Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 551 OF 2005

Satvir ..... Appellant

Versus

State of Uttar Pradesh ..... Respondent

J U D G M E N T

Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J.

1.Eight accused, namely, (1) Fateh Singh, (2) Ram

Chander, (3) Brahma, (4) Satvir, (5) Ram Saran, (6) Harbir,

(7) Pratap and (8) Genda were tried by learned VI Additional

District & Sessions Judge, Meerut, in Sessions Trial No. 70

of 1978 for committing the murder of Hari Dutt Singh.

2.By judgment and order dated 05.12.1979, the learned

trial judge convicted all the accused under Section 302 read

with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (for short “IPC”)

and sentenced each to imprisonment for life. The accused -

Ram Saran, Satvir and Harbir have been further convicted

under Section 148 IPC and each sentenced to two years

rigorous imprisonment, whereas Fateh Singh, Genda,

Pratap, Brahma and Ram Chander have been convicted

under Section 147 IPC and sentenced to one year rigorous

imprisonment. All the sentences were, however, ordered to

run concurrently.

3.The accused persons filed joint appeal in the High

Court of Judicature at Allahabad. The High Court by final

judgment and order dated 25.02.2003 modified the

judgment of the trial court. It converted the conviction of

accused Satvir, Ram Saran and Harbir to Section 302 IPC

read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced them to undergo

life imprisonment. It, however, acquitted Ram Chander,

Brahma, Pratap and Genda. Fateh Singh accused, during

the pendency of the appeal before the High Court, had died;

therefore his appeal stood abated.

4.Satvir appellant herein, has now approached this

Court in this appeal. The learned counsel for the parties

stated before us that no appeal appears to have been filed

by other convicts, namely, Ram Saran and Harbir against

the judgment and order of the High Court.

2

5.The incident leading to the prosecution of the

appellant occurred on 31.10.1977 at about 4 P.M. in the

jungle of village Ahmadpuri, Police Station Parikshatgarh,

District Meerut (U.P.). The report of the incident was lodged

by Mahendra Singh (PW-1) an eyewitness, son of the

deceased Hari Dutt Singh at about 5.30 P.M. in the Police

Station in which the names of all the accused persons were

mentioned.

6.The following pedigree relevant for the purpose of

noticing the relationships between the parties involved in

the case is as under:-

Hari Dutt Singh ---------- Kaley ---------------- Shiv Saran

(Deceased) (brother of (brother of

deceased) deceased)

/ / /

Mahendra Singh Ram Saran Ram Chander Brahma

PW-1 (son of Accused (son Accused (son of Accused

deceased) of Kaley) Shiv Saran) (son of

Shiv Saran)

/ /

Harbir Satvir - Appellant

Accused (son of Accused (son of

Ram Saran) Ram Chander)

3

Pratap accused is the brother-in-law of Ram Chander

accused; whereas Genda is ‘Samdhi’ of accused Ram Saran

and accused Fateh Singh (deceased) was uncle of Mahendra

Singh (PW-1).

7.It was the prosecution case that Mahabir son of Ram

Saran was murdered in the year 1976 and for the said

incident; Hari Dutt Singh [deceased] and his son PW-1 were

facing trial before the Court. One more criminal case filed

by Smt. Sammo is pending against the deceased and PW-1

in the Court of a Magistrate at Meerut. On the day of

incident, i.e. 31.10.1977, both PW-1 and Hari Dutt Singh

had gone to the Court of Magistrate at Meerut to attend the

proceedings in the said case but the same was adjourned at

about 12 0’Clock in the noon. PW-1 and his father had

returned to their village by bus. After getting down at

Parikshatgarh, they started going to their village Ahmadpuri

on foot. At about 4 P.M., they reached on the road dividing

the fields of Balley and Muley where PW-1 was going about

20 paces ahead of his father. The accused persons hiding

themselves in the sugarcane fields of Balley, suddenly

appeared and laid down Hari Dutt Singh on the ground.

Appellant Satvir, accused Ram Saran and accused Harbir

4

each were armed with knives with which they inflicted fatal

injuries on Hari Dutt Singh at the instigation of accused

Ram Saran, who proclaimed that the life of Hari Dutt Singh

should be cut short as he was responsible for the murder of

his son Mahabir. PW-1 shouted and raised alarm which

attracted Bakhtawar Singh (PW-2), Ganga Saran (PW-4),

Gajraj and few more persons to the place of occurrence. All

the accused persons had fled from the place of incident

after committing the murder of Hari Dutt Singh. One Jasbir

Singh recorded the report (Ex. Ka-1) of the incident at the

instance of PW-1 on the basis of which First Information

Report came to be lodged at Police Station at about 5.30

P.M.

