http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 13  

CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.)  752-755 of 2005

PETITIONER: Sarvesh Narain Shukla

RESPONDENT: Daroga Singh & Ors

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 12/10/2007

BENCH: S.B. SINHA & HARJIT SINGH BEDI

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T  With Crl.A. No.834/2005, 835/2005, 910-912/2005

HARJIT SINGH BEDI, J

1.      This judgment will dispose of Criminal Appeal Nos.  752-755 of 2005 pertaining to the acquittal of four of the  accused whereas  Criminal Appeal Nos. 834 of 2005, 835 of  2005 and 910-912 of 2005 have been filed by the accused who  stand convicted both by the trial Court as well as by the  High Court.  2.     The facts have been taken from the record of Criminal  Appeal No. 835 of 2005. They are as under:  3.     On 4.4.1999 Rakesh Kumar Pandey along with his  brother-in-law Surya Narain @ Vakil Shukla along with three  others, Devi Shankar Dubey, Prem Shanker Dubey and the car  driver Shesh Mani were returning from Aurai to Gopiganj in  the latter\022s car No. WB 26A 7554. As the car reached near  the Trimuhani on the middle of the road in Gopiganj,  accused Udai Bhan Singh, Akbal Bahadur @ Atkoti Singh, Prem  Singh, Dhunni Singh, Munni Singh, Daroga Singh, Rajeshwar  Upadhyay, Pintoo Singh and two other persons all armed with  modern weapons starting firing at the car. The firing led  to the death of Surya Narain @ Vakil Shukla, Devi Shanker  Dubey and Shesh Mani at the spot. Rakesh Kumar Pandey and  Prem Shanker who were sitting on the rear seat rushed out  of the car to save themselves and they too received some  superficial injuries in that process.  The assailants also  picked up the licensed rifle of Prem Shanker Dubey which  was lying in the car and thereafter ran away from the spot.  The occurrence was also witnessed by Shiv Prasad @ Dangar  Tewari, Mukand Lal, Ram Dutt Mishra and several other  persons.  A FIR was thereafter lodged by Rakesh Kumar  Pandey at 3.45 p.m. in Police Station Gopiganj a kilometer  away from the place of incident, on which  S.I. Vidya  Prakash Misra reached the place of occurrence and recorded  the  statement of Rakesh Kumar Pandey whereas SI Rashid  Ahmad prepared the inquest reports of the deceased on the  dictation of SI Vidya Prakash Misra.  On an inspection of  the site, several pieces of glass, a blood stained piece of  rexine, and shoes and some fired cartridges, a rifle and a  9 mm pistol licensed to deceased Surya Narain Shukla were  recovered.  The bodies were also sent for the post mortem  examinations.  The post mortem examination on the dead body  of Devi Shanker Dubey was conducted by Dr. Radhey Raman on

