BIJENDRA BHAGAT Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

Appeal (Crl.), 2202 of 2011, Judgment Date: May 29, 2015

 According  to  the
witnesses these two accused were also armed with country made pistols.   The
injuries suffered by the deceased  are  incised  wounds  and  one  fire  arm
injury.  However, none of the injuries on the person of the  deceased  could
be attributed to the  lathi  which  was  supposedly  in  the  hands  of  the
appellant.  Undoubtedly, three injuries on the person of Sanjay Kumar  could
be caused by  a  hard  and  blunt  object.   But  having  gone  through  the
testimony of the witnesses and the other material on  record,  the  presence
of the appellant and his involvement in the incident clearly appears  to  be
doubtful.   We,  therefore,  deem  it  appropriate  to  give  the  appellant
benefit of doubt.  We, therefore, acquit him of  all  the  charges  and  set
aside the judgment and order  under  appeal  insofar  as  the  appellant  is
concerned.  

                                                              NON-REPORTABLE

                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                       CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2202 of 2011


Bijendra Bhagat                                                  …. Appellant

                                   Versus

State of Uttarakhand                                           …. Respondent


                                  O R D E R



1.    The appellant and his two sons named Raman @  Babloo  and  Randhawa  @
Billoo  were tried for having caused the deaths  of  one  Rakesh  and  Attar
Kali  and thereby committed the offences punishable under  Sections  302/34,
324/34 and 452 IPC.

2.    According to the prosecution, on 21.10.1999 at  about  6.30  pm  there
was a quarrel between the children of PW2 Surat  Singh  and  the  appellant.
Thereafter in the intervening night of 21st  and  22nd  October,  1999,  the
appellant armed with a lathi, accused Raman @ Babloo and Randhawa  @  Billoo
both armed with Tabals (heavy sharp edged weapon) and country  made  pistols
came to the house of PW2 Surat Singh and dragged his  son  Rakesh  from  the
house and started assaulting.  The inmates of the house, namely, PW1  Sanjay
Kumar, his father PW2 Surat Singh and mother  Attar  Kali  came  forward  to
save said Rakesh.  Rakesh suffered eight injuries out of  which  seven  were
incised wounds and the eighth injury was caused by a fire arm.   Attar  Kali
received four injuries, all of them being incised wounds.  PW1 Sanjay  Kumar
received three injuries, two of them being lacerated wounds  and  the  third
was an abrasion.

3.    Accepting the case of the prosecution, the trial court  convicted  all
the  accused  under  Section  302/34  IPC  and  sentenced  them  to   suffer
imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-,  under  Section  324/34
IPC to suffer RI for one year and  to  pay  fine  of  Rs.1,000/-  and  under
Section 452 IPC to suffer RI for one year and to  pay  fine  of  Rs.1,000/-.
The conviction and sentence so recorded by the trial court was  affirmed  by
the High Court in appeal.  The appellant and his sons  Raman  @  Babloo  and
Randhawa  @  Billoo  preferred  special  leave  petitions  in   this   Court
challenging their conviction  and  sentence.   This  Court  found  no  merit
insofar as the petitions preferred by Raman @ Babloo and Randhawa  @  Billoo
are concerned and their petitions were dismissed  on  16.08.2011.   However,
insofar as the appellant is concerned, special leave to appeal was  granted.
 By subsequent order, considering the age of  the  appellant  and  the  fact
that he had remained in jail for about three years, this Court released  him
on bail.  In this appeal arising thus, we have  heard  learned  counsel  and
gone through the record.

4.    The prosecution witnesses are consistent in their version  that  Raman
@ Babloo and Randhawa @  Billoo  were  armed  with  Tabals  with  which  the
injuries were inflicted upon  Rakesh  and  Attar  Kali.   According  to  the
witnesses these two accused were also armed with country made pistols.   The
injuries suffered by the deceased  are  incised  wounds  and  one  fire  arm
injury.  However, none of the injuries on the person of the  deceased  could
be attributed to the  lathi  which  was  supposedly  in  the  hands  of  the
appellant.  Undoubtedly, three injuries on the person of Sanjay Kumar  could
be caused by  a  hard  and  blunt  object.   But  having  gone  through  the
testimony of the witnesses and the other material on  record,  the  presence
of the appellant and his involvement in the incident clearly appears  to  be
doubtful.   We,  therefore,  deem  it  appropriate  to  give  the  appellant
benefit of doubt.  We, therefore, acquit him of  all  the  charges  and  set
aside the judgment and order  under  appeal  insofar  as  the  appellant  is
concerned.   The  appellant  is  already  on  bail.   His  bail  bonds   are
discharged.   The appeal is allowed in above terms.

                                                               ………………………..J.
                                                                (A.K. Sikri)



                                                               ………………………..J.
                                                          (Uday Umesh Lalit)

New Delhi,
May 29, 2015


-----------------------
4