8.Head Constable Satya Pal Singh (PW-6), who at the

relevant time, was discharging the duties of A.S.I., Police

Station Parikshatgarh visited the scene of incident and

prepared Panchnama (Ex. Ka-6), Khaka-lash (Ex.-Ka-7) and

Site Plan (Ex.-Ka-9) of the dead body and collected blood-

stained sample of earth from the place of occurrence.

Constable Sukhpal (PW-5) alongwith Constable Baburam

5

took the dead body of Hari Dutt Singh to Hospital for post

mortem.

9.Dr. O.P. Sharma (PW-3) conducted autopsy on the

dead body of the deceased on 01.11.1977 at about 5 P.M.

The following ante-mortem injuries were found on the dead

body:

1.Stab wound 13 cm x 5 cm x abdominal

cavity deep on the front of abdomen

right side upper part just below the

coastal margin transversely; inner end

of the wound was a little above and

outer to the umbilicus.

2.Stab wound 11 cm x 5 cm x abdominal

cavity deep on the left side of abdomen

2 cm below the coastal margin

transversely.

3.Sub wound 5 cm 1 cm x abdominal

cavity deep on the front of abdomen just

below the umbilicus transversely.

4.Incised wound 1-½ cm x 5 cm x muscle

on the front of abdomen right side just

below the anterior superior iliac spine.

5.Incised wound 9 cm x 5 cm trachea cut

on the front of neck middle extending on

both sides transversely.

6.Abrasion 1 cm 1 cm on the back of left

elbow.

10. On internal examination, small intestine was found

stabbed at two places and large intestine stabbed at one

6

place. Left lobe of liver was also stabbed. According to the

opinion of the Doctor, the deceased died due to shock and

haemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem injuries.

11.On completion of the investigation, chargesheet was

filed against the accused persons by Station House Officer

Bijendra Singh Chahar (PW-7).

12.All the accused pleaded not guilty to the charges and

claimed to be tried.

13.The prosecution, in order to substantiate its case,

examined as many as 7 witnesses, out of whom Mahendra

Singh (PW-1), Bakhtawar Singh (PW-2) and Ganga Saran

(PW-4) are the eyewitnesses.

14.The accused in the statements recorded under Section

313 of the Criminal Procedure Code denied the

incriminating evidence appearing against them. Their

defence was denial simpliciter and pleaded false implication

due to enmity. No defence witness has been examined by

them.

15.The trial court on appraisal of the entire evidence on

record held all the accused guilty of the charges and

convicted them as aforesaid.

7

16.Being aggrieved, the accused had filed appeal before

the High Court. The High Court, as stated above, allowed

the appeal of accused Ram Chander, Brahma, Pratap and

Genda and, accordingly, set aside their conviction and

sentences, whereas the conviction of the appellant-Satvir,

Ram Saran and Harbir is converted from Section 302 read

with Section 149 and Section 148 IPC to Section 302 read

with Section 34 IPC. They were sentenced to suffer rigorous

imprisonment for life.

17.Feeling aggrieved thereby and dissatisfied with the

judgment of the High Court, this appeal has been filed by

appellant Satvir in this Court.

18.Mr. Shakil Ahmed Syed, learned counsel appearing on

behalf of the appellant, contended that the evidence

appearing on record against the appellant is verbatim

version to that which was taken into consideration with

regard to the acquittal of four accused and, therefore, the

case of the appellant cannot be decided on any other scale

and should have been treated at par with the evidence

appearing against the acquitted persons. The appellant and

other accused persons have been implicated by PW-1 in a

8

false case due to previous enmity as he alongwith deceased

was an accused in the murder of Mahabir, son of Ram

Saran. According to the learned counsel, the High Court

has committed grave error in convicting the appellant on

the same set of evidence, on the basis of which four

accused, namely, Ram Chander, Brahma, Pratap and

Genda have been acquitted and, therefore, the judgment of

the High Court suffers from factual and legal infirmity and

perversity. The learned counsel then contended that the

conduct of the alleged eyewitnesses, namely, PW-1, PW-2

and PW-4 is so unnatural and casual that they witnessed

the entire incident as silent spectators and did not make

any attempt to save the life of Hari Dutt Singh at the hands

of the accused. Therefore, no implicit reliance can be

placed on the evidence of these witnesses, who are not

trustworthy.

19.Mr. T.N.Singh, Advocate appearing on behalf of the

State, has canvassed correctness of the views taken by the

trial judge which were confirmed by the High Court.

20.In order to appreciate the aforesaid rival contentions of

the learned counsel for the parties, we have independently

9

scrutinized the oral and documentary evidence appearing

on record.