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 13  

4.4.1999 at about 11.55 p.m. whereas Dr. Sanjay Tewari  conducted the post mortem examinations on the dead bodies  of Shesh Mani at 11.30 p.m and that on Surya Narain Shukla  45 minutes later i.e. at 0030 hours. All three dead bodies  showed extensive fire arms injuries. Dr. A.K. Pandey also  medically examined Prem Shanker Dubey at 5.25 p.m on  4.4.1999 and found two lacerated simple injuries on his  person whereas the examination of Rakesh Kumar Pandey at  8.15 p.m. on 4.4.1999 by Dr. L.S. Mishra showed five simple  injuries; three abrasions and two contusions.  The doctors  opined that these injuries could have been caused as the  two were making a hurried exit from the car.  On the  completion of the investigation the accused were charged  for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 302 read  with 149 I.P.C whereas appellant Suresh Singh @ Jajjey  Singh was in addition charged under Section 379 IPC for  having taking away Prem Shankar Dubey\022s rifle from the car  whereas Tehsildar Singh  and Suresh Singh were further  charged under Section 411 I.P.C.  The accused pleaded not  guilty and sought trial.  4.      Rakesh Kumar Pandey, the first informant and the  primary witness to the murders, was himself murdered during  the course of the trial. The prosecution nevertheless  relied on the evidence of PW1 Shiv Prasad @ Dangar Tewari  who deposed to the circumstances leading to his presence at  the spot and the manner of the attack and further stated  that  about 15/20  shots had been fired at the car by the  accused from a close range as the car had stalled after  having had a collision with a bus as the car driver had  attempted to race away. He also stated that he knew most of  the accused having dealt with them at one time or another.   The prosecution also relied on the evidence of PW 4 Prem  Shankar Dubey,  another eye witness but he did not support  the prosecution and was declared hostile having partly  disowned the story given by him in his earlier statements.   The other eye witness PW 5  Ram Dutt Misra, however,  supported the prosecution story and justified his presence  by deposing that he had gone to Vidhyachal temple for  darshan in the morning and while returning there from he  had taken a lift alongwith Dangar Tewari PW1 on Mukund  Lal\022s Bullet motor-cycle to reach his  home in Gopiganj.   The prosecution also relied on the medical evidence (and  the various reports tendered) of  PW 6 Dr. A.K. Pandey and   PW 7 Dr. L.S. Misra with regard to the injuries on Prem  Shankar Dubey and Rakesh Kumar Pandey respectively. The  prosecution also examined the police officials involved in  the investigation viz., PW 10 S.I. Irshad Ali  who had  recorded the inquest reports on the dictation of  PW  13  Vidya Prakash Misra SHO and also dispatched the dead bodies  for their post mortem examinations,  PW 11 Constable Prabhu  Nath Yadav who deposed that the dead bodies had been handed  over to Constable Manoj Rai and Devi Shanker Pandey for  being taken for the post mortems, PW 13 Vidya Prakash Misra  who had made the various recoveries already mentioned above  and had also inspected the place of  incident and the car  and had found about 40 bullet marks thereon, and also  several other police officials who had been involved in the  peripheral investigation or had arrested some of the  accused.  The prosecution story was then put to the accused  and they denied their involvement in the incident and  pleaded false implication. The trial Court examined the  matter in extenso and held that there had been no delay in  the recording of the FIR and the argument that the first  information report had come into existence after the  inquest proceedings had been completed, was unacceptable.  

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 13  

The Court also found that Rakesh Kumar Pandey and Prem  Shanker Dubey had both been injured in their attempt to get  out from the car and this evidence to, was a  significant  circumstance pointing to their presence.  It  also held  that PW 1 Shiv  Prasad and PW 5 Ram Dutt Misra who had  supported the prosecution had cogently explained their  presence at the crucial moment in as much that both had  gone to Vindhyachal temple for darshan and while returning  had sought a lift back to Gopiganj triple riding with  Mukund Lal on his Bullet motor cycle and that the attempt  on the part of the defence to get them to explain their  movements minute by minute could not be accepted as this  could not be a  realistic approach in such callous and  gruesome multiple murders.  The trial Court also found that  the medical evidence supported the ocular version in as  much that the injuries found on the dead bodies clearly  revealed that several types of weapons had been used and  that too from a very close range causing extensive internal  and external injuries on the persons of the deceased.  It  also observed that in a case of firing by several persons  at others confined in a vehicle with all three deceased  sitting in the front seat, it was well nigh impossible to  expect an eye witness sitting on the rear seat to give the  exact details as to the position of the deceased and the  assailants when the firing had taken place.  The court  nevertheless held that the motive had not been proved.  The  court then went into the involvement of each of the accused  and observed that nine of the accused had been named in the  FIR and two others who had not been named also figured in  the incident and that some of the accused had been  subsequently identified by name.  The court held that as  there was no motive for false implication, a case against  eleven of the accused under Sections 147, 148, 302 read  with Section 149 IPC had been made out.    The Court also  held that the charge under Sections 379/411 IPC against  accused Suresh Singh and the case against Tehsildar Singh  who had not been named in the FIR and had been attributed  only a Lalkara by the eye witnesses who were also  discrepant as to the manner of his participation, he was  entitled to an acquittal in toto.   The trial Court finally observed that: \023On the basis of the entire above  discussions and conclusion the accused  Udhaybhan Singh @ Doctor Singh, Pinto  Singh @ Sandeep Singh, Iqbal Bahadur  Singh @ Atkotic Singh, Prem Singh @  Prem Bahadur Singh, Chunni   Singh @ Mata Prasad Singh, Daroga Singh  @ Shri Krishan Singh, Rajeshwar  Upadhaya, Suresh Kumar @ Jajje Singh,  Sanjay Singh, Santosh Kumar Singh are  found guilty of the offence under  Sections 147/148/302/149 IPC\024,

