Back
2010 (7) Supreme 549
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P. Sathasivam and Dr. B.S. Chauhan, JJ.
Brahm Swaroop & Anr. — Appellants
versus
State of U.P. — Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1235 of 2005
with
Criminal Appeal Nos. 1295-1296 of 2005
Decided on : 26-10-2010
AIR 1975 SC 1252; AIR 1991 SC 1853; (1998) 4 SCC 605; (1998) 9 SCC 521; (2000) 4 SCC 84; (2003) 2 SCC 518; (2006) 2 SCC 450; AIR 2009 SC 1271 – Relied upon
(b) Criminal Trial – Eye witness – Evidence of eyewitnesses can not be discarded if their names do not figure in the inquest report prepared at the earliest point of time. (Para 7)
(c) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 174 – Any omission or discrepancy in the inquest is not fatal to the prosecution’s case – Such omissions would not necessarily lead to the inference that FIR is ante-timed. (Para 10)
(2006) 2 SCC 450; (1996) 7 SCC 194 – Relied upon
(d) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 154 – FIR – The special report should be forwarded to the jurisdictional Magistrate at the earliest – Unexplained delay in doing so may be fatal to the prosecution case. (Paras 11 to 17)
(2003) 12 SCC 792; (2003) 11 SCC 286; (2001) 3 SCC 147; (2007) 13 SCC 501; AIR 2008 SC 320; AIR 2009 SC 1866; AIR 1972 SC 2679; AIR 1976 SC 2304; (2009) 10 SCC 773; (2009) 7 SCC 415 – Relied upon
(e) Criminal Trial – Related witnesses – Merely because the witnesses were closely related to the deceased persons, their testimonies cannot be discarded. – However the court has to adopt a careful approach and analyse the evidence to find out whether it is cogent and credible evidence. (Para 21)
AIR 1953 SC 364; AIR 1965 SC 202; (2002) 3 SCC 76; (2003) 2 SCC 661 – Relied upon
(f) Criminal Trial – Injured witness – Testimony of such a witness is generally considered to be very reliable. (Para 22)
(2004) 7 SCC 629; (2006) 12 SCC 459; (2008) 8 SCC 270; (2009) 9 SCC 719; (2009) 10 SCC 477; AIR 2009 SC 2661; (2010) 6 SCC 673 – Relied upon
(g) Criminal Trial – Discrepancies – Irrelevant details which do not in any way corrode the credibility of a witness cannot be labelled as omissions or contradictions fatal to the prosecution case. (Para 25)
AIR 1985 SC 48; AIR 2007 SC 2257; AIR 2009 SC 152; (2009) 11 SCC 588 – Relied upon
(h) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 378 – The court of appeal may not interfere where two views are possible – In exceptional cases where there are compelling circumstances, and the judgment under appeal is found to be perverse, the appellate court can interfere with the order of acquittal. (Paras 26 and 30)
AIR 1974 SC 2165; (2002) 3 SCC 57; (2003) 1 SCC 398; AIR 2007 SC 3075; AIR 2008 SC 2066; (2008) 11 SCC 186; (2009) 10 SCC 206; (2009) 16 SCC 98; (2010) 2 SCC 445; (2010) 2 SCC 445; AIR 1934 PC 227; (2007) 4 SCC 415; (2009) 4 SCC 271 – Relied upon
(i) Criminal Trial – Evidence – Witness failing to give the names of fathers of the accused persons though mentioned in the FIR – Not fatal. (Para 32)
AIR 1978 SC 1142; (2006) 12 SCC 64 – Relied upon
Facts of the case:
1. Natthu Singh was shot dead and three others were seriously injured.
2. While Brahm Swaroop (A.5) and Jagdish Baggar (A.6) were acquitted of all the charges under Sections 148, 302, 149, 307, 396, 424 I.P.C. and Section 25 of the Arms Act, Chandra Pal (A.3) and Balwant (A.2) were convicted under Section 302 read with 34 I.P.C.
3. Appeal was dismissed.
Finding of the Court:
There is no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment.
