Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DIPAK MISRA, N.V. RAMANA, JJ.
Sadhu Saran Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal Nos. 1467-1468 of 2005
Decided on : 26-02-2016
(b) Criminal trial – Conviction and sentence – PW1, an eye witness and father of the three deceased sons – Subjected to examination, cross examination and re-examination several times over a period of about a year – Minor discrepancies occurring in his evidence – Not unnatural – Evidence of PW1 cannot be discarded - Evidence of PW 2, another eye witness, also cannot be brushed aside being reliable – High Court also inappropriately appreciating medical evidence – As against statement of doctor that death could have occurred at 8 am, High Court holding it to be between 2 and 4 am – Ocular evidence always has primacy over other evidence, particularly in the case of minor discrepancies – Place of occurrence established beyond doubt and non-examination of prosecution witness Ganga Singh duly explained – Non-examination of independent witness not fatal in present day scenario – Motive also stated and rightly accepted by trial court – High Court failing to appreciate that two accused failed to establish their alibi – High Court reversing conviction and sentence of the accused on flimsy, untenable reasoning bordering on perverse appreciation of evidence. (Para 21)
(1998) 5 SCC 412; (2007) 4 SCC 415; (2012) 10 SCC 476; (2006) 1 SCC 191 – Relied upon
Facts of the case:
Five accused were convicted and sentenced by trial court u/s 302/149, 307/149, and 148. Two accused were awarded death sentence.
High Court acquitted all the five accused persons.
Finding of the Court:
High Court reversed the conviction and sentence of the accused on flimsy, untenable reasoning bordering on perverse appreciation of evidence.
Result: Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
N.V. Ramana, J.
1. These appeals are directed against the judgment passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Appeal Nos.2701 and 5802 of 2003, dated 07.12.2004, by which the High Court has allowed the appeals filed by the accused-respondents herein and acquitted them for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘the IPC’).
2. It is pertinent to mention here that the appellant before us was not a party before the Courts below and the present appeals have been preferred by him with the leave of this Court. The locus of the appellant is that he is the brother of the informant Bhola Singh (PW1) who died during the pendency of the appeal before the High Court and also paternal uncle of the three deceased persons (Sons of informant Bhola Singh-PW1).
3. The facts in brief, as unfolded by the prosecution case are that Bhola Singh (PW1) the informant is a resident of village Kanso, district Mau and on 4th October, 1994 at about 8 am when his sons namely Sheo Kumar, Avdhesh and Yogendra (all three deceased) were repairing the cattle trough in presence of one Ganga Singh, brother-in-law of the informant and one Baijnath Singh (PW 2), the accused Ramashraya Singh, Satyendra Singh, Brijendra Singh along with their father Ramchandra Singh armed with deadly weapons came to the Baithka of the informant-Bhola Singh with the company of Kamla Singh and Ram Saran Singh hurling filthy abuses. While Ramchandra Singh exhorted his sons to eliminate the whole family of the victim, the accused Ramashraya Singh and Kamla Singh opened fire with guns while Satyendra Singh and Brijendra Singh attacked with katta upon the three sons of Bhola Singh (PW1). The other accused also attacked the victim party with their respective weapons. In the assault, the three sons of PW1 sustained injuries and fell on the ground and Ganga Singh, brother-in-law of PW1 sustained firearm injuries. During the ongoing tussle, PW1-Bhola Singh ran into the village and raised hue and cry whereupon the assailants took to their heels. The attack resulted into the death of two sons of the informant i.e. Shivshankar and Avadhesh on the spot while another son i.e. Yogendra breathed his last on the way to the hospital.
4. At the instance of the informant (PW1), a First Information Report (Ext. Ka-1) was lodged at 9.15 a.m. on the same day at Haldharpur P.S. wherein PW1 stated that the incident had taken place on account of enmity over land dispute between the parties. Constable Muharrir Ram Manohar Maurya (PW-3) prepared the chick report (Ext. Ka-4) and registered the case as Crime No.219/94 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307 and 504 IPC. The injured Ganga Singh was then sent for medical check up to the Primary Health Centre.
5. Sub-Inspector Riyayatullah Khan, the Investigating Officer visited the place of occurrence, held inquest of the dead bodies, prepared site map and recorded the statement of the informant. He then collected blood stained roll of clay and plain clay and prepared memo. Dr. O.P. Singh (PW 6) who conducted medical examination of the injured Ganga Singh opined in his report (Ext.Ka-33) that all the injuries were caused by fire arms and were sustained within a period of 6 hours.
6. Dr. Jitendra Kumar Singh (PW7) conducted post-mortem examination on the bodies of the three deceased persons. By his reports Ka-34, 35 and 36, he expressed the opinion that the incident might have occurred at 8.00 a.m. and that the intestines of all the three deceased contained semi-digested food material and the injuries suffered by the victims were of firearms and there was no blunt object injury. On 7-10-1994, the I.O. arrested Ramchandra Singh and Ramsaran Singh and recorded statements of witnesses. The I.O. filed charge sheet (Ext. Ka-32) against all the six accused persons. Since the accused have denied the charges and prayed for trial, the case was committed to the Court of sessions.
7. The prosecu
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
