RANBEER SINGH (DEAD) BY LRS. Vs. STATE OF U.P.& ORS
Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)
Appeal (Crl.), 205 of 2009, Judgment Date: Mar 27, 2015
-
The main contention is that when the case of prosecution has been believed and relied upon by the High Court and on that basis the main accused Shyamu is convicted, the present three respondents cannot be acquitted. -
Therefore, the only question before us is whether, in the given facts and circumstances the case, the role attributed to the present three Accused-respondents lead to their implication under Section 34 of IPC. -
Limiting ourselves to the above question, we find that there is indeed enough material to infer the common and shared intention of the present accused-respondents with that of Shyamu. -
It goes on to show that they all shared a common intention and worked in tandem. -
we allow the present appeal. The impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside and the judgment and order passed by the Sessions Court is restored.
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 205 OF 2009
Ranbeer Singh (dead) by L.R. ...Appellant
:Versus:
State of U.P. and Ors. ...Respondents
J U D G M E N T
Pinaki Chandra Ghose, J.
1. This is an appeal by the Complainant against the impugned judgment
and order dated 30-04-2008 passed by the High Court of Judicature at
Allahabad in Criminal Appeal No.1674 of 2006. In the impugned judgment the
High Court had allowed the appeal of three accused persons and acquitted
them while maintaining the conviction of the main accused. The present
appeal before us has been filed by the complainant against the acquittal of
the three accused by the High Court. The Sessions Court after trial had
convicted the main accused Shyamu under S. 302, IPC along with Section 25
of the Arms Act while it convicted the other three accused persons, Balbir
Singh, Vinod and Karua (respondents herein) under S. 302, IPC read with S.
34 IPC. The appeal of Shyamu against his conviction by the High Court was
filed in this Court but was dismissed, thus, his conviction has attained
finality.
2. The facts of the present case are that Shyamu, Karua and Vinod are
sons of Balbir Singh and Balbir Singh is the elder brother of the
complainant Ranbeer Singh. The deceased Pooran Singh was the son of the
complainant Ranbeer Singh. Admittedly, there is pending criminal litigation
between Ranbeer Singh and Balbir Singh, the two brothers. The pending
criminal litigation relates to an incident 13 to 14 months prior to the
incident in question in present case wherein Balbir Singh had fired at
Ranbeer Singh with intention of killing him. The pending civil litigation
related to some property between the two brothers. As per the case of the
prosecution, on the date of the incident in the instant case i.e. 07-02-
2002, the complainant was irrigating his field along with his son Pooran
Singh (the deceased) while the 7 year old son of Pooran Singh was sitting
on the Mendh nearby. The four accused persons were irrigating their field,
which was adjoining the field of the complainant, and while they were at
the tubewell of their field, which is 100-150 yards away from the tubewell
of the complainant's field, at around 4:45 pm, four accused persons came to
the complainant making an exhortation "Aaj mauke par mil gaye hain. Inhe
jaan se maar do aur maan lo ki mukdmein ka faisla ho gaya aur zameen humain
mil gayi." (Today, they have met at an opportune time. Kill them and treat
the litigation as decided and we got the land). Thereafter, the present
three respondents Balbir Singh, Karua and Vinod held Pooran Singh and threw
him on the ground and Shyamu made a shot with his gun from behind at the
Pooran Singh. As this happened, the Complainant along with 7 year old
grandson Ankit, ran away to save their life. On hearing the shouts of the
complainant, the persons working in the nearby field saw the accused
persons fleeing from the place of occurrence. The FIR was registered on the
same day at 6:05 pm by the Complainant. During investigation the weapon
being country made pistol of 315 bore was recovered from the field of the
accused on the disclosure statement made by Shyamu.
3. The prosecution evidence consisted of PW1 Ranbeer Singh (eye
witness), PW2 Ankit (eye witness and child witness), PW3 Dr. S.K. Seth
(proved post mortem report), PW4 Constable Saiyed Mohd. Kasim, PW5 S.I.
Roop Chandra Verma, PW6 Inspector Incharge Narendra Kumar Singh and PW7
Constable Pradeep Kumar.
4. The PW1 Ranbeer Singh stated that the accused persons out of enmity
in light of pending civil and criminal litigation and with motive to take
revenge, killed his son on the fateful day. He testified that on 07.02.2002
he was irrigating his field with tubewell along with his son and grandson
Ankit was sitting nearby. At the same time, the four accused were
irrigating their field from a tubewell which was about 100-150 yards away
from the tubewell of complainant. At around 4:45 pm, they came and exhorted
that "today they are alone, hold them and kill them and so we would get our
farmland also". Then Balbir, Karua and Vinod held Pooran Singh and pushed
him on the ground in/near the drain and Shyamu shot at him from behind.
5. The PW2 Ankit was 7 years old when the incident happened and 9 years
old when his statement was recorded. He testified that he was sitting 11-12
feet away from where his grandfather and father were irrigating the field.
He saw that Shyamu shot his father at the back of his head and before
Shyamu shot, Balbir, Karua and Vinod pushed his father in the drain.
Thereafter his grandfather carrying him in his lap, ran away from there.
6. PW-3 Dr. S.K. Seth had conducted the autopsy of the deceased and
found two wounds on head. The bullet entry wound on the front head near the
nose while exit wound on the back side of the head. The parietal and
occipital bone of both sides of the head were fractured. He told the cause
of death was coma resulting from ante mortem injuries.
