CRL.A. NO. 750 OF 2005                                                                                                                        REPORTABLE 1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.  750  OF 2005

 DEO NARAIN  ..... APPELLANT

VERSUS

STATE OF U.P.  ..... RESPONDENT

O R D E R

1. Six persons in all namely Raj Narain, Deo Narain,  

Shiv Singh, Vijay Singh, Raj Bahadur Singh and Anirudh  

Singh  were  brought  to  trial  for  offences  punishable  

under Section 302 read with 149 of the Indian Penal  

Code  for  having  committed  the  double  murder  of  Ram  

Swarup and Ram Pratap Singh.  They were all convicted  

by the trial court.  While their appeal was pending in  

the High Court, Raj Narain, Vijay Singh, Raj Bahadur  

Singh and Anirudh Singh passed away.  The High Court,  

accordingly, went into the matter qua Deo Narain and  

Shiv Singh, the two surviving accused, and vide the  

impugned  judgment,  dismissed  the  appeal.   A  Special  

Leave Petition was thereafter filed in this Court by

CRL.A. NO. 750 OF 2005                                                                                                                        REPORTABLE 2

the two convicted accused.  By order dated 12th May,  

2005, this Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition  

vis-á-vis Shiv Singh and granted leave to the present  

appellant.  It is in this situation that the matter is  

before us and has been heard at length.

2. The facts of the case are as under:

2.1 At  about  7:00a.m.  on  4th June,  1980  a  quarrel  

took place in which Ram Pratap Singh, deceased, was  

assaulted by one Shiv Ram Yadav near village Hyderpur.  

Ram Pratap Singh sustained a simple injury on his leg  

and after returning home he along with his brother Jai  

Singh – P.W. 7 and several others including  Raj Bali  

etc. and  Ram Swarup deceased left the village on two  

bicycles  to  lodge  a  report  at  the  Bidhnu  Police  

Station.  Jai Singh – P.W. 7 and Raj Bali were on one  

bicycle where as the second bicycle was being plied by  

Ram  Swarup  with  Ram  Pratap  Singh  sitting  on  the  

pillion.  Ram Swarup and Raj Bali were also carrying  

their licensed weapons.  As the party neared village  

Harbaspur  at  about  8:00a.m.,   Raj  Narain  and  Vijay  

Singh armed with guns,  Raj Bahadur with a pistol, and  

Deo Narain, Shiv Singh and Anirudh Singh armed with  

lathis emerged suddenly from their hiding place.  Vijay  

Singh and Raj Bahadur opened fire on Ram Pratap Singh

CRL.A. NO. 750 OF 2005                                                                                                                        REPORTABLE 3

as  a  result  whereof   he  fell  down  from  the  cycle  

whereas Raj Narain fired on Ram Swarup with the result  

that the gun fell from his hand.  Ram Swarup attempted  

to run away.  In the meanwhile, as Raj Bahadur was  

about to open fire with his pistol on Ram Pratap Singh,  

Raj Bali fired at him with his licensed gun.  Anirudh  

Singh and Shiv Singh thereafter snatched the gun of Ram  

Swarup and Anirudh Singh picked up the gun of Raj Bali  

and all of them chased Ram Swarup who ran for his life  

towards  a tube  well.  Shiv Singh  and Anirudh  Singh  

thereafter fired at him killing him instantaneously.  

Deo Narain as well as the other accused also assaulted  

Ram Swarup  with their weapons.  Ram Pratap Singh too  

was killed in the attack.  An FIR was, accordingly,  

lodged  at  the  police  station  by  P.W.  7  and  on  the  

completion  of  the  investigation  the  accused  were  

brought to trial and convicted and sentenced for the  

various offences under which they had been charged.  As  

already mentioned above, we are now concerned only with  

the appeal of Deo Narain as four of the other accused  

have died and the special leave petition filed by Shiv  

Singh has been dismissed in limine.   

3. Mr. Subodh Patil, the learned counsel for the  

appellant has pointed out that there was a clear doubt

CRL.A. NO. 750 OF 2005                                                                                                                        REPORTABLE 4

as  to  the  participation  of  the  appellant  in  the  

incident as no specific role had been attributed to him  

as the injuries caused to Ram Swarup with a lathi had  

been attributed to three accused.  It has also been  

pointed out that there was admitted animosity between  

the parties as would be evident from the FIR itself and  

also from the statements of P.W. 7 and P.W. 8 which was  

to the effect that several criminal  litigations had  

been  initiated  between  them  and  they  had  different  

political affiliations as well and for this reason also  

the possibility of false implication of a large number  

of persons from one group could not be ruled out.  He  

has  further  pointed  out  that  the  Bench  hearing  the  

Special Leave Petition had noticed the difference in  

the participation of Shiv Singh and Deo Narain and had  

declined to grant leave to Shiv Singh.

4. Mr. T.N. Singh, the learned counsel for the State  

of U.P. has, however, submitted that there were four  

blunt weapon injuries on the person of Ram Swarup, one  

of the deceased, and as such appellant had been rightly  

convicted under Sections 148 and 302/149 of the IPC and  

the mere fact that he may or may not have caused any  

specific injury would be of no effect as the common  

object of the unlawful assembly to commit murder was

CRL.A. NO. 750 OF 2005                                                                                                                        REPORTABLE 5

writ large on the facts of the case.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties  

and have considered the arguments advanced before us.

6. It is true, as contended by Mr. T.N. Singh, that  

the  factum  of  causing  an  injury  or  not  causing  an  

injury would not always be relevant where the accused  

is sought to be roped in with the aid of Section 149 of  

the IPC.  At the same time, where the animosity between  

parties  is  admitted  with  a  series  of   murders  and  

attempted murders interse and political rivalries going  

back for years together, a case of false implication is  

also a clear possibility.  It is for this reason that  

the Courts sift the evidence to separate the grain from  

the  chaff  and  to  see  that  in  a  case  of  admitted  

animosity  and  a  large  number  of  accused  some  

corroborating  evidence  to  support  the  eye  witness  

account  must  be  looked  for.   We  find  that  several  

persons were armed with lathis including Deo Narain,  

the appellant herein.  The only allegation against him  

is that after Ram Swarup had fallen down near the tube  

well after being shot, the appellant, along with the  

others, had caused him injuries with lathis.   We have  

also gone through the so called lathi injuries.  They

CRL.A. NO. 750 OF 2005                                                                                                                        REPORTABLE 6

are all abrasions of very small dimensions.  We are of  

the  opinion  that  such  injuries  could  not  have  

ordinarily been caused by lathis.  In this view of the  

matter, it cannot be said with complete  certainity  

that he was one of those who had been involved in the  

incident.  It bears repetition that five of the other  

accused have been attributed significant roles in the  

two murders whereas the appellant has been given an  

omnibus role of causing lathi injuries to Ram Swarup,  

only.  We are, therefore of the opinion that in this  

background  the  appellant  would  be  entitled  to  the  

benefit of doubt.  We, accordingly, allow this appeal  

and  order  his  acquittal.   He  shall  be  released  

forthwith if not wanted in connection with any other  

case.

      ......................J      [HARJIT SINGH BEDI]

    ........................J      [CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD]

NEW DELHI JULY 28, 2010.