Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From the Allahabad High Court)
INDIRA BANERJEE, V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, JJ.
Karan Singh - Appellant
Versus
The State of Uttar Pradesh and Others - Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 327 of 2022 (Arising Out of SLP (Crl.) No. 717 of 2020)
Decided On : 02-03-2022
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302/149, 307/149 and 148 – Murder, attempt to murder and rioting – Conviction and sentence – Trial Court found testimonies of eye-witnesses were reliable – Trial Court further found there was motive to kill deceased and this was proved by witnesses produced by prosecution – All accused persons had come to spot with deadly weapons with intention to kill deceased – All accused had fired on deceased with their firearms, as a result of which deceased had sustained 16 bullet injuries – High Court did not find any major contradiction either in evidence of witnesses or any conflict in medical or ocular evidence, which could tilt balance in favour of Appellant – Tenor of evidence of Doctor who conducted post mortem tends to support case of prosecution witnesses that all accused persons, who were present, carrying arms had fired – Appellant’s presence has been proved by two eye witnesses – It has been proved by eye witnesses, that Appellant carried a rifle – But eye witnesses deposed that all accused had opened fire – Fact that one of injured witnesses may not have mentioned name of Appellant does not demolish evidence of other witnesses – No grounds to interfere with concurrent findings of Trial Court and High Court – Fact that trial/appeal should have taken years and that other accused should have died during appeal cannot be a ground for acquittal of Appellant – Appeal dismissed. (Paras 16, 18, 40, 46 and 47)
(B) Criminal Law – Hostile Witness – Evidentiary value – In a criminal trial, credible evidence of even hostile witnesses can form basis of conviction. (Para 32)
Facts of the case:
Present Appeal is against a judgment and order dated 30th July 2018 passed by a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court, dismissing Criminal Appeal No. 1813 of 1983 filed by Appellant along with other accused persons, against a judgment and order of conviction dated 1st August 1983 passed by the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Shahjahanpur in Sessions Trial No. 268 of 1981, convicting the Appellant of offences under Section 302 read with Section 149, Section 307 read with Section 149 and Section 148 of Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to life imprisonment for offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC.
Findings of Court:
Appellant’s presence has been proved by two eye witnesses. It has been proved by the eye witnesses, that the Appellant carried a rifle. But PW2 and PW3 deposed that all accused had opened fire. The prosecution was required to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, which it has done, and not beyond all iota of doubt.
Result : Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Indira Banerjee, J.
Leave granted.
2. This Appeal is against a judgment and order dated 30th July 2018 passed by a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court, dismissing Criminal Appeal No. 1813 of 1983 filed by the Appellant along with other accused persons, against a judgment and order of conviction dated 1st August 1983 passed by the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Shahjahanpur in Sessions Trial No.268 of 1981, inter alia, convicting the Appellant of the offences under Section 302 read with Section 149, Section 307 read with Section 149 and Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as "the IPC") and sentencing him, inter alia, to life imprisonment for offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC.
3. It appears that the Appellant had been granted bail by the Trial Court by an order dated 13th June 1980. The High Court also granted bail to the Appellant during the entire period of the appeal. The Appellant was taken into custody on 9th September 2019 after dismissal of his appeal by the High Court.
4. It is the case of the Prosecution that on 8th April 1980, at about 12:15 P.M., one Rati Pal arrived at Kaanth Police Station and filed a complaint alleging that eight days before Holi, one Rajkumar Singh had purchased a buffalo from his elder brother Brahmapal Singh at the price of Rs.1,900/-.
5. The said Rajkumar had promised to pay the price of the buffalo to the complainant's elder brother, Brahmapal Singh, eight days after Holi.
6. Rajkumar Singh, however, did not pay the price of the buffalo to the complainant's elder brother, Brahmapal Singh as promised. Brahmapal Singh did not permit Rajkumar Singh to harvest his crops.
7. On 7th April 1980, Rajkumar Singh asked Brahmapal Singh to come to Simra Khera the next day, that is, 8th April 1980, to collect his money.
8. On 8th April 1980, the complainant's cousin brother, Mahendra Singh came to the complainant's house and asked Brahmapal Singh to go to Simra Khera with him to collect his money from Rajkumar Singh after settling accounts with him. Thereafter, the complainant's brother-in-law (Shreepal Singh), Brahmapal Singh, the complainant, a villager Badshah Singh and Mahendra Singh went to Simra Khera. They went to the house of Sher Singh Thakur and sat on a cot in the sitting area.
9. Mahendra Singh called Rajkumar Singh, who came with a rifle in his hand along with the Appellant, Karan Singh, who was also armed with a rifle, Sukhlal armed with a single barrel gun, Jagdish Singh armed with a single barrel gun, Harpal Singh armed with a single barrel gun and Nankoo Singh armed with a double barrel gun.
10. At about 9:00 A.M., Brahmapal Singh asked for his money. Harpal Singh asked Rajkumar Singh to discharge his debt to Brahmapal Singh as soon as possible. At this, Rajkumar Singh opened fire with his rifle and shot Brahmapal Singh. The bullet hit his head. Brahmapal Singh fell down unconscious.
11. Thereafter, the associates of Rajkumar Singh, that is, Harpal Singh, Karan Singh, Jagdish Singh, Sukhpal Singh and Nankoo Singh opened fire from their respective weapons. After the associates of Rajkumar Singh opened fire, the complainant, Badshah Singh, Shreepal Singh and Mahendra Singh ran away from the spot. Out of the shots fired from the side of the accused, one shot hit Mahendra Singh. The complainant and other eyewitnesses ran into Sher Singh Thakur's house. When they returned to the place of occurrence, they found Brahmapal Singh dead.
12. After the FIR was lodged, the Investigating Officer investigated the case and after completion of investigation submitted chargesheet against the accused persons Rajkumar Singh, Harpal Singh, Jagdish Singh, Karan Singh, Sukhlal Singh and Nankoo Singh under Sections 148, 302/149 and 307/149 of the IPC.
13. The Fifth Prosecution Witness (PW5) Dr. P.K. Gupta who had conducted the post mortem examination of the dead body of the deceased found several gunshot injuries on the body.
14. The App
(1) Fact that trial/appeal should have taken years and that other accused should have died during appeal cannot be a ground for acquittal of Appellant.(2) In a criminal trial, credible evidence of ev....
The significance of corroborative eyewitness testimony in criminal cases, with minor discrepancies not undermining evidence credibility, unless they affect core facts established beyond reasonable do....
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; if evidence allows for two reasonable conclusions, the one favoring the accused prevails.
Conviction upheld - Reliability of witness testimony - It is settled that merely because witnesses are close relatives of victim, their testimonies cannot be discarded. Relationship with one of parti....
THE EVIDENCE OF CLOSE RELATIONS WHO TESTIFIED FACTS RELATING TO OCCURRENCE BE NOT REJECTED MERELY ON GROUND THAT THEY HAPPENED TO BE RELATIVES. EVIDENCE OF SUCH WITNESSES BE SCRUTINIZED VERY CAREFULL....
The court affirmed that the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and testimonies of interested witnesses can be credible if corroborated by medical evidence.
The court established that common intention under Section 34 of IPC suffices for conviction in murder cases, even with a single fatal injury.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