7. The Session Court after going through the evidence concluded the
guilt of all the accused and convicted Balbir, Karua and Vinod under
Section 302/34 of IPC and Shyamu under Section 302 of IPC, and sentenced
all of them to imprisonment for life, along with a fine of Rs.3000/- and in
default of payment of fine, they shall have to undergo simple imprisonment
for a period of seven months. Shyamu was further sentenced to rigorous
imprisonment for three years under Section 25 of Arms Act.
8. The High Court in appeal dealt extensively with the question of
interested witness and child witness. After a long discussion on both the
points, the High Court found that the testimony of the PW1 Complainant as
well as PW 2 Ankit is reliable. The High court found that there were
questions asked to PW2 to test his understanding and only thereafter
examination pertaining to the case were asked. The statement of PW2
completely corroborated the case of the prosecution. However, after
accepting the evidence of the prosecution, the High Court found that there
was no case made out as against the present three respondent accused
persons under S. 34 as there was no common intention. The High Court found
that there was no prior meeting of minds or premeditation to commit the
offence and that the incident was a sudden scuffle. These three accused
persons did not share the intention to kill the deceased. Therefore, the
High Court acquitted the three accused-respondents.
9. The learned counsel for the complainant-Appellant has sought
conviction of the present respondents. The main contention is that when the
case of prosecution has been believed and relied upon by the High Court and
on that basis the main accused Shyamu is convicted, the present three
respondents cannot be acquitted.
10. The learned counsel for the Respondents has tried to point out
certain contradictions in the facts of the prosecution. However, in view of
the dismissal of appeal of Shyamu by this Court, the facts in this case
have become final and cannot be challenged anymore. If we accept any
contention with respect to those facts, it would upset the finding of
conviction in Shyamu's appeal to this Court. Therefore, the only question
before us is whether, in the given facts and circumstances the case, the
role attributed to the present three Accused-respondents lead to their
implication under Section 34 of IPC.
11. Limiting ourselves to the above question, we find that there is
indeed enough material to infer the common and shared intention of the
present accused-respondents with that of Shyamu. Although, the learned
counsel for the respondents has argued that they had not thrown the
deceased down to the drain with intention of killing him but merely
assaulting him. According to him, the shooting by Shyamu was an independent
act. However, we find that firstly, there was no justifiable reason for the
4 accused persons to go 100-150 yards inside the field of the complainant.
Second, the fact that they carried a weapon being 315 bore country-made
pistol with them clearly shows that they had all the wrong intentions.
Nowhere in the case of defence has this come out that the present three
accused-respondents were not aware of the fact that Shyamu carried the
weapon. Also, the exhortation made by the accused persons against the
complainant and the deceased mentioned about killing them. Having made such
an exhortation, they threw the deceased on the ground. It goes on to show
that they all shared a common intention and worked in tandem. Balbir Singh
is the father of other three accused persons; he could have asked Shyamu to
stop short of shooting, but he did not do so. We find, in the light of
these circumstances, that the High Court erred in acquitting the present
accused-respondents. We are satisfied that the view taken by the High Court
is not even a possible view and therefore calls for interference in this
appeal.
12. On the basis of above discussion, we allow the present appeal. The
impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside and the judgment and order
passed by the Sessions Court is restored.
13. Learned counsel for the accused persons - respondents herein has
submitted that there is a marriage in the house of the accused persons on
22nd April, 2015 and prayed that the accused may not be arrested till the
marriage is solemnized. In view of this submission, we grant six weeks'
time to the three accused-respondents to surrender, failing which the Court
concerned shall take appropriate steps to take them into custody.
........................................J
(Pinaki Chandra Ghose)
........................................J
(Uday Umesh Lalit)
New Delhi;
March 27, 2015.
ITEM NO.1B COURT NO.12 SECTION II
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Criminal Appeal No(s). 205/2009
RANBEER SINGH (DEAD) BY LRS. Appellant(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF U.P.& ORS. Respondent(s)
Date : 27/03/2015 This appeal was called on for pronouncement of
judgment today.
For Appellant(s) Mr. Manoj Swarup, Adv.
Ms. Lalita Kohli, Adv.
Mr. Abhishek Swarup, Adv.
For M/s Manoj Swarup & Co., Advs.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Ajay Veer Singh Jain, Adv.
Mr. U.R. Bokadia, Adv.
Ms. Divya Garg, Adv.
For Mr. Mohd. Irshad Hanif, AOR
Mr. Ashutosh Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Rajeev Dubey, Adv.
For Mr. Ravi Prakash Mehrotra, Adv.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pinaki Chandra Ghose pronounced the reportable
judgment of the Bench comprising His Lordship and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Uday
Umesh Lalit.
The appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment of the High Court is
set aside and the judgment and order passed by the Sessions Court is
restored.
Learned counsel for the accused persons - respondents herein has
submitted that there is a marriage in the house of the accused persons on
22nd April, 2015 and prayed that the accused may not be arrested till the
marriage is solemnized. In view of this submission, we grant six weeks'
time to the three accused-respondents to surrender, failing which the Court
concerned shall take appropriate steps to take them into custody in terms
of the signed reportable judgment.
(R.NATARAJAN) (SNEH LATA SHARMA)
Court Master Court Master
(Signed reportable judgment is placed on the file)