               and ordered that: \023The accused are sentenced  to life  sentence under Section 302/149 IPC and  fine of Rs.5000-5000/- each accused and if  the fine is not paid, one month sentence  and under Section 147 Cr.P.C 3 months  rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.500- 500 each and in the event of not paying  the fine 10 days further rigorous  imprisonment and under Section 148 Cr.P.C  6 months rigorous imprisonment and fine of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 13  

Rs.1000-1000 each and in the event of not  paying the fine 15 days further rigorous  imprisonment is justifiable.  

5.      Several appeals were subsequently filed before the  High Court.  The High Court on a reconsideration of the  matter allowed the appeals of Pinto Singh @ Sandeep Singh,  Daroga Singh @ Krishan Singh, Chunni Singh @ Mata Prasad  Singh and Prem Bahadur Singh holding that their names had  been revealed by Dangar Tewari PW 1 for the first time in  Court and it was therefore  unsafe to maintain their on  the basis of the statement of PW 5 Ram Dutt Misra alone.   The High Court accordingly directed as under: S.No. Crl.Appeal  No. Name of  Appellant  Sessions  Court Order High Court  Order 1. 5588/2004 Suresh Kumar @  Jajjey Singh Sessions  Judge  conviction  and award.   Appeal  Dismissed. 2. 5589/2004 (i)     Rajeshwar  Upadhyay (ii)    Prem  Singh@   Prem  Bahadur  Singh (i)   - DO  -   

(ii)  - DO  -

(i) Appeal  Dismissed. (ii)Appeal  Allowed/  Acquitted  of the  charges 3. 2503/2004 (i)     Pintoo  Singh @  Sandeep  Singh (ii)    Akbla  Bahadur@  Atkoti  Singh

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 13  

(i)    - DO  -

(ii)   -  DO -  (i) Appeal  Allowed/  Acquitted  of the  charges.

(ii)Appeal  Dismissed 4. 2826/2004 Udai Bhan Singh  @ Doctor Singh         -  DO - Appeal  Dismissed 5. 2863/2004 Santosh Kumar  Singh and Sanjai  Singh         -  DO - Appeal  Dismissed 6. 3072/2004 Chunni Singh         -  DO -  Appeal  Allowed/  Acquitted  of the  charges.

6.      The present set of criminal appeals have been filed  against the judgment of the High Court. 7.      Mr. Sushil Kumar, the learned senior counsel for the  appellants has raised several arguments before us during  the course of hearing. He has first emphasized that the  incident had happened at 3 P.M. on 4.4.1999 and the FIR had  statedly been lodged in the police station within 45  minutes by Rakesh Kumar Pandey an eye witness, but the  special report had been delivered to the Magistrate on  8.4.1999 and that there was no explanation for the delay  and it thus appeared that the FIR had been written much  later and then ante timed.  It has accordingly been  suggested that the prosecution story had been cooked up  involving all the accused who all belonged to one extended  family in connivance with the police.  It has also been  pleaded that the delay in the recording of the FIR had been  utilized by the police in creating three eye witnesses PW 1  Shiv Prasad @ Dangar Tewari, PW 4 Prem Shanker Dubey and PW  5 Ram Dutt Misra  who had cordial relations with the  complainant party but an in depth examination of the story

