Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2019 Supreme(SC) 605

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
INDIRA BANERJEE, SANJIV KHANNA, JJ.
GUMAN SINGH – APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF RAJASTHAN – RESPONDENT(S)
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1475 OF 2017
Decided On : 24-05-2019

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Puneet Jain, Adv. Mr. Abhinav Gupta, Adv. Mr. Harsh Jain, Adv. Ms. Pratibha Jain, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Milind Kumar, AOR

IMPORTANT POINT
Murder - Prosecution has to fail when it has failed to prove that evidence has a ring of truth, is cogent, credible and trustworthy so as to establish charge beyond reasonable doubt.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302 and 307/34 - Murder and attempt to murder - Common intention - Conviction and sentence - Version of PWs as to their presence at place of occurrence and being eye-witnesses to firing by appellant is a suspect and in grave doubt, in view of testimony of Investigating Officer and SHO - None of witnesses had disclosed and named attacker(s) and they had also not indicated as to type of weapon used in offence - Presence of PWS is highly doubtful and their eye-witness account apparently conjured - Delay in recording statement of PWs is substantial and assumes some importance as it has been alleged that FIR has been back dated and was never sent to Magistrate as required vide Section 157 of Code - Identification of appellant is unreliable and should not be accepted without substantial corroboration and supporting material/evidence to establish involvement of appellant - Bullets recovered from body of deceased were not sent for ballistic examination and comparison - In factual matrix and evidence established and proved, opinion on hole in shirt and bullet is rather a weak evidence that would not be sufficient to implicate and corroborate involvement present appellant - Prosecution has to fail as it has failed to prove that evidence has a ring of truth, is cogent, credible and trustworthy so as to establish charge beyond reasonable doubt - Conviction set aside. (Paras 4 to 10 and 12)
       Facts of Case:
       Appellant impugns judgment dated 10.03.2017 passed by the Division Bench of High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur, which confirms his conviction under Section 302 of IPC for murder and under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC for attempt to murder. Appellant stands sentenced under Section 302 IPC to life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to serve additional rigorous imprisonment for one year and for an offence under Section 307 IPC to rigorous imprisonment of 10 years with fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment, an additional rigorous imprisonment of one year.
       Findings of Court:
       Charge-sheet in present case was filed against present appellant and three others who have been acquitted by impugned judgment of Division Bench of High Court.
       Result : Appeal allowed.

JUDGMENT :

SANJIV KHANNA, J.

The appellant, Guman Singh impugns judgment dated 10.03.2017 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur, which confirms his conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (“IPC”, for short) for murder of Shiv Charan and under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC for attempt to murder Babu Singh. Appellant stands sentenced under Section 302 IPC to life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 10,000/-and in default of payment of fine to serve additional rigorous imprisonment for one year and for an offence under Section 307 IPC to rigorous imprisonment of 10 years with fine of Rs. 1,000/-and in default of payment, an additional rigorous imprisonment of one year.

2. The conviction arises out of FIR No. 464/2009 registered on 30.08.2009 at 8.20 p.m. in Police Station Hindaun City, District-Karauli, Rajasthan and the consequent charge-sheet filed against the present appellant, i.e. Guman Singh, and Jagdish Singh, Satvir Singh and Shyam Singh. Jagdish Singh was acquitted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hindaun City, Karauli, Rajasthan vide judgment dated 07.06.2013 and Shyam Singh and Satvir Singh have been acquitted in the impugned judgment of the High Court.

3. The primary issue/question raised before us relates to veracity and truthfulness of the testimonies of Tara Singh (PW-1) and Varun Singh (PW-4), son and nephew of the deceased Shiv Charan. Tara Singh (PW-1) and Varun Singh (PW-4) have deposed that they along with Shivendra Singh were on a motorcycle on their way from Hindaun to Village Banki. The deceased Shiv Charan and the injured Babu Singh were on another motorcycle a few steps ahead of them. Near Chauve ka bandh, another motorcycle with the present appellant Guman Singh and Satvir Singh s/o Ramoli and Shyam Singh s/o Ummed Singh, residents of Village Banki, appeared from behind and came parallel to the motorcycle driven by the deceased Shiv Charan. One of the riders from the third motorcycle had then fired a shot that had hit Babu Singh on his side and back. The motorcycle skidded and Shiv Charan and Babu Singh fell down. Guman Singh had then fired at the chest of Shiv Charan. Satvir Singh and Shyam Singh too had fired at Shiv Charan. Guman Singh, Satvir Singh and Shyam Singh had also fired shots at Tara Singh (PW-1) and Varun Singh (PW-4) who had managed to escape by running towards the Hindaun City to save their lives. They had, from STD booth near Chungi, informed their relatives about the occurrence. On seeing a police vehicle, they drove along with police to the place of occurrence.

4. However, this version as to their presence at the place of occurrence and being eye-witnesses to the firing by Guman Singh is a suspect and in grave doubt, in view of the testimony of Gulam Navi (PW-7) the Investigating Officer and SHO Police Station Hindaun City, who has deposed that on 30.08.2009 at around 5.30 p.m. information was received from an unknown person that someone had been fired upon by another near Chauve ke bandh. PW-7 on reaching the spot along with other police officials found Babu Singh lying in an injured condition. Shiv Charan had already died. One motorcycle was lying at the spot. On directions of Gulam Navi (PW-7), the deceased Shiv Charan and Babu Singh were taken to the hospital. Gulam Navi (PW-7) has not deposed and accepted presence of Tara Singh (PW-1) and Varun Singh (PW-4) at the spot at 5.30. p.m. on 30.8.2009. As per PW-7, his first meeting with Tara Singh (PW-1) was at the hospital at around 8.20 p.m., when a written complaint was given to him by Tara Singh (PW-1). Upon receipt of the written complaint, steps were taken for registration of the FIR. Similarly, Babulal Bhaskar (PW10) Sub-Inspector, has deposed that on 30.08.2009 at 5.30 p.m. he had left the police station and had reached the hospital at around 5.55 p.m. Around 8.20 p.m., he had initiated the proceedings after preparing the panchnama etc. In his cross-examination, PW-10

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2019 Supreme(SC) 605

SUPREME COURT OF INDIAINDIRA BANERJEE, SANJIV KHANNA, JJ.GUMAN SINGH – APPELLANT(S) VERSUSSTATE OF RAJASTHAN – RESPONDENT(S) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1475 OF 2017 Decided On : 24-05-2019

IMPORTANT POINTMurder - Prosecution has to fail when it has failed to prove that evidence has a ring of truth, is cogent, credible and trustworthy so as to establish charge beyond reasonable doubt.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
INDIRA BANERJEE, SANJIV KHANNA, JJ.
GUMAN SINGH – APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF RAJASTHAN – RESPONDENT(S)
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1475 OF 2017
Decided On : 24-05-2019

IMPORTANT POINT
Murder - Prosecution has to fail when it has failed to prove that evidence has a ring of truth, is cogent, credible and trustworthy so as to establish charge beyond reasonable doubt.