Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 551 OF 2005

Satvir                             .....       Appellant

Versus

State of Uttar Pradesh                     .....   Respondent

J U D G M E N T

Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J.

1. Eight  accused,  namely,  (1)  Fateh  Singh,  (2)  Ram

Chander, (3) Brahma, (4) Satvir, (5) Ram Saran, (6) Harbir,

(7) Pratap and (8) Genda were tried by learned VI Additional

District & Sessions Judge, Meerut, in Sessions Trial No. 70

of 1978 for committing the murder of Hari Dutt Singh.

2. By judgment and order dated 05.12.1979, the learned

trial judge convicted all the accused under Section 302 read

with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (for short “IPC”)

and sentenced each to imprisonment for life.  The accused -

Ram Saran, Satvir and Harbir have been further convicted

under  Section 148 IPC  and each sentenced  to two years

rigorous  imprisonment,  whereas  Fateh  Singh,  Genda,

Pratap,  Brahma  and  Ram  Chander  have  been  convicted

under Section 147 IPC and sentenced to one year rigorous

imprisonment.  All the sentences were, however, ordered to

run concurrently.

3. The  accused  persons  filed  joint  appeal  in  the  High

Court of Judicature at Allahabad.  The High Court by final

judgment  and  order  dated  25.02.2003  modified  the

judgment of the trial  court.  It  converted the conviction of

accused Satvir, Ram Saran and Harbir to Section 302 IPC

read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced them to undergo

life  imprisonment.   It,  however,  acquitted  Ram Chander,

Brahma, Pratap and Genda.  Fateh Singh accused, during

the pendency of the appeal before the High Court, had died;

therefore his appeal stood abated.

4. Satvir  appellant  herein,  has  now  approached  this

Court in this appeal.  The learned counsel for the parties

stated before us that no appeal appears to have been filed

by other convicts, namely, Ram Saran and Harbir against

the judgment and order of the High Court.

2

5. The  incident  leading  to  the  prosecution  of  the

appellant occurred on 31.10.1977 at about 4 P.M. in the

jungle  of village Ahmadpuri,  Police  Station Parikshatgarh,

District Meerut (U.P.). The report of the incident was lodged

by  Mahendra  Singh  (PW-1)  an  eyewitness,  son  of  the

deceased Hari Dutt Singh at about 5.30 P.M. in the Police

Station in which the names of all the accused persons were

mentioned.

6. The  following  pedigree  relevant  for  the  purpose  of

noticing the relationships between the parties  involved in

the case is as under:-

Hari Dutt Singh ---------- Kaley   ---------------- Shiv Saran (Deceased)           (brother of         (brother of  

           deceased)          deceased)

   /      /                                   /

Mahendra Singh      Ram Saran Ram Chander   Brahma PW-1 (son of      Accused (son         Accused (son of      Accused deceased)      of Kaley) Shiv Saran)         (son of

                          Shiv Saran)

/   /

Harbir          Satvir - Appellant          Accused (son of            Accused (son of

Ram Saran)          Ram Chander)

3

Pratap  accused  is  the  brother-in-law  of  Ram  Chander

accused; whereas Genda is ‘Samdhi’ of accused Ram Saran

and accused Fateh Singh (deceased) was uncle of Mahendra

Singh (PW-1).

7. It was the prosecution case that Mahabir son of Ram

Saran  was  murdered  in  the  year  1976  and  for  the  said

incident; Hari Dutt Singh [deceased] and his son PW-1 were

facing trial before the Court. One more criminal case filed

by Smt. Sammo is pending against the deceased and PW-1

in  the  Court  of  a  Magistrate  at  Meerut.   On  the  day  of

incident, i.e.  31.10.1977, both PW-1 and Hari Dutt Singh

had gone to the Court of Magistrate at Meerut to attend the

proceedings in the said case but the same was adjourned at

about  12 0’Clock in the noon.  PW-1 and his father had

returned  to  their  village  by  bus.   After  getting  down  at

Parikshatgarh, they started going to their village Ahmadpuri

on foot.  At about 4 P.M., they reached on the road dividing

the fields of Balley and Muley where PW-1 was going about

20 paces ahead of his father.  The accused persons hiding

themselves  in  the  sugarcane  fields  of  Balley,  suddenly

appeared  and laid  down Hari  Dutt  Singh on the ground.