Result : Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J. —
1. These appeals have been preferred against the judgment and order dated 4th May, 2005, of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 6180 of 2003, along with Criminal Appeal Nos.3749 of 2003 and 4648 of 2004, against the judgment and order of the Sessions court, Bareilly dated 5th August, 2003, in Sessions Trial No. 855 of 2001 in Crime No. 384/2000.
2. Fact and circumstances giving rise to these appeals are as under:
(A) First Information Report No.239/2000 was lodged on 31st May, 2000 at 3.20 P.M. by Atar Singh (PW.1) at Police Station Bahedi, Distt. Bareilly. It stated that his grand father Natthu Singh @ Raghunath Singh had an enmity with the family of one Nem Chand Gangwar and on that date he along with Natthu Singh @ Raghunath Singh, Rajendra Singh @ Goli, Virendra Singh, Dharam Pal Singh, Rajendra Singh and Satyapal Singh had come to Bahedi to get the Dynamo of their Jeep No. DDA 6162 repaired. Natthu Singh @ Raghunath Singh was sitting at the counter of the repairing shop, while Dharam Pal Singh and Rajendra Singh were sitting in the Jeep. Virendra Singh was standing in front of the Jeep. Gyanendra Singh kept his gun in the Jeep near Dharam Pal Singh and went towards the grove to urinate. At about 3.00 P.M., Nem Chand Gangwar (A.1) and his sons Balwant (A.2) and Chandra Pal (A.3), Jogendra (A.4), Brahm Swaroop (A.5) and Jagdish Baggar (A.6) armed with deadly weapons came there and started firing, after surrounding these persons with their respective weapons. Nem Chand Gangwar (A.1) assaulted Natthu Singh (D.1) with his Kanta. He died on the spot. Rajendra Singh (D.2) and Dharampal Singh (D.4) received serious injuries by fire arm and became unconscious. Virendra Singh (D.3) fell near the Jeep after receiving fire arm injuries. The informant, Atar Singh (PW.1) also received injuries in the incident. Brahm Swaroop (A.5) took away the rifle of Rajendra Singh (D.2) and Jagdish Baggar (A.6) took away the licensed gun of Gyanendra. It was also alleged that the chap Serial No. 5809 of the gun of the accused had fallen on the spot. All the three injured persons were taken to the hospital at Bahedi. Rajendra Singh (PW.2) and Satyapal Singh also witnessed the incident.
(B) After investigation of the case, the prosecution submitted the chargesheet under Sections 396, 148, 302 read with 149, 307/149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter called the IPC). Brahm Swaroop (A.5) and Balwant (A.2) were further charged under Section 25 of the Arms Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘Arms Act’). During the trial, the prosecution examined 12 witnesses to prove its case. After considering the whole case and appreciating the evidence, on the conclusion of the trial, the Sessions court vide judgment and order dated 5th August, 2003, in Sessions Trial No. 855 of 2001 acquitted Brahm Swaroop (A.5) and Jagdish Baggar (A.6) of all the charges under Sections 148, 302, 149, 307, 396, 424 I.P.C. and Section 25 of the Arms Act. Chandra Pal (A.3) and Balwant (A.2) were convicted under Section 302 read with 34 I.P.C. and were awarded death sentence and a fine of Rs.5,000/- and, in case of failure to deposit the fine, six months imprisonment in addition. Nem Chand Gangwar (A.1) and Jogendra (A.4) were convicted under Sections 302/34 I.P.C. and awarded imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 10,000/- each, and in case of failure to deposit the fine, one year further imprisonment. Nem Chand Gangwar (A.1) and Jogendra (A.4) were further convicted under Sections 307/34 I.P.C. and awarded 10 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.5000/- each and in case of failure to deposit the fine, they would undergo 6 months imprisonment in addition.
(C) Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order of the Sessions Court, three appeals bearing Criminal Appeal No. 4648 of 2004, Criminal Appeal No. 3749 of 2003 and Government Appeal No. 6180 of 2003 were filed before the High Court of Judicature at Al
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
