Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2014 Supreme(SC) 871

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
V. Gopala Gowda, C. NAGAPPAN, JJ.
Kunwarpal @ Surajpal & Ors. – Appellants
versus
State of Uttarakhand And Anr. – Respondents
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.820 OF 2010
Decided on : 09-12-2014

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared
For Appellant(s) Mr. Prafulla K. Behera, Adv. Mr. S. S. Nehra,Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Rajiv Ranjan Dwivedi, Adv. Mr. Mukesh Verma, Adv. Mr. Jatinder Kumar Bhatia, Adv. Mr. Rajiv Nanda,Adv.

IMPORTANT POINT
Mentioning names of all witnesses in the FIR is not required.
Animosity can be motive for crime as well as false implication. In of any foundation for false implication, it will go against the accused.

Headnote:(a) Code of Criminal procedure, 1973 – Section 154 – Object of FIR – Only to set criminal law in motion – Mentioning names of all witnesses in FIR not required. (Para 12)
       (1977) 2 SCC 131; (2002) 4 SCC 85; (2003) 11 SCC 519 – Relied upon
       (b) Criminal trial – Witnesses trustworthy – Not shaken in cross-examination – Death homicidal – Previous animosity established as motive – Animosity can be motive for crime as well as false implication – No foundation laid for false implication – Conviction on proper appreciation of evidence – No infirmity. (Para 15)
       (2002) 7 SCC 691; (2003) 3 SCC 153 – Relied upon
       Facts of the case:
       Appellants 1 to 4 stood charged for the offence under Section 302/34 and the Trial Court convicted all and sentenced them each to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.500 in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each. Accused Nos. 1 to 4 preferred appeal in Criminal Appeal No.1418 of 2001 on the file of High Court and the appeal came to be dismissed.
       Finding of the Court:
       There is no infirmity in impugned judgment.
       Result: Appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT

C. NAGAPPAN, J.

1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment dated 18.8.1991 passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in Criminal Appeal No.1418 of 2001.

2. Appellants 1 to 4 stood charged for the offence under Section 302/34 in Sessions Trial No.195 of 1991 on the file of Additional Sessions Judge Roorkee and the Trial Court convicted all and sentenced them each to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.500 in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each. Accused Nos. 1 to 4 preferred appeal in Criminal Appeal No.1418 of 2001 on the file of High Court and the appeal came to be dismissed. Challenging the conviction and sentence accused Nos. 1 to 4 preferred the present appeal. During the hearing the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that appellant No.4 Atara Singh died during pendency of the appeal and it was endorsed by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State. Hence the appeal stands abated insofar as he is concerned.

3. Shorn of unnecessary details the case of the prosecution is as follows: PW1 Gajendra is the son of deceased Ranjit Singh. Accused Nos. 1 to 3 are real brothers. Accused No.4 is their cousin. PW1 Gajendra owned plot No.180 in village Mohammadpur Panda and the adjacent plot belonged to the accused persons and on account of the pending litigation between them there was enmity.

4. On 14.4.1991 at about 11.00 a.m. PW2 Suggan and Jai Ram were cutting wheat in the field of PW1 Gajendra and Ranjit Singh came to the field. Thereafter accused Nos.1 to 4 armed with lathies and tabbal came there and threatened Ranjit Singh to withdraw the case against them and beat him with lathies and tabbal . PW 2 Suggan, PW3 Atmaram and PW4 Chaman Lal and others saw the occurrence. Ranjit Singh became unconscious. PW2 Suggan informed PW1 Gajendra about the occurrence. PW1 Gajendra came and took his father injured Ranjit Singh to JNSM Hospital Roorkee. Dr. Jugal Kishore Mittal examined Ranjit Singh at 1.20 p.m. on 14.4.1991 in the said hospital and admitted him as inpatient. At about 5.30 p.m. on same day PW1 Gajendra lodged Ex.Ka-1 written complaint in the Police Station, Bhagwanpur and a case under Sections 323, 324, 506 and 307 IPC was registered against the accused persons. Exh. Ka-4 is the First Information Report, Exh. Ka-70 is the G.D. Report. PW9 Sub-Inspector R.S. Tiwari took up the investigation and examined PWs 2 to 4 and some other witnesses. On 15.4.1991 Ranjit Singh succumbed to his injuries. The First Information Report was altered and the investigation was taken up by SHO Ajay Kumar and he visited the place of occurrence and prepared Exh.Ka-8 plan and seized the blood stained clothes under Exh.Ka-9 Memo. He conducted inquest and prepared Exh.Ka-5 report. He gave Exh.Ka-11 requisition for conducting post mortem.

5. PW 6 Dr. K.P. Sarabhai conducted post-mortem on the body of Ranjit Singh at 4.30 p.m. on 15.4.1991 and found the following ante-mortem injuries:

i) Stitched wound 4 cm x 4 stitches on beam of head, 12 cm from left ear.

ii) Traumatic swelling 10 cm x 7 cm on beam of right upper arm.

iii) Traumatic swelling 22 cm x 7 cm on beam of right forearm and hand and there was fracture on both bones of right forearm.

iv) Stitched wound 2 cm x 2 stitches on beam of left upper arm 4 cm above left elbow.

v) Abraded contusion with traumatic swelling 14 cm x 8 cm on beam of left elbow on upper arm, and fracture of shaft of humerus

vi) Traumatic swelling 6 cm x 4 cm on beam of left wrist joint and fracture of ulna lower end.

vii) Abraded contusion 4 cm x 3 cm on lateral part of right side chest, 6 cm below right nipple.

viii) Contusion 10 cm x 8 cm on left side of chest, 6 cm below the nipple.

ix) Contusion 20 cm x 10 cm on right thigh.

x) Abrasion 2 cm x 1 cm on right side of right knee joint

xi) xii) Stitched wound 4 cm x 4 stitches on front side of right leg. Stitched wound 3 cm x 2 stitches on front part left leg.

xiii) Abraded contus

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2014 Supreme(SC) 871

SUPREME COURT OF INDIAV. Gopala Gowda, C. NAGAPPAN, JJ.Kunwarpal @ Surajpal & Ors. – AppellantsversusState of Uttarakhand And Anr. – RespondentsCRIMINAL APPEAL NO.820 OF 2010Decided on : 09-12-2014

IMPORTANT POINTMentioning names of all witnesses in the FIR is not required. Animosity can be motive for crime as well as false implication. In of any foundation for false implication, it will go against the accused.

Cases Referred (5)

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
V. Gopala Gowda, C. NAGAPPAN, JJ.
Kunwarpal @ Surajpal & Ors. – Appellants
versus
State of Uttarakhand And Anr. – Respondents
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.820 OF 2010
Decided on : 09-12-2014

IMPORTANT POINT
Mentioning names of all witnesses in the FIR is not required.
Animosity can be motive for crime as well as false implication. In of any foundation for false implication, it will go against the accused.