The conviction under Section 302 IPC was overturned due to insufficient evidence identifying the appellants as the assailants, highlighting the need for reliable eyewitness testimony.

JUDGMENT :

PANKAJ MITHAL, J.

1. All the three appellants, father, son and son-in-law are accused in Session Trial No.215 of 2000 for the murder of Pushpendra Singh, son of Diler Singh.

2. They were acquitted by the Trial Court but have been convicted under Section 302 of INDIAN PENAL CODE (for short, ‘IPC’) with life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.10,000/- each by the High Court vide the judgment and order dated 02.01.2013 passed in Government Appeal No.347 of 2007 (State of Uttaranchal vs. Rajendra Singh and Ors.).

3. All the three accused have challenged the aforesaid judgment and order of their conviction and sentence by means of this appeal.

4. The prosecution story in brief is that on the morning of 03.06.2000, the appellant no.1 – Rajendra Singh and his son appellant no.2 – Bhupender Singh started digging the field of Diler Singh, the father of the deceased, for laying down plinth. Due to the aforesaid action of the appellants, an altercation took place between them and Diler Singh.

5. On the same day at about 1.30 p.m. when the deceased – Pushpendra Singh was sitting at the Jogither diversion (Tiraha), his father – Diler Singh who had gone to the flour mill of Kakka Singh, while returning accompanied by his brother-in-law - Papender Singh, saw the appellants coming on the motorcycle driven by the appellant no.3 – Ranjeet Singh at the said spot. They parked their vehicle and exhorted the deceased who started running followed by all the three accused persons armed with swords and carrying a kanta (a sharp edged weapon).

6. The deceased ran for some time towards the northern fields raising an alarm. Witnessing the same, Diler Singh, Papender Singh and some other persons including Jwala Singh started running behind the accused persons to save the deceased. The deceased, attempting to save his life, entered into the house of one Mukhtyar Singh. The appellants also entered the said premises and inflicted blows with swords and Kanta upon the deceased who ultimately died on the spot. The father of the deceased Diler Singh (PW-1) on the same day lodged an FIR at 02.50 p.m. at Police Station, Nanak Matta under Section 302 of IPC ( Section 103 (1) BNS ). The panchnama was prepared, statement of the witnesses were recorded, site plan was also prepared and the dead body was sent for post-mortem, which was conducted the next day.

7. The appellant nos.1 and 3 were arrested on 05.06.2000 and one sword and the Kanta, the alleged weapons of crime, were recovered as per the disclosure made by the appellants.

8. The appellant no.2 was arrested on 07.06.2000 and the sword used by him in the commission of the offence was recovered based on his disclosure.

9. Upon completion of investigation, the police submitted the chargesheet on 14.06.2000 charging all the three accused for an offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC.

10. We had heard Shri Rajul Bhargava, senior advocate and Shri Siddharth Agarwal, senior advocate along with Shri Vivek Singh, advocate-on-record from the side of the appellants and Shri Kuldeep Parihar, D.A.G and Ms. Anubha Dhulia, advocate for the State of Uttarakhand.

11. The primary submission on behalf of the appellants is that they have been falsely implicated. There is no reliable evidence to establish the identity of the appellants as the alleged assailants. There is no eyewitness to the incident, except the lady of the house into which the deceased had entered to save his life. There are large contradictions in the statements of the witnesses and that the discovery of the we