Appellant Satvir, accused Ram Saran and accused Harbir

4

each were armed with knives with which they inflicted fatal

injuries  on Hari  Dutt  Singh at the  instigation of  accused

Ram Saran, who proclaimed that the life of Hari Dutt Singh

should be cut short as he was responsible for the murder of

his son Mahabir.   PW-1 shouted and raised alarm which

attracted  Bakhtawar  Singh  (PW-2),  Ganga  Saran  (PW-4),

Gajraj and few more persons to the place of occurrence.  All

the  accused  persons  had  fled  from the  place  of  incident

after committing the murder of Hari Dutt Singh.  One Jasbir

Singh recorded the report (Ex. Ka-1) of the incident at the

instance of  PW-1 on the basis of which First Information

Report  came to be lodged at Police Station at about 5.30

P.M.

8. Head  Constable  Satya  Pal  Singh (PW-6),  who at  the

relevant time,  was discharging the duties  of  A.S.I.,  Police

Station  Parikshatgarh  visited  the  scene  of  incident  and

prepared Panchnama (Ex. Ka-6), Khaka-lash (Ex.-Ka-7) and

Site Plan (Ex.-Ka-9) of the dead body and collected blood-

stained  sample  of  earth  from  the  place  of  occurrence.

Constable  Sukhpal  (PW-5)  alongwith  Constable  Baburam

5

took the dead body of Hari Dutt Singh to Hospital for  post

mortem.

9. Dr.  O.P.  Sharma  (PW-3)  conducted  autopsy  on  the

dead body of the deceased on 01.11.1977 at about 5 P.M.

The following  ante-mortem injuries were found on the dead

body:

1. Stab wound 13 cm x 5 cm x abdominal cavity  deep  on  the  front  of  abdomen right  side  upper  part  just  below  the coastal  margin  transversely;  inner  end of  the  wound  was  a  little  above  and outer to the umbilicus.

2. Stab wound 11 cm x 5 cm x abdominal cavity deep on the left side of abdomen 2  cm  below  the  coastal  margin transversely.

3. Sub  wound  5  cm  1  cm  x  abdominal cavity deep on the front of abdomen just below the umbilicus transversely.

4. Incised wound 1-½ cm x 5 cm x muscle on the front of abdomen right side just below the anterior superior iliac spine.

5. Incised wound 9 cm x 5 cm trachea cut on the front of neck middle extending on both sides transversely.

6. Abrasion 1 cm 1 cm on the back of left elbow.

10.  On internal  examination, small  intestine was found

stabbed at two places  and large intestine  stabbed at one

6

place. Left lobe of liver was also stabbed.  According to the

opinion of the Doctor, the deceased died due to shock and

haemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem injuries.

11. On completion  of  the  investigation,  chargesheet  was

filed against the accused persons by Station House Officer

Bijendra Singh Chahar (PW-7).

12. All the accused pleaded not guilty to the charges and

claimed to be tried.

13. The  prosecution,  in  order  to  substantiate  its  case,

examined as many as 7 witnesses, out of whom Mahendra

Singh (PW-1),  Bakhtawar Singh (PW-2)  and Ganga Saran

(PW-4) are the eyewitnesses.

14. The accused in the statements recorded under Section

313  of  the  Criminal  Procedure  Code  denied  the

incriminating  evidence  appearing  against  them.   Their

defence was denial simpliciter and pleaded false implication

due to enmity.  No defence witness has been examined by

them.

15. The trial court on appraisal of the entire evidence on

record  held  all  the  accused  guilty  of  the  charges  and

convicted them as aforesaid.