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 13  

projected by them revealed that they had not been present  and that this argument was fortified  as in the inquest  report it  had been noted that the dead bodies had been  found outside the car whereas the eye witnesses had  projected the story that the dead bodies had been taken out  from the car by the police.  It has also been submitted  that had Prem Shanker Dubey PW 4 and Rakesh Kumar Pandey   been sitting in the car when the firing had taken place,  they would not have escaped unscathed more particularly  as  about 40 shots had been fired at the car with automatic and  semi-automatic weapons at the deceased sitting in the front  seat.   It has also been suggested that the nature of  injuries found on the dead bodies showed that the medical  evidence was completely at variance with the ocular  evidence.  It has finally  argued that the prosecution had  not been able to prove any motive for the incident and it  had been so found by the trial court itself and that it  appeared from the defence version that the murders had been  committed by unknown assailants and that the accused had  been involved on account of the  rancour and ill will of  the police as about 20 policemen were facing trial arising  on a complaint made by Tehsildar Singh for the killing of  his son Hazaria, allegedly in a fake encounter. 8.      Mr. Anup Chowdhury, the learned senior counsel has  however supported the judgment of conviction.  It has also  been pointed out (in the appeal against acquittal) that the  acquittal of the four accused was not justified as the  evidence against them was identical with that of the  accused who had failed before the High Court.      9.      We now examine the arguments raised by the learned  counsel in extenso.  It is true that the incident having  been taken place at about 3 p.m. on 4.4.1999 prima facie  makes the receipt of the special report by the Magistrate  on 8.4.99 rather inexplicable, the more so (as emphasized  by Mr. Sushil Kumar) that a day after the incident, the  police had itself moved an application under Sections 82  and 83 Cr.P.C. against the accused in the Court of the  Special Magistrate. We have, however, very carefully gone  through the record on this aspect, as we are aware that the  fate of the appeal would hinge substantially on this issue.   For the purpose of clarity we reiterate the following  facts; the incident had happened on 4.4.99 at 3 P.M., the  FIR had been lodged in the police station a kilometer away  at 3.45 p.m. by Rakesh Kumar Pandey and the special report  delivered after four days on 8.4.99.  There are however  certain circumstances on record which show that the FIR had  in fact been lodged at the time suggested by the  prosecution.  It has come in evidence that the inquest on  the three dead bodies had started at 5.45 p.m. and that the  dead bodies had been removed to the police head quarters at  6.30 p.m. and received therein at 7.45 p.m. It has also  come on record that on account of the gravity of the crime,  the District Magistrate had, at 10.50 p.m., authorized the  medical staff to conduct the post mortem during night hours  and the post mortems were in fact conducted within the next  hour or two.   Significantly also, we observe from the  cross examination of PW 2 Head Constable Uma Shanker Pandey  (who had registered the formal FIR)  that while he admitted  that the special report had indeed been received by the CJM  on 8.4.99 but he clarified that a copy of the FIR had  reached the Circle Police Officer on 5.4.99.  Likewise PW 9  Constable Devi Prasad Pandey deposed that the dead bodies  had been sealed and handed over to him between 6.30 p.m.  and 7.00p.m. on 4.4.99 and that he was in possession of the  first information report and other related documents which

