Back
2010 Supreme(UK) 248
2011 (1) N.C.C. 155
UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT
Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.C. Kandpal and Hon’ble Mrs. Nirmal Yadav
Criminal Appeal No. 1372 of 2001
GURDEEP SINGH & ANR. – Appellants
Versus
STATE OF U.P. – Respondent
Decided on : 04.05.2010
For the Respondent: Mr. Nandan Arya, A.G.A.
Headnote:Murder — Offence of — Conviction — Non-explanation of injuries on the body of deceased — Injured witness — Testimony of — Simply because the witnesses have not been able to explain some of the injuries on the person (deceased) — Their testimony cannot be disbelieved — It may be possible that they might have not seen that other accused had used sword and Kapa from blunt side — Also, injured witness would not like to spare the real culprits — The testimony of both the witnesses appears to be truthful and trustworthy, as PW2 stated that after receiving the gunshot injury — He ran for his life and therefore, he may not have seen rest of the occurrence — Held — Accuseds rightly convicted u/s 302 r/w sec 34 IPC and 307 r/w sec 34 IPC — No ground to interfere with findings recorded by the learned trial court — Appeal dismissed. (Paras 27, 30 to 36)
gR;k dk vijk/k & nks"kflf) & e`rd ds 'kjhj ij yxh pksVksa dk [kqyklk u gksuk & pksfVy lk{kh dh laiqf"V dk iz'u & dsoy ek= blfyu, fd lkf{k;ksa }kjk e`rd ds 'kjhj ij yxh pksVksa dk Li"Vhdj.k ugha fd;k x;k gS rks muds lk{; dks vfo'oluh; ugha ekuk tk ldrk & ;g laHko gks ldrk gS fd mUgksaus og ns[kk gh u gks fd nwljs vfHk;qDr }kjk ryokj vkSj dkik dk eksVh lkbM ls iz;ksx fd;k x;k Fkk & vkSj pksfVy lk{kh okLrfod vijkf/k;ksa dks NksM+uk Hkh ugha pkgsxk & nksuksa lkf{k;ksa dh lk{; dh laiqf"V fo'oluh; vkSj U;klh yxrh gS tSlk fd ih MCY;w 2 }kjk dgk x;k fd canwd dh xksyh ls yxh pksV yxus ds ckn og viuh tku cpkus ds fy, Hkkxk Fkk vkSj blfy, mlds }kjk 'ks"k ?kVuk ugha ns[kh tk ldh Fkh & fu.kZ; esa dgk x;k fd vijkf/k;ksa dks /kkjk 302 vk ih lh lifBr /kkjk 34 vk ih lh vkSj /kkjk 307 vk ih lh lifBr /kkjk 34 vk ih lh ds vUrxZr lgh gh nf.Mr fd;k x;k Fkk & ekU; fopkj.k U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ; esa gLr{ksi fd;s tkus dk dksbZ vk/kkj miyC/k ugha gS & vihy vLohdkj dh xbZA ¼izLrj 27] 30 ls 36½
[Per : Hon’ble Nirmal Yadav, J.]
Accused appellants Gurdeep Singh and Harnam Singh stood trial along with Kuldip Singh, Peepal Singh and Maya Kaur under section 147, 148, 302 read with section 149, 307 read with section 149, 201 IPC while accused Harnam Singh and Gurdeep Singh also faced trial under section 25 of Arms Act.
2. Learned trial court after taking into consideration the evidence on record acquitted Kuldip Singh, Peepal Singh and Maya Kaur of the charges but convicted Harnam Singh and Gurdeep Singh under section 302 read with 34, 307 read 34 IPC and further convicted accused Gurdeep Singh under section 25 of Arms Act. Both of them have been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment under section 302 read with 34 IPC and three years rigorous imprisonment under section 307 read with 34 IPC. Gurdeep Singh is further sentenced to undergo six months imprisonment under section 25 of the Arms Act. All the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.
3. Brief facts leading to the present case are that on 08.10.1992 at about 05.45 p.m. Jarnail Singh along with his brother Amar Singh, Surjeet Singh and Preetam Singh (brother-in-law of Surjeet Singh), were proceeding to their house from Nagla Barrier shop. When they reached in front of the house of accused Harnam Sihgh, Harnam Singh and Gurdeep Singh, both armed with guns, Peepal Singh armed with sword, Kuldip Singh armed with Kapa, Maya Kaur, wife of accused Harnam Singh, came out of their house. Harnam Singh exhorted that “let revenge be taken from these persons”. On saying so accused Harnam Singh and Gurdeep Singh fired from their respective guns, which hit Amar Singh and Surjeet Singh. Amar Singh fell down at the spot and while he was lying Kuldip Singh and Peepal Singh gave Kapa and sword injuries to him, thus, Amar Singh died on the spot. Surjeet Singh ran away in injured condition. Thereafter, Maya Kaur poured kerosene oil and some dry straw on the dead body of Amar Singh and set him on fire. Out of fear, Jarnail Singh and his companion could not save the victim, however, on raising alarm by them persons from the nearby houses reached the spot and consequently, accused ran away towards western side. Meanwhile, Makhan Singh, brother of the complainant Jarnail Singh also reached the spot. They carried Surjeet Singh in a bullock cart and went to Police Station – Nanakmatta. Jarnail Singh submitted a written report (exhibit Ka.1), on the basis of which First Information Report (exhibit Ka. 14) was recorded on 08.10.1992 at 7.30 p.m. As per the written report of Jarnail Singh, the motive for committing the crime was, that about 3 months prior to the occurrence Kashmir Singh, brother of accused Gurdeep Singh and relative of other accused persons was murdered and Surjeet Singh was named as accused in the said case and since then the accused and his family members were having grudge against the complainant party.
4. Surjeet Singh was medico legally examined by PW3 Dr. A.K. Singh on 08.10.1992 it self at 10.05 p.m. He prepared medical report (exhibit Ka. 2) and found the following :
“1. An entry wound of gun shot over the back of chest in mid line on right side 4 cm x 4 cm x cavity deep with inverted margins surrounded by blackening. Main wound is surrounded by 6 rounded pellet marks measuring 0.3 cm in diameter.”
5. General condition of the patient was found to be poor and pulse was also week at the time of examination. As per the opinion of the doctor, injury was caused by gun shot and the duration of the injury was fresh.
6. Investigation of the case was conducted by PW9 SO Kamal Ram Arya, who visited the spot, prepared the site plan of place of arrest of the accused along with gun (exhibit Ka. 20), site plan of place of occurrence (exhibit Ka. 21). He also prepared the inquest report (exhibit Ka. 3) and other allied papers. He took into possession the sword and empty cartridges from the spot and prepared the recovery memo (exhibit Ka. 9) and prepared recovery memo o
