Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2021 Supreme(SC) 463

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
UDAY UMESH LALIT, AJAY RASTOGI, JJ.
SANDEEP - APPELLANT
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA - RESPONDENT
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1613 TO 1615 OF 2018, CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2021, [ARISING OUT OF REVIEW PETITION (CRL.) NO.______OF 2021 (D.NO.6662 OF 2020)], (ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO.8789 OF 2014)
DECIDED ON : 27-08-2021

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) :B. Adinarayan Rao, Nagendra Singh, Ronak Karanpuria, Amardeep Gaur, M/s. V. Maheshwari & Co., Abhay Kumar, Kumar Milind, Vishal Nautiyal, Shagun Ruhil, M/s V. Maheshwari & Co., Advocates
For the Respondent(s):Deepak Thukral, Dy. A.G. Mr. Gautam Sharma, Advocates

IMPORTANT POINT
Conviction and sentence has to sustained where statements of eyewitnesses are quite cogent and consistent with earliest version recorded in form of First Information Report.

Headnote:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 read with Section 34 – Arms Act, 1959 – Section 25 – Murder – Common intention – Conviction and sentence – Statements of eyewitnesses are quite cogent and consistent with earliest version recorded in form of First Information Report – Trajectory of entry of bullet as found in Medical Report is also quite consistent with version that deceased was shot from a height i.e. roof of house – Considering material on record including eyewitness’s account as well as corroborative pieces of material, it is firmly established that co-accused fired fatal shot from roof of house – Involvement of co-accused is beyond any doubt – All three accused are said to have exhorted co-accused but exhortation given by accused-appellant was immediately before shot was fired and of a greater impact in as much as he had seen co-accused at rooftop along with firearm and then made exhortation – Considering entirety of circumstances, parents of co-accused are entitled to benefit of doubt whereas involvement of accused-appellant stands completely proved beyond reasonable doubt – Case of prosecution stands proved against co-accused and accused-appellant and their appeals deserve to be dismissed while appeals preferred by parents of co-accused deserve acceptance – Criminal Appeals preferred by accused-appellant and co-accused respectively dismissed while Criminal Appeals preferred by parents of co-accused allowed. (Paras 17 to 23)
Facts of the case:
Present appeals arise out of the common judgment and order dated 30.05.2014 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh dismissing Criminal Appeal No.D-372-DB of 2009 and thereby affirming the conviction and sentence of all the appellants in respect of the offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 qua Appellant-Pardeep.
Findings of Court:
Case of prosecution stands proved against accused-Pardeep and accused-Sandeep and their appeals deserve to be dismissed while the appeals preferred by accused-Ishwar and Krishana Devi deserve acceptance.
Result : Appeals Partly allowed.

JUDGMENT :

UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.

1. Delay in filing Review Petition (Crl.) Diary No. 6662 of 2020 in Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.8789 of 2014 is condoned. The Review Petition is allowed and the order dated 15.12.2014 passed by this Court dismissing Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.8789 of 2014 is recalled. The Special Leave Petition is restored to the file of this Court. Leave granted.

2. These appeals arise out of the common judgment and order dated 30.05.2014 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh dismissing Criminal Appeal No.D-372-DB of 2009 and thereby affirming the conviction and sentence of all the appellants in respect of the offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, “the IPC”) and under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 qua Appellant-Pardeep.

3. The appellants namely; (i) Pardeep son of Sh. Ishwar Singh, (ii) Ishwar Singh son of Sh. Ram Singh, (iii) Sandeep son of Sh. Ishwar Singh and (iv) Krishana wife of Sh. Ishwar Singh, R/o Vill. Lehrara, Distt. Sonepat were tried in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge/ Fast Track Court, Sonepat, Haryana in Sessions Case No.14-RBT of 2007-2008 for having committed the aforementioned offences.

4. The crime was registered pursuant to First Information Report No.62 of 2007 lodged with Police Station Sadar, Sonepat at about 1.30 pm on 13.4.2007. The information given by Rajbir Singh son of Sia Ram who was later examined as PW-1 in the trial, was to the following effect:

"…. The residences of mine and that of Ishwar s/o Ram Singh are adjacent to each other. Ishwar is the son of my uncle (Tau). Behind our houses there is a common street, which had been tried to be encroached many times by Ishwar's family. Last time said street was unblocked with the intervention of the previous panchayat. Four days earlier, my sister is law (Bhabhi) and Ramesh Kumar got replaced the karies of their old house, waste material of which was kept back side in the street. Owing to keeping of this material in the street, there was altercation between the two families, since Ishwar was pressing for picking up the material at once. Today on date 13.4.07 at about 7.15 AM Ishwar and Pardeep, Sandeep s/o Ishwar and Krishana w/o Ishwar r/o same village started abusing my sister in law Kaushalya. I, my mother Harkaur, my brother Surinder and his wife Preeti tried to console them that why they are abusing Kaushalya. Labours have been called at 8.00 AM. We would then remove the material, but on hearing so, they then were shouted and Ishwar and his wife Krishana told their sons Pardeep and Sandeep to teach a lesson for quarrelling with us and for putting material in the street and to shoot them. On saying so, Pardeep stood at his room with weapon. Then Sandeep told to shoot them. Pardeep fired a shoot with his weapon to Surender, which hit Surender at the left side of his head, with that fire Surender fell down there and succumbed at the spot. I took him to Government Hospital in my vehicle of my brother, where the doctors declared him dead and dead body was house in mortuary…..”

5. The post mortem was conducted on the body of the deceased – Surender by Dr. S.P. Sharma, M.O., Civil Hospital, Sonepat (later examined as PW-5 in the trial) who found the following ante-mortem injuries:

ii. Blood was coming out of mouth and both nostrils. Rest of the organs

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2021 Supreme(SC) 463

IMPORTANT POINTConviction and sentence has to sustained where statements of eyewitnesses are quite cogent and consistent with earliest version recorded in form of First Information Report.

IMPORTANT POINT
Conviction and sentence has to sustained where statements of eyewitnesses are quite cogent and consistent with earliest version recorded in form of First Information Report.