21.Mahendra Singh (PW-1) has clearly stated that at the

time and on the day of incident he was with his father when

the appellant and other accused suddenly attacked the

deceased. He categorically stated that the appellant and his

two companions Ram Chander and Harbir had inflicted

knife injuries on the person of his father. He has given the

names of all the accused persons in the report on the basis

of which FIR came to be registered in the Police Station.

PW-2 Bakhtawar Singh who is an independent witness

deposed that on the day of incident when he was going to

his village Bhadauli from village Kaili, on the way he heard

an alarm raised by PW-1 and saw the appellant, Ram Saran

and Harbir inflicting knife injuries to Hari Dutt Singh.

Suggestion of the accused that he was not present at the

place of incident or he had not seen the incident or that he

is deposing falsely due to relationship, has been denied by

him. PW-4 Ganga Saran Singh deposed that on the day of

incident he witnessed the accused giving beatings to Hari

Dutt Singh in between the fields of Balley and Muley. The

10

appellant alongwith Ram Saran and Harbir had inflicted

knife injuries on the person of Hari Dutt Singh. The

eyewitnesses have been cross-examined at length by the

learned counsel, but nothing tangible has been extracted

from their evidence to create any shadow of doubt that they

are not truthfulness witnesses. They have given reliable,

consistent and creditable version of the crime and their

evidence inspires confidence. It is well-settled that if the

witness is related to the deceased, his evidence has to be

accepted if found to be reliable and believable because he

would inter alia be interested in ensuring that real culprits

are punished.

22.On a careful and cautious scrutiny of the evidence of

PW-1, PW-2 and PW-4, we find their evidence concise,

precise and satisfactory on the point that they had seen the

appellant, Ram Saran and Harbir causing grievous injuries

to Hari Dutt Singh with knife which each was carrying with

him and due to the fatal injuries, he died on the spot. The

evidence of these three eyewitnesses is neither embellished

nor embroidered. We find no particular reason as to why

PW-1, PW-2 and PW-4 have falsely deposed against the

11

appellant. The trial court as well as the High Court have

rightly held that there was a motive for the accused to

commit murder of Hari Dutt Singh because as per the

prosecution evidence, they were nursing a grudge against

the deceased because of his involvement in the commission

of murder of Mahabir son of Ram Saran. The report of the

incident has been promptly lodged by PW-1 in the Police

Station in which the name of all the accused persons and

PW-2 and PW-4 being eyewitnesses were mentioned. Simply

because the eyewitnesses did not make any attempt to save

the life of the deceased from the clutches of the accused

persons, their abnormal conduct by itself cannot be taken

as a ground to disbelieve and discard their testimony in

regard to the genesis of the occurrence and the part played

by the appellant and the other convicted persons in the

commission of the offence.

23The ocular version of the eyewitnesses finds

corroboration from the evidence of Dr. O.P. Sharma who

has found abovesaid six injuries on the body of Hari Dutt

Singh. As per the post mortem report placed on record by

Dr.O.P. Sharma, the deceased received three stab wounds

12

and two incised wounds and in his opinion death of the

deceased had occurred due to shock and haemorrhage as a

result of ante-mortem injuries.

24.On our independent examination of the judgment

given by the trial court and confirmed by the High Court, we

find that both the courts have properly and rightly re-

assessed and reappraised the entire evidence on record and

we find no infirmity or perversity in the findings recorded by

the courts below warranting interference. The High Court

has not found any reliable and clinching evidence led by the

prosecution to prove the guilt of the acquitted-accused.

Therefore, the contention that the appellant shall be held

entitled to benefit of doubt in the same manner as other

acquitted-accused have been given, cannot be accepted.

The occurrence, as spoken by the eyewitnesses, is fully

established and the appellant alongwith Ram Saran and

Harbir will be constructively liable under Section 302 read

with Section 34 IPC for the commission of the crime as fatal

injuries were inflicted by them with knives which they were

carrying in their hands at the time of commission of offence.

The fatal injuries were caused with dangerous weapons on

13

vital parts of the body of deceased which resultantly caused

his death.

25.Learned counsel for the appellant lastly argued that

the appellant had no intention to murder the deceased,

therefore, no offence under Section 302 IPC was made out

against him and at the most it could be a case under

Section 304 Part-II IPC, cannot be accepted in view of the

nature of injuries, the manner in which they were inflicted,

the weapons of offence used and the vital parts of the body

of the deceased selected by the appellant and other two

convicted accused for causing the fatal injuries.

26.We, thus, find no merit and substance in any of the

submissions made on behalf of the appellant.

27.In the result, for the afore-stated reasons, there is no

merit in this appeal and it is, accordingly, dismissed.

........................................J.

(Lokeshwar Singh Panta)

........................................J.

(B. Sudershan Reddy)

New Delhi,

January 21, 2009.

14