7

16. Being aggrieved,  the accused had filed appeal  before

the High Court.  The High Court, as stated above, allowed

the appeal of accused Ram Chander, Brahma, Pratap and

Genda  and,  accordingly,  set  aside  their  conviction  and

sentences,  whereas the conviction of  the appellant-Satvir,

Ram Saran and Harbir is converted from Section 302 read

with Section 149 and Section 148 IPC to Section 302 read

with Section 34 IPC. They were sentenced to suffer rigorous

imprisonment for life.

17. Feeling  aggrieved  thereby  and  dissatisfied  with  the

judgment of the High Court, this appeal has been filed by

appellant Satvir in this Court.

18. Mr. Shakil Ahmed Syed, learned counsel appearing on

behalf  of  the  appellant,  contended  that  the  evidence

appearing  on  record  against  the  appellant  is  verbatim

version  to  that  which  was  taken  into  consideration  with

regard to the acquittal of four accused and, therefore, the

case of the appellant cannot be decided on any other scale

and  should  have  been  treated  at  par  with  the  evidence

appearing against the acquitted persons. The appellant and

other accused persons have been implicated by PW-1 in a

8

false case due to previous enmity as he alongwith deceased

was  an  accused  in  the  murder  of  Mahabir,  son  of  Ram

Saran.  According to the learned counsel,  the High Court

has committed grave  error  in convicting the appellant  on

the  same  set  of  evidence,  on  the  basis  of  which  four

accused,  namely,  Ram  Chander,  Brahma,  Pratap  and

Genda have been acquitted and, therefore, the judgment of

the High Court suffers from factual and legal infirmity and

perversity.  The  learned  counsel  then  contended  that  the

conduct of  the alleged eyewitnesses,  namely,  PW-1, PW-2

and PW-4 is so unnatural and casual that they witnessed

the entire  incident as silent spectators and did not make

any attempt to save the life of Hari Dutt Singh at the hands

of  the  accused.   Therefore,  no  implicit  reliance  can  be

placed  on  the  evidence  of  these  witnesses,  who  are  not

trustworthy.

19. Mr.  T.N.Singh,  Advocate  appearing  on  behalf  of  the

State, has canvassed correctness of the views taken by the

trial judge which were confirmed by the High Court.

20. In order to appreciate the aforesaid rival contentions of

the learned counsel for the parties, we have independently

9

scrutinized  the  oral  and documentary  evidence  appearing

on record.

21. Mahendra Singh (PW-1) has clearly stated that at the

time and on the day of incident he was with his father when

the  appellant  and  other  accused  suddenly  attacked  the

deceased.  He categorically stated that the appellant and his

two  companions  Ram  Chander  and  Harbir  had  inflicted

knife injuries on the person of his father.  He has given the

names of all the accused persons in the report on the basis

of  which FIR  came to be registered in the Police  Station.

PW-2  Bakhtawar  Singh  who  is  an  independent  witness

deposed that on the day of incident when he was going to

his village Bhadauli from village Kaili, on the way he heard

an alarm raised by PW-1 and saw the appellant, Ram Saran

and  Harbir  inflicting  knife  injuries  to  Hari  Dutt  Singh.

Suggestion of the accused that he was not present at the

place of incident or he had not seen the incident or that he

is deposing falsely due to relationship, has been denied by

him. PW-4 Ganga Saran Singh deposed that on the day of

incident he witnessed the accused giving beatings to Hari

Dutt Singh in between the fields of Balley and Muley. The

10

appellant  alongwith  Ram Saran  and  Harbir  had  inflicted

knife  injuries  on  the  person  of  Hari  Dutt  Singh.  The

eyewitnesses  have  been  cross-examined  at  length  by  the

learned counsel,  but  nothing tangible  has been extracted

from their evidence to create any shadow of doubt that they

are  not  truthfulness  witnesses.  They  have  given  reliable,

consistent  and  creditable  version  of  the  crime  and  their

evidence inspires confidence.   It  is well-settled that if  the

witness is related to the deceased, his evidence has to be

accepted if found to be reliable and believable because he

would inter alia be interested in ensuring that real culprits

are punished.

