REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 30-31 OF 2003

Gobind Singh ...Appellant

Versus

Krishna Singh and Ors. ....Respondents

J U D G M E N T

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1. Challenge in these appeals is to the judgment of a Division Bench of

the Patna High Court,  accepting the appeals filed by the accused persons

who  had  filed  two  appeals  before  the  High  Court,  one  was  by  the

respondents  1  to  11  in  Criminal  Appeal  No.61  of  2001  and  other  by

respondent No.1 in Criminal Appeal No.139 of 2001 before the High Court,

which by the impugned judgment disposed of the two appeals filed by the

accused persons and the reference made under Section 366 of the Code of

Criminal  Procedure,  1973 (in short  the ‘Code’) for confirmation of death

sentence  awarded  by  the  trial  Court  which  was  numbered  as  Death

Reference  No.1  of  2001.  The  present  appeals  have  been  filed  by  the

informant.   The  respondents  in  the  present  two  appeals  excluding

respondent  No.1-Krishna  Singh  were  convicted  for  offence  punishable

under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in

short the ‘IPC’) and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and were also

convicted under section 17 of the criminal law amendment Act, 1998 and

sentenced  to  undergo  simple  imprisonment  for  six  months.  Respondent

Suresh was further convicted under Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 (in

short  ‘Arms  Act’)  and  was  awarded  3  years  of  rigorous  imprisonment.

Respondent  No.1-Krishna  Singh  was  convicted  for  offence  punishable

under Section 302 IPC and was sentenced to be hanged till death..

2. The allegations on the basis of which law was set in motion read as

follows:

A fardbayan of Gobind Singh (Exh.3) recorded on 6.8.1997 at 9.45

p.m. at the place of occurrence itself was that about twelve to thirteen days

ago informant had received a letter from respondent-Brahmdeo Paswan, a

member of M.C.C. Committee imposing ban upon him from cultivating his

field but no action was taken as the informant had no enmity with the said

2

organization and again on 5.8.1997 at about 9.30 p.m., four accused persons

had  come to  the  house  of  the  informant  and  asked  him to  come to  the

orchard to have a talk with the party members which, however, was avoided

by the informant. On 6.8.1997 while the informant with his brother Madam

Singh (hereinafter referred to as the ‘deceased’) was returning on the same

bicycle after having made some purchases at Aurangabad and reached near

Rampur bridge at 5.00 p.m. the informant got down and started talking to a

labourer  but  deceased Madan Singh moved ahead slowly on bicycle.  As

soon as deceased Madan Singh reached the eastern portion of the bridge

upon river Adari, the accused persons who have been named and who were

sitting in ambush, stood up and surrounded Madan Singh and caught hold of

him. Accused-respondent  Suresh  Singh  fired  from revolver  and accused-

respondent  No.1  Krishna Singh started  cutting the  neck of  Madan Singh

with a ‘Pasuli’, an instrument used for tapping toddy, catching hold of the

hair of deceased. The informant seeing that ran away and reached Karma  

Village shouting where he told the people about the occurrence and came

back to the place of occurrence with the people of that village only to find

his deceased  brother lying in a pool of blood at the bridge with the bicycle

lying beside him and the accused persons fled away. The informant claimed

that persons working in the nearby field had also witnessed the occurrence.  

3

Giving out the motive behind the occurrence, it was claimed that his

relative Shanker Dayal Singh of Karma Village, a Mukhiya was on inimical

terms with the M.C.C.  party members and his ‘katchery’ in village Unthoo,

some days back was demolished by the party members for which two co-

villagers  of the  informant  were sent  to jail  for  which the party members

blamed that the informant side had given out their names to the police. After

investigation, charge sheet was submitted and ultimately the trial was held

and the accused persons were convicted as noted above.  

The  trial  Court  relied  on  the  evidence  of  the  eye-witnesses  and

recorded the conviction and awarded the sentences as noted above. In view

of the imposition of death sentence a reference was made to the High Court

for confirmation.  

3. Stand of the appellants-accused persons before the High Court was

that none of the so-called two eye-witnesses namely, Gobind Singh (PW-2)

nor his father Ramraj Singh (PW-4) could have seen the occurrence  but

finding the dead body of the deceased they fabricated a story to implicate

the accused persons. It was pointed out that letter Ext.-4 which was stated to

be the motive of the crime has been created for the purpose of the case. It

4

was  stated  that  none  of  the  accused  persons  could  be  said  to  have  any

grudge against  the  deceased so  as  to  kill  him and it  was  not  proved by

cogent evidence that the accused were members of the banned organization

M.C.C.  On the other hand the Public Prosecutor referred to the evidence of

PWs 2 and 4 and stated that the conviction was in order.  

4. Though the High Court has in a number of  pages of  the judgment

purportedly  analysed  the  evidence,  the  conclusions,  to  say  the  least,  are

sketchy.  Some  of  the  conclusions  are  also  contrary  to  the  evidence  on

record.  To illustrate,  the High Court  had observed that neither PW-2 nor

PW-4 for a long time till recording of the FIR had told anybody the details

of  the  occurrence  or  the  names  of  the  assailants  though  they  met  large

number of people. Further, the High Court held that the informant’s claim

that he and the deceased were returning on a cycle after purchase of juggery

tied  with  carrier  of  cycle  and  potatoes  were  kept  in  a  bag  which  were

scattered did not find support from the evidence of the investigating officer.

This conclusion is patently wrong as the investigating officer merely said

that he did not seize those articles. The High Court also noted that in Court

the cycle was found without a carrier. This conclusion is also wrong as in

para 15 the trial Court noted that the cycle was produced as material Ext.I

5

and it  had  a  carrier.  Almost  all  the  conclusions  are  essentially  based  on

surmises and conjectures. We do not think it necessary to go into them in

detail.  Even  in  respect  of  the  letter  the  conclusions  are  contrary  to  the

evidence on record. The letters Exts. 15 to 17 were proved by PW-2. One of

the  conclusions  for  doubting  the  prosecution  version  was  that  the  main

assailants and two others were arrested on the same night from the village

and  claimed  innocence.  This  can  be  hardly  a  ground  to  doubt  the

prosecution version and to discard it. In view of the aforesaid unsatisfactory

nature of the disposal of the appeal and the Death Sentence, we set aside the

impugned  order  and  remit  the  matter  to  the  High  Court  for  a  fresh

consideration. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on

the merits of the case except referring to some of the circumstances which

apparently  could  not  have  formed  the  foundation  of  the  High  Court’s

impugned judgment.  

5. The appeals are allowed.   

…………………………………..J. (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)

……………………………..……J. (Dr. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA)

6

New Delhi, December 3, 2008

7