SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(SC) 328

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Rohinton Fali Nariman, B.R. Gavai, Hrishikesh Roy, JJ.
Surendra Kumar & Anr. – Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. of 2021 (Arising out of SLP (Crl) No. 6965 of 2019)
Decided On : 20-04-2021

Headnote:

Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302 read with 34, 120B, 394, 506 - Indian Evidence Act - Section 106 – Criminal Procedure Code,1973 – Section 313 - Appeal against conviction – Offence of murder – Examination of accused - Appellants are brothers and are residents of Village in Meerut District - Appellant No. 2 was married whose parental home was in the neighboring village - Spending some days with her parents was returning back on scooter driven by her brother - Some minutes after they started journey, two armed miscreants on road between ambushed scooter near forested area and took roadside sugarcane field and shot her from close range and robbed her of the gold and silver ornaments worn on her person rode the scooter to village to inform father about incident - Scooter was left behind with then returned to his own village and informed his brother and other family members in matrimonial home of the deceased, Village - Both brothers accompanied by their father, rushed to police station - Around same time, (PW-1) and (PW-2), who were near the site of incident, after hearing sound of firing went towards field and they noticed two miscreants - In course of investigation, the police also arrested suspecting them to be two unknown robbers seen by PW1 and PW2, in the act of removing ornaments from person of the deceased– Held, Post incident conduct was found to be suspicious enough by courts link him with the murder - No criminal act is attributed to and conspiracy between him and two armed miscreants is not shown - Link appellant with murder is nothing more than a matter of surmises and conjectures - Evidence on record is consistent with statement given by under Section 313 of CrPC where he stated that near forest area of village, two armed miscreants stopped the scooter and shot his and looted away from her person - Appellant immediately informed about the incident to father of deceased he has also informed (husband of the deceased) - Father reached police station - Husband there is no direct evidence to establish his role in incident - Conviction is entirely based on a conspiracy it is essential to determine whether there was an agreement between parties for doing an unlawful act and it must emerge clearly from evidence that there was meeting of mind towards a common goal between and his brother and also between and the two armed robbers - Case evidence on record does not however establish any such agreement between and other accused - Conspiracy is a matter of inference and inference must be based on solid evidence - 2nd appellant’s conviction simply because of his dislike for deceased, even if accepted to be correct, would not in our opinion be justified in the absence of any evidence either direct or of conspiracy, to link him with crime - Conspiracy theory to kill only because she was not liked by her husband is far too improbable to accept since the prosecution failed to present any evidence to show meeting of minds and common intention of all accused may not have been happy with his wife but this by itself does not establish that he hatched a conspiracy with his brother and his father who died during trial), to kill - Simple fact of being unhappy with a person even if accepted - Strong enough motive to hatch a conspiracy to eliminate the person - Aspect was ignored by Court below to attribute motive for the murder – Court are of considered opinion that there are several missing components in chain of circumstantial evidence and the High Court misdirected itself in finding support for conviction on such unclinching evidence - Innocence of appellants is a distinct possibility in the present matter and when two views are possible the benefit must go to accused - Impugned judgment is accordingly set aside with direction for immediate release of both appellants - Appeal stands allowed.

JUDGMENT :

Hrishikesh Roy, J.

Leave granted. This appeal is the culmination of a tragedy which decimated two families in its course. The murder of a recently married young woman, where the finger of suspicion was raised towards her own husband, brother-in-law and even her father-in-law as an accused who met an unnatural demise during the pendency of the trial. This Court has been approached to lay to rest the litigation which has followed suit for more than two decades.

2. Heard Mr. Shadan Farasat, learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard Mr. V. Diwakar, learned AAG representing the State of Uttar Pradesh. The challenge in this appeal is to the common judgment and order dated 12.3.2019 in Criminal Appeal No. 346 of 2009, whereby the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad upheld the conviction of the appellant No. 1 under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”) and of the appellant No. 2, under section 120B IPC.

3. The appellants are brothers and are residents of Mahal Village in Meerut District. The appellant No. 2 Ramveer was married on 13.5.1993 to Kamla Rani, whose parental home was in the neighboring village of Phlawada. On 8.8.1993 Kamla Rani, after spending some days with her parents was returning back on the scooter driven by her brother in law Surendra Kumar (appellant No. 1). Some minutes after they started the journey, two armed miscreants on the road between Phlawada and Bathnor ambushed the scooter near the forested area and took Kamla Rani to the roadside sugarcane field of Quasim Ali and shot her from close range and robbed her of the gold and silver ornaments worn on her person. Surendra Kumar then rode the scooter to village Phlawada to inform Baldev, the father of Kamla Rani about the incident. The scooter was left behind with Kamla Rani’s father and Surendra then returned to his own village and informed his brother and other family members in the matrimonial home of the deceased, at Village Mahal. Both brothers accompanied by their father, thereafter rushed to the police station. Around the same time, Dhan Singh (PW-1) and Karamveer (PW-2), who were near the site of incident, after hearing the sound of firing went towards the field and they noticed two miscreants (not appellants), removing ornaments from the body of Kamla Rani. The PW1 and PW2 accosted the looters but showing arms, both looters fled from the scene.

4. The FIR of the incident (which took place around 4.45 pm) was filed at 5.30 pm by Baldev Singh (father of the deceased Kamla Rani) at the Phlawada Police Station. Meanwhile, the appellants and their father Om Prakash also reached the Police Station. Since, maltreatment of the deceased in the matrimonial home was alleged in the FIR, the appellants were detained in the police lock up and four days later, the police formally arrested all three, on charge of conspiracy and murder. In course of investigation, the police also arrested Rajveer and Shiv Kumar alias Pappu, suspecting them to be the two unknown robbers seen by PW1 and PW2, in the act of removing ornaments from the person of the deceased Kamla Rani.

5. The preliminary investigation was done by S.I Ramachandra Singh (PW5), who prepared the Panchnama (Exbt Ka-7) and sent the dead body for autopsy. Few jewellery items and the locked suitcase, found near the body were also seized by the PW-5. Next day i.e. 9.8.1993, the SHO Amrat Lal returned from leave and led the investigation. He seized the scooter from the residence of Baldev and the recovery memo of scooter (Exbt Ka-2) was prepared.

6. The autopsy of dead body of Kamla Rani was done by PW3 Dr. N.K Maheshwari on 9.08.1993 at 4.30 p.m. and he noted the following antemortem injuries on the body;

    1. Firearm wounds of entry 2.0 cm X 2.5 cm on right side of neck blackening & tattooing 8.0 cm X 8.0 cm on upper side of wounds;

    2. Firearm entry wound of 2.0 cm X 2.5 cm into muscle deep with blackening & tattooing around 2

        Click Here to Read the rest of this document
        1
        2
        3
        4
        5
        6
        7
        8
        9
        10
        11
        SupremeToday Portrait Ad
        supreme today icon
        logo-black

        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

        qr

        Scan Me!

        India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

        For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

        whatsapp-icon Back to top