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 13  

had been handed over by him to the doctor.  It bears  highlighting that this witness was not even cross-examined  on this aspect.  This statement is further fortified by a  perusal of Ex.Ka-19 the inquest proceedings relating to  deceased Shesh Mani Rai and amongst the enclosures with the  inquest report is the nakal chik (which is a copy of the  FIR) and a report made by the Sub Inspector on this exhibit  that the dead bodies had been handed over for post mortem  along with the appended documents.  It is also significant  that Dr. Sanjay Tewari PW 8 who had conducted the post  mortem examination on the dead body of Surya Narain deposed  that he had received the first information report at the  time of the post mortem and that he had read the same  before conducting the proceeding. To our mind, therefore,  the suspicion that a line or two might have squeezed in  here or there in some of the documents prepared during the  initial investigation would not dislodge the huge volume of  documentary and ocular evidence on the spontaneity of the  FIR. 10.     Faced with this situation Mr. Sushil Kumar has then  argued that the three witnesses produced by the police i.e.  PW 1 Shiv Prasad @ Dangar Tewari, PW 4 Prem Shanker Dubey  and PW 5 Ram Dutt Misra, only two that is PW 1 and PW 5 had  supported the prosecution and being chance witnesses had  not been able to explain their presence at the spot.  It  has also been submitted that Mukund Lal, the third person  and the owner of the Bullet motor cycle on which PW1 & PW5  had come from Vidhyachal, had not been examined as a  witness which clearly falsified the entire story.   Conversely, it has been submitted that the only witness who  could possibly have been an eye witness to the incident as  he was travelling in the car at the time of the incident  and whose rifle had been removed from the car after the  incident and recovered from the accused i.e. Prem Shanker  Dubey had not supported the prosecution, thus causing a  clear doubt on the entire prosecution story.  11.     The argument noted above would have to be examined in  the background of some special facts.  It must be  remembered that the incident had happened in broad day  light on the main road going through a prosperous town  amongst groups (both the assailants as well as the  victims), who were prominent citizens deeply involved in  commerce and politics and several prior incidents involving  them in some other criminal matters not necessarily with  each other had already taken place.  It is therefore  obvious that the murders would have created a furore and  caused a huge amount of consternation and it has in fact  come in evidence that thousands of persons had collected at  the site, soon after the incident.  With this introduction  we now examine as to whether the eye witnesses had been  present at the spot or not. It is to be noted that Rakesh  Kumar Pandey, the first informant had signed the inquest  report at the place of incident and his statement under  Section 161 Cr.P.C had also been recorded by the  Investigating Officer PW 13 prior to the preparation of the  inquest report.  Unfortunately, Rakesh Kumar Pandey could  not be examined as he had in the meanwhile been murdered.  The prosecution has accordingly fallen back primarily on  the statements of PW 1 Shiv Prasad, and PW 5 Ram Dutt  Sharma PW Prem Shankar Dubey having been declared hostile.  Prima facie it does appear that these two witnesses were  chance witnesses but on a closer look we find that they  have adequately explained their presence.  We are also of  the opinion that if the court comes to the conclusion that  the testimony of a chance witness is credible, the evidence

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 13  

cannot be thrown out merely on the ground that the witness  happened to be present by chance.   Dangar Tewari stated  that when he alongwith Ram Dutt Misra had reached  at the  tri junction of the GT Road Gopiganj on Mukund Lal\022s Bullet  motor-cycle they had  heard sounds of firing by weapons and  had seen the accused persons armed with shot guns, rifles,  carbine and pistols firing at the Ambassador car after it  had come to a stop after colliding with a bus coming from  the Allahabad side  and that the murders had been committed  while the deceased were still in the car.  The evidence of  Ram Dutt Misra is much to the same effect.   Both these  witnesses have specifically revealed the identity of the  assailants and the manner of attack and explained their  presence by stating that they had gone for Darshan and were  on their way back home.  We also find that despite  extensive cross-examination, no reasons are forthcoming on  record as to why they would become false witnesses in a  case of triple murder.  It is also clear from the evidence  that the Investigating Officer had collected a blood  stained seat cover and shoes from inside the car alongwith  several other items from the place of incident which go to  show that the killings had happened in the car. The  conflict in evidence as to the whether the dead bodies were  found lying outside or inside the car would thus be of no  telling effect more particularly as a huge and milling  crowd running into thousands had collected after the  murders completely jeopardizing the security of the site  and as such no evidence could be available to show as to  how the dead bodies had, if at all, been put outside the  car. It is also of some importance that Prem Shankar Dubey  who had been riding the car with the three deceased and had  received injuries in attempting to escape had been  medically examined by PW 6 Dr. A.K. Pandey at about 5.25  p.m. on 4.4.1999. Though this witness had been declared  hostile, we are of the opinion that an outright rejection  of his evidence is not called for and both parties are  entitled to rely on such part of his evidence which assists  their case.  We now examine his testimony in this  background. He admitted that on the day of occurrence he  had been sitting on the back seat of the Ambassador Car and  had been carrying his licensed rifle.  He also admitted  that on rushing out of the car he had received some  injuries but could not remember as to whether he had been  medically examined though the evidence shows that he had  been present at the time of the lodging of the first  information report in the Police Station.  The statements  made by Dangar Tewari and Ram Dutt Misra  are thus (to an  extent) supported by Prem Shankar Dubey as well.  12.     Mr. Sushil Kumar has also laid some emphasis on the  fact that despite the fusillade fired at the car with an  assortment of modern weapons, the car remained largely  untouched and that there was thus no evidence to show that  it had collided with a bus coming from the opposite side  bringing it to a sudden stop, thus facilitating the  murders. We have, however, in this connection the evidence  of  PW 13 Vidya Prakash Misra, the Investigating Officer,  who in his cross-examination stated that he had carefully  examined the car at the place of occurrence and had found  in all about 40 bullet marks on the chassis, tank, backside  bumper, diggy, backside glass and bonnet.  It is  significant that the presence of the bullet marks shows  that the firing had taken place primarily from the rear  side as the driver had attempted to speed away and that   the coup de grace had apparently been delivered to the  deceased after the car had stalled after hitting the bus.  

