IMPORTANT POINT
Rarest of rare cases discussed.

Headnote:(a) Criminal Trial – Motive – In case of circumstantial evidence, proof of a motive itself constitutes a link in the chain of circumstances – In case of reliable eye witnesses, however, question of motive loses significance – But a proved motive would indeed lend support to the prosecution version. (Paras 13 and 14)
        (1973) 3 SCC 219; (1996) 9 SCC 40; (2008) 16 SCC 73 – Relied upon
        (b) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 9 – It is not obligatory on the investigating agency to necessarily hold a test identification parade – Not doing so is not fatal to prosecution case. (Paras 37 and 40)
        (2003) 5 SCC 746; (2004) 13 SCC 150; (2008) 16 SCC 372 – Relied upon
        (1964) 1 SCR 678 – Distinguished impliedly
        (c) Criminal Trial – Deficiency in investigation – Deficiencies in investigation by way of omissions and lapses on the part of investigating agency cannot in themselves justify a total rejection of the prosecution case. (Para 42)
        (1998) 4 SCC 517; (2003) 12 SCC 360; (2003) 2 SCC 518 – Relied upon
        (d) Criminal Trial – Examination of witness – Mere delay in the examination of a particular witness does not render the prosecution case suspect. (Para 49)
        (1973) 2 SCC 444; (2009) 13 SCC 790 – Relied upon
        (e) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 – Death Penalty – Rarest of rare cases – Murders diabolical in conception and cruel in execution deserve death penalty – It is not only deterrent but also token of emphatic disapproval by the society. (Para 54)
        (1973) 1 SCC 20; (1980) 2 SCC 684; (1983) 3 SCC 470; (2002) 4 SCC 697; (2009) 6 SCC 498; (2009) 11 SCC 193 – Relied upon
        (f) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 – Nothing particularly brutal, grotesque, diabolical, revolting or dastardly in the manner of execution of the murder – The act does not arouse intense and extreme indignation of the community or exhaust depravity and meanness on the part of the assailants – Extreme penalty not called for. (Para 60)
       Facts of the case:
        1. On 14th April, 2000, the deceased-Shri Gurudas Chatterjee, a sitting member of Jharkhand State Legislative Assembly while returning to Nirsa from Dhanbad riding the pillion seat of a motorcycle being driven by the first informant Apurba Ghosh, was shot dead by the appellants.
        2. The trial court found the appellants Sheo Shankar Singh and Umesh Singh guilty of the charges under Section 302/34 IPC. Appellant-Umesh Singh was further held guilty of the charge under Section 27 of the Arms Act. Out of the remaining six accused persons, the trial court found Narmedeshwar Pd. Singh @ Chora Master, Bijay Singh and Md. Nooren Master guilty of the charge under Section 302 read with Section 120B of the IPC. Accused Uma Shankar Singh, Premjee Singh and Md. Zahid were, however, acquitted for insufficiency of evidence against them.
        3. High Court confirmed the conviction of appellant-Sheo Shankar Singh under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and that of appellant-Umesh Singh under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act and the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for life imposed upon the said two appellants enhanced to the sentence of death.
        4. Criminal Revision Petition No.136 of 2004 seeking enhancement of sentence imposed upon Umesh Singh and Sheo Shankar Singh has been consequently allowed by the High Court while Criminal Revision Petition No.135 of 2004 filed against the acquittal of three other accused persons Md. Zahid, Premjeet Singh and Uma Shankar Singh dismissed.
       Finding of the Court:
        The case does not call for extreme penalty of death sentence.

JUDGMENT

T.S. Thakur, J. —

1. These appeals by special leave are directed against a common judgment and order dated 6th May, 2005 passed by the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi whereby the conviction of appellant-Sheo Shankar Singh under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and that of appellant-Umesh Singh under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act have been confirmed and the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for life imposed upon the said two appellants by the Trial Court enhanced to the sentence of death. Criminal Revision Petition No.136 of 2004 seeking enhancement of sentence imposed upon Umesh Singh and Sheo Shankar Singh has been consequently allowed by the High Court while Criminal Revision Petition No.135 of 2004 filed against the acquittal of three other accused persons Md. Zahid, Premjeet Singh and Uma Shankar Singh dismissed.

2. Briefly stated the prosecution case is that on 14th April, 2000, the deceased-Shri Gurudas Chatterjee, a sitting member of Jharkhand State Legislative Assembly was returning to Nirsa from Dhanbad riding the pillion seat of a motorcycle that was being driven by the first informant Apurba Ghosh, examined at the trial as PW 16. At about 2.45 p.m. when the duo reached a place near Premier Hard Coke, Apurba Ghosh, the informant heard the sound of a gunshot from behind. He looked back only to find that appellant-Sheo Shankar Singh was driving a black motorcycle on the left of the informant with an unknown person, later identified as Umesh Singh, sitting on the pillion seat carrying a pistol in his hand. Umesh Singh, the pillion rider, is alleged to have fired a second time from close range which hit the deceased-Gurudas Chatterjee in the head, who slumped on the back of the informant thereby disturbing the balance of the motorcycle and bringing both of them to the ground. The motorcycle driven by Sheo Shanker Singh was stopped by him a little ahead whereupon Umesh Singh the pillion rider got down; walked back to the place where the deceased had fallen, abused the informant verbally and asked him to run away from there failing which even he would be killed. So threatened the informant hurried away from the spot whereupon Umesh Singh-appellant fired a third bullet at the deceased, pushed his dead body down the side slope of the road, walked back to the motorcycle whose engine was kept running by Sheo Shankar Singh and fled towards Nirsa. Some people are said to have run towards them but were scared away by Umesh Singh with the gun. The motorcycle did not have a registration number. A crowd is said to have gathered on the spot that included Abdul Kudus Ansari (PW1) and Lal Mohan Mahto (PW2) who disclosed that they had seen Sheo Shankar Singh and one unknown person moving on a motorcycle without a registration number sometime before the occurrence.

3. On hearing a rumour about the killing of the deceased MLA, Sub Inspector of Police Ramji Prasad (PW17) rushed to the spot and recorded the statement of Apurba Ghosh (PW16) in which the informant narrated the details of the incident as set out above. The statement of Apurba Ghosh constituted the First Information Report in the case which was signed not only by Apurba Ghosh but also by Abdul Kudus Ansari (PW1) and Lal Mohan Mahto (PW2). Based on the said statement/FIR a case under Section 302/34 and 120B of IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act was registered in Police Station Govindpur and the investigation commenced.

4. In the course of the investigation an inquest report was prepared by BDO, Shishir Kumar Sinha, while the investigating officer seized two empties of 9 M.M. bullet engraved with “HP 59/2” at the bottom from the spot, apart from the red Hero Honda splendour motorcycle bearing registration No. WB 38 E 7053 on which the deceased was travelling at the time of occurrence. Blood-stained T Shirt and a light blue coloured jeans worn by Apurba Ghosh were also seized, besides blood-stained earth from the place of occurr

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2011 Supreme(SC) 179

IMPORTANT POINT Rarest of rare cases discussed.

Cases Referred (17)

IMPORTANT POINT
Rarest of rare cases discussed.