols and rifle came to the village demanding Ajab Singh (one of the deceased) to enter into a compromise with regard to a case lodged by Ajab Singh complaining about his daughter’s abduction on 5.11.1997 by Rajneesh and Vikram. The said case was pending in a court. Apart from that case, some other cases were also pending between the parties. Ajab Singh did not agree for the proposal and enraged by adamant attitude of Ajab Singh, the accused all of a sudden started indiscriminate firing from their weapons resulting in death of Ajab Singh, Hari Singh @ Hariya and Geeta. Raj Pal (PW-3)
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