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 13  

It is also significant that the presence of the bus and its  number had been shown in the site plan prepared by the said  police officer at the place of incident.   13.     Mr. Sushil Kumar has also laid great stress on what he  perceives to be an apparent discordance between the ocular  and the medical evidence.  He has emphasized that the  Investigating Officer had picked up three spent cases of a  .12 bore shotgun from the spot and a wad had also had been  recovered from one of the dead bodies at the time of the  post mortem examination thus indicating that only shotguns  and no pistols or carbines as alleged had been used, which  clearly falsified the eye witnesses.  He has in this  connection cited the judgment in Awadhesh and Another vs.  State of Madhya Pradesh  (1988) 2 SCC 557 to submit that  where medical opinion was at variance with the ocular  account the accused were entitled to the resultant benefit.   Undoubtedly, the medical evidence is extremely relevant in  testing the credibility of an eye witness but we are of the  opinion that the eye witness account is fully in consonance  with the statements of the doctors and the other medical  evidence.  It has come in  the statement of the eye  witnesses including Prem Shankar Dubey and also of Dr.  Sanjay Tewari PW 8 on specific questions put to them that  the shots had been fired from a  distance of a foot or two.   We now reproduce the post mortem reports prepared by PW Dr.  Sanjay Tewari with respect to Vakil Shukla and Shesh Mani  Rai : Vakil Shukla 1.      Lacerated wound 2x1 Cm. on the mid  forehead  with charring and tattooing  around it.  Fontal bone not injured.

2.      Abrasion 1x 0.5 Cm. on the mid forehead  with charring and tattooing around it.

3.      Wound of firearm entry 6 in number each  measuring 0.8x0.8 Cm. on the top and back  of the left shoulder.  Margins of wound  inverted with blackening and tattooing  all around it with their wound of exit as  follows-

(1)     1.5 x 1.5 Cm. on the left side  chest below the left axilla 5 Cm.  below the apex;

(2)     3 x 3 Cm. on the left side chest 8  Cm. below and lateral to the left  nipple;

(3)     1x1 Cm. on the right side chest 6  Cm. below the right nipple.

(4)     1x1 Cm. on the right side chest  4.5 Cm. above and medial to the  right nipple;

(5)     1x1 Cm. on the right side chest 8

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 13  

Cm. below the right nipple; and

(6)     1x1 Cm. on the right side chest  6.5 Cm. lateral to the right  nipple.

4.      Firearm wound of entry 0.8x0.8 Cm.. on  the lateral surface of right mid thigh  with inverted margins and tattooing all  around it with its wound of exit on the  medial surface of thigh at the same level  with averted margins 1x1 Cm.

Shesh Mani Rai 1.      5x4 Cm. on the right side neck 1 cm.  below and posterior to the right ear.   Margins of the wound were inverted with  charring and tattooing of skin all around  with its wound of exit of size 6x5 Cm. on  the left side face/over and lateral to  the left eye with averted margins;

2.      Wound of entrance 5.5x4 Cm. on the right  side eye margin of the wound inverted  with charring and tattooing of skin all  around, with its wound of exit 6x6 Cm.  below the left ear.  Margin of the wound  averted.