22. On a careful and cautious scrutiny of the evidence of

PW-1,  PW-2  and  PW-4,  we  find  their  evidence  concise,

precise and satisfactory on the point that they had seen the

appellant, Ram Saran and Harbir causing grievous injuries

to Hari Dutt Singh with knife which each was carrying with

him and due to the fatal injuries, he died on the spot. The

evidence of these three eyewitnesses is neither embellished

nor embroidered.  We find no particular reason as to why

PW-1,  PW-2  and  PW-4  have  falsely  deposed  against  the

11

appellant.  The trial  court  as well  as the High Court have

rightly  held  that  there  was  a  motive  for  the  accused  to

commit  murder  of  Hari  Dutt  Singh  because  as  per  the

prosecution evidence,  they were nursing a grudge against

the deceased because of his involvement in the commission

of murder of Mahabir son of Ram Saran.  The report of the

incident  has been promptly  lodged by PW-1 in the Police

Station in which the name of all the accused persons and

PW-2 and PW-4 being eyewitnesses were mentioned. Simply

because the eyewitnesses did not make any attempt to save

the life  of  the deceased from the clutches of the accused

persons, their abnormal conduct by itself cannot be taken

as  a  ground to  disbelieve  and discard  their  testimony in

regard to the genesis of the occurrence and the part played

by  the  appellant  and  the  other  convicted  persons  in  the

commission of the offence.

23 The  ocular  version  of  the  eyewitnesses  finds

corroboration from the  evidence  of  Dr.  O.P.  Sharma who

has found abovesaid six injuries on the body of Hari Dutt

Singh.  As per the  post mortem report placed on record by

Dr.O.P. Sharma, the deceased received three stab wounds

12

and two incised  wounds  and in his  opinion death  of  the

deceased had occurred due to shock and haemorrhage as a

result of ante-mortem injuries.   

24. On  our  independent  examination  of  the  judgment

given by the trial court and confirmed by the High Court, we

find  that  both  the  courts  have  properly  and  rightly  re-

assessed and reappraised the entire evidence on record and

we find no infirmity or perversity in the findings recorded by

the courts below warranting interference.  The High Court

has not found any reliable and clinching evidence led by the

prosecution  to  prove  the  guilt  of  the  acquitted-accused.

Therefore,  the contention that the appellant shall  be held

entitled to benefit  of  doubt  in the same manner as other

acquitted-accused  have  been  given,  cannot  be  accepted.

The  occurrence,  as  spoken  by  the  eyewitnesses,  is  fully

established  and  the  appellant  alongwith  Ram Saran  and

Harbir will be constructively liable under Section 302 read

with Section 34 IPC for the commission of the crime as fatal

injuries were inflicted by them with knives which they were

carrying in their hands at the time of commission of offence.

The fatal injuries were caused with dangerous weapons on

13

vital parts of the body of deceased which resultantly caused

his death.

25. Learned counsel  for the  appellant  lastly  argued that

the  appellant  had  no  intention  to  murder  the  deceased,

therefore, no offence under Section 302 IPC was made out

against  him  and  at  the  most  it  could  be  a  case  under

Section 304 Part-II IPC, cannot be accepted in view of the

nature of injuries, the manner in which they were inflicted,

the weapons of offence used and the vital parts of the body

of  the  deceased  selected  by  the  appellant  and  other  two

convicted accused for causing the fatal injuries.

26. We, thus, find no merit and substance in any of the

submissions made on behalf of the appellant.  

27. In the result, for the afore-stated reasons, there is no

merit in this appeal and it is, accordingly, dismissed.

........................................J.                                             (Lokeshwar Singh Panta)

........................................J.                                             (B. Sudershan Reddy) New Delhi, January 21, 2009.

14