3.      Wound of entrance 1x1 Cm. on the lateral  aspect of left arm.  Margins of wound  inverted with charring and tattooing of  skin all around with its wound of exit  1.5x1.5 Cm. on the posterior lateral  aspect of the left arm.  Margins of wound  averted\024.

14.     Dr. Radhey Raman PW 3 recorded the following injuries  on the dead body of Devi Shankar Dubey: 1.      Firearm wound of entry with  charring and tattooing of size 2x1 Cm.  It.  Side of the chest just below the  middle part of Lt. Clavicle. Lt. Side  clavicle fractured with same wound of  exit.

2.      Firearm wound of entry with  charring and tattooing of six 1x1 Cm.  on rt. Supra clavicle region 4 Cm.  medial to top of rt. Shoulder, margins  of wound inverted, with its wound of  exit 2.5x2.00 Cm. on the lt. Side of  chest on its lateral side 5.00 Cm.  lateral and just below it.  Nipple  margin of wound of exist is averted;  and

3.      Abraded contusion 2x2 Cm. on rt.  Side of the forehead\024.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 13  

A cork (1.5 x 1.2 cm ) was also  recovered from the dead body.          15.     Relying on the above quoted evidence it has been  emphasized that there appeared to be no injuries from a  rifle or pistol.  We however beg to differ.  It bears  reiteration that shots had been fired from a distance of a  feet or two and this opinion is fortified as the entry  wounds without exception show signs of charring and  tattooing.  The dimensions of the entry wounds also show  that several different types of weapons have been used.  It  is clear from the post mortem examination of Devi Shankar  Dubey\022s body (during which a cork had been recovered) that  a shotgun had undoubtedly been used in his murder and that  the shot had entered en masse as is apparent from the size  of wound of entry (Injury No. 1). 16.     We now come to the reports of the other two deceased.   Injury No. 3 on the person of Vakil Shukla is clearly not  an injury caused by a shotgun and has been caused by a  medium calibre automatic or semi-automatic rifle or pistol.  Mr. Sushil Kumar has however submitted that this injury had  possibly been caused by a shotgun using buckshot SG/LG  cartridges as had a high velocity rifle been used from a  close range as suggested, the bullet would have had a   blasting effect on the body.  We, however, find that this  argument is not substantiated on the evidence, that is,  available to us.  Undoubtedly, this shot too had been fired  from a little beyond point blank range and if it had been  fired from a shotgun, the shoulder would have been  shattered and in any event the entire charge would have  entered the body  en masse making a rat hole wound of  entry. We are fortified in our view by the observations on  page 465 of the Fourth Edition of Dr. B.R. Sharma\022s  Forensic Science in Criminal Investigation and Trials: \023 9.10.7.3 Shotgun injuries:         The nature of the injuries caused  by the shotgun is greatly altered by  the range.  Contact or near contact  wounds look like explosions.  Close  range shots upto about three meters  give rat holes varying in diameter from  about 2 to 6 centimetres.  From about 2  metres to 10 metres the projectiles may  form a rat hole surrounded by  individual pellet holes.  Beyond 10  metres most of the shots form separate  holes.  The buckshots may separate  earlier.  For example, n L.G. cartridge  may give individual injuries for each  shot from a range of about 2 metres.   The area covered by the pellets vary  with the range and the choke  characteristics of a gun.

    Ordinarily, the shotguns  projectiles do not form exit holes  except when buckshots are used from  close ranges\024.  

17.     Modi\022s Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, Twenty- third Edition at page 722 is to the same effect.  We  reproduce the relevant passage hereunder : \023The effects produced by small shot fired  from a shotgun vary according to the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 13  

distance of the weapon from the body, and  choking device.  A charge of small shot,  fired very close to, or within a few  inches, of the body enters in one mass  like a single bullet making a large  irregular wound with scorched and  contused edges, and is followed by the  gases of the discharge which greatly  lacerate and rupture the deeper tissues.  Particles of unburnt powder expelled from  the weapon behind the missile are driven  to some distance through the wound, and  some of them are found embedded in the  wound and the surrounding skin, which is  also singed and blackened by the flame  and smoke of combustion.  The exit wound  of a close range shot may show greater  damage of tissues than the entrance  wound, the margins are everted, but there  is no evidence of blackening of singeing.   At a distance of one to three feet, small  shots make a single aperture with  irregular and lacerated edges  corresponding in size to the bore of the  muzzle of the gun, as the shot enter as  one mass, but are scattered after  entering the wound and cause great damage  to the internal tissues.  The skin  surrounding the wounds is blackened,  scorched and tattooed, with unburnt  grains of powder.  On the other hand, at  a distance of six feet, the central  aperture is surrounded by separate  openings in an area of about two inches  in diameter made by a few pellets of the  shot, which spread out before reaching  the mark.  The skin surrounding the  aperture may not be blackened or  scorched, but is tattooed to some extent.   At a distance of 12 feet, the charge of  the shot spreads widely and enters the  body as individual pellets producing  separate openings in an area of five to  eight inches in diameter depending on the  choke, but without causing blackening,  scorching or tattooing of the surrounding  skin\024.

18.      Mr. Sushil Kumar\022s argument with regard to the use of  a high velocity rifle and its effect on the body when fired  from a close range would undoubtedly merit serious  consideration but in the light of the facts on the record,  we are unable to concur.  It is the case of the prosecution  that carbines and 9mm pistols in addition to shotguns had  been used during the attack. A carbine, a high velocity  weapon firing automatically or semi automatically, and 9mm  bore pistols are prohibited firearms permitted for use only  by the police and armed forces which invariably use hard  nosed bullets in contradistinction to soft nosed ones used  in sporting rifles against soft skinned game and which  cause immense internal damage on the victim and huge wounds  of exit, if any.  We find that all six wounds of entry    are of 0.8x0.8 cm. and with the exception of one, all exit  wounds are also of almost similar dimensions.  We are,  therefore, of the opinion that injury no. 3  appears to be

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 13 of 13  

a wound of entry from a weapon firing hard nosed bullets  which had penetrated the body and exited on the other side.   We find support for this view from Modi (Supra) (at  pgs.717-718): \023Because of obvious difference in  design and construction, the wounds  produced by hunting ammunition are much  more devastating than that of the  military ammunition. In military  ammunition, the bullets are full metal  jacketed having a core of steel or lead  inside and are thus prevented from  deformation (or expansion) when they  hit the target.  In contrast, a hunting  bullet is designed to deform (or  expand) in its passage through the  body, producing an increase in its  presenting area.  Thus a hunting  bullet, which is partially metal  jacketed, but with the lead core  exposed at its tip, is referred to as  soft-point bullet.  Hollow point  hunting-bullets are also partially  jacketed but have a cavity at the tip  of lead core to facilitate expansion on  striking the target.  The silvertip  hunting-bullet in reality is a soft  point bullet whose lead core at its tip  is protected by a thin jacket of  aluminium alloy sheath.

       Modern steel-jacketed bullets used  in army weapons have the shape of an  elongated cone and owing to their great  velocity usually pass straight and  direct through the body without any  deflection or deviation, and without  causing much damage.  The wounds of  entry and exit are almost circular and  similar in appearance without any  bruising or laceration of the  surrounding parts\024.  

19.     The nature of injuries found on the dead body of Shesh  Mani Rai are equally significant. It appears from injury  nos. 1 and 2 which are on the neck and head respectively  that the shot had furrowed through the body with a huge  exit wound.  The very dimension of these injuries show the  presence of a rat hole type of entry with a larger wound of  exit on the other side.  Injury No. 3 substantially  corresponds with the injuries found on the dead body of  Vakil Shukla and reveals that this injury had not been  caused with the weapon which caused the other two injuries.   The judgment cited by the learned counsel is therefore on  its peculiar facts and based on the premise that the  evidence in the case was doubtful.  20.     We have also considered the arguments of learned  senior counsel on the appeals against acquittal.  We are of  the opinion that the matter has been considered by the  trial court and the High Court in its correct perspective  and no interference is called for. 21.     We accordingly dismiss all the appeals.