KUNWARPAL @ SURAJPAL & ORS. Vs. STATE OF UTTARKHAND & ANR : Supreme Court – Section 302 / 34 of Indian Penal Code
Supreme Court of India
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.820 OF 2010 Judgment Date: Dec 09, 2014
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.820 OF 2010
Kunwarpal @ Surajpal & Ors. .. Appellants
versus
State of Uttarakhand And Anr. .. Respondents
J U D G M E N T
C. NAGAPPAN, J.
This appeal is preferred against the judgment dated 18.8.1991 passed by the
High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in Criminal Appeal No.1418 of 2001.
Appellants 1 to 4 stood charged for the offence under Section 302/34 in
Sessions Trial No.195 of 1991 on the file of Additional Sessions Judge
Roorkee and the Trial Court convicted all and sentenced them each to
undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.500 in default, to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each. Accused Nos. 1 to 4
preferred appeal in Criminal Appeal No.1418 of 2001 on the file of High
Court and the appeal came to be dismissed. Challenging the conviction and
sentence accused Nos. 1 to 4 preferred the present appeal. During the
hearing the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants submitted
that appellant No.4 Atara Singh died during pendency of the appeal and it
was endorsed by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State.
Hence the appeal stands abated insofar as he is concerned.
Shorn of unnecessary details the case of the prosecution is as follows:
PW1 Gajendra is the son of deceased Ranjit Singh. Accused Nos. 1 to 3 are
real brothers. Accused No.4 is their cousin. PW1 Gajendra owned plot
No.180 in village Mohammadpur Panda and the adjacent plot belonged to the
accused persons and on account of the pending litigation between them there
was enmity.
On 14.4.1991 at about 11.00 a.m. PW2 Suggan and Jai Ram were cutting wheat
in the field of PW1 Gajendra and Ranjit Singh came to the field. Thereafter
accused Nos.1 to 4 armed with lathies and tabbal came there and threatened
Ranjit Singh to withdraw the case against them and beat him with lathies
and tabbal . PW 2 Suggan, PW3 Atmaram and PW4 Chaman Lal and others saw
the occurrence. Ranjit Singh became unconscious. PW2 Suggan informed PW1
Gajendra about the occurrence. PW1 Gajendra came and took his father
injured Ranjit Singh to JNSM Hospital Roorkee. Dr. Jugal Kishore Mittal
examined Ranjit Singh at 1.20 p.m. on 14.4.1991 in the said hospital and
admitted him as in-patient. At about 5.30 p.m. on same day PW1 Gajendra
lodged Ex.Ka-1 written complaint in the Police Station, Bhagwanpur and a
case under Sections 323, 324, 506 and 307 IPC was registered against the
accused persons. Exh. Ka-4 is the First Information Report, Exh. Ka-70 is
the G.D. Report. PW9 Sub-Inspector R.S. Tiwari took up the investigation
and examined PWs 2 to 4 and some other witnesses. On 15.4.1991 Ranjit Singh
succumbed to his injuries. The First Information Report was altered and
the investigation was taken up by SHO Ajay Kumar and he visited the place
of occurrence and prepared Exh.Ka-8 plan and seized the blood stained
clothes under Exh.Ka-9 Memo. He conducted inquest and prepared
Exh.Ka-5 report. He gave Exh.Ka-11 requisition for conducting post mortem.
PW 6 Dr. K.P. Sarabhai conducted post-mortem on the body of Ranjit Singh
at 4.30 p.m. on 15.4.1991 and found the following ante-mortem injuries:
Stitched wound 4 cm x 4 stitches on beam of head, 12 cm from left ear.
Traumatic swelling 10 cm x 7 cm on beam of right upper arm.
Traumatic swelling 22 cm x 7 cm on beam of right forearm and hand and
there was fracture on both bones of right forearm.
Stitched wound 2 cm x 2 stitches on beam of left upper arm 4 cm above left
elbow.
Abraded contusion with traumatic swelling 14 cm x 8 cm on beam of left
elbow on upper arm, and fracture of shaft of humerus
Traumatic swelling 6 cm x 4 cm on beam of left wrist joint and fracture of
ulna lower end.
Abraded contusion 4 cm x 3 cm on lateral part of right side chest, 6 cm
below right nipple.
Contusion 10 cm x 8 cm on left side of chest, 6 cm below the nipple.
Contusion 20 cm x 10 cm on right thigh.
Abrasion 2 cm x 1 cm on right side of right knee joint
Stitched wound 4 cm x 4 stitches on front side of right leg.
Stitched wound 3 cm x 2 stitches on front part left leg.
Abraded contusion 10 cm x 5 cm on lower part of left leg
Abrasion 2 cm x 1 cm on left side of iliac crest.
Contusions of 28 cm x 18 cm on beam of left side chest and abdomen.
On internal examination he found fracture of 4th to 7th ribs on right side
and 3rd to 8th ribs on the left side. He expressed opinion that the death
has occurred on account of shock and hemorrhage due to ante-mortem
injuries.
During the trial prosecution examined PWs 1 to 9 and marked documents. The
accused persons were examined under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code and
their answers were recorded. No witness was examined on their side. The
Trial Court convicted all the accused and sentenced them as stated above.
The appeal preferred by the accused came to be dismissed and hence they
have filed the present appeal.
Mr. K.T.S. Tulsi, senior counsel appearing for some of the appellants,
contended that the alleged eye witnesses to the occurrence PW3 Atmaram and
PW4 Chaman Lal are chance witnesses and there is significant absence of
their names in the FIR and the occurrence took place in a different village
and even if they were present they could not have seen the occurrence and
PW3 Atmaram had animosity against accused no.1 Kunwarpal @ Surajpal since
marriage proposal of his sister's sister-in-law with A1 failed and the
prosecution has not proved motive and it is unsafe to convict the
appellants/accused and the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside.
Mr. Gurukrishna Kumar, senior counsel appearing for the other appellants,
contended that PW3 Atmaram and PW4 Chaman Lal were not aware of the name of
the village where the land they were harvesting is situated and they could
not have witnessed the occurrence from a distance of about 450Ft. and the
entire story is not narrated in the complaint and the said factors if taken
individually may not be significant but taken cumulatively, the presence of
the said witnesses in the occurrence place is doubtful and the conviction
imposed on them cannot be sustained.
Per contra, Mr. Jatinder Kumar Bhatia, counsel for the first respondent-
State and Mr. J.C. Gupta, senior counsel appearing for the second
respondent, contended that village Mohammedpur Panda and Almaspur are
adjacent villages and the occurrence land lies in the border of both the
villages and the occurrence took place during harvest season and PW3
Atmaram and PW4 Chaman Lal were harvesting crops in the nearby land and on
hearing the hue and cry of Ranjit Singh they happened to see accused nos.1
to 4 attacking Ranjit Singh with tabbal and lathis and there is no
requirement of mentioning the names of all the witnesses in the FIR and the
statements of witnesses were recorded by the Investigation Officer on the
occurrence night itself and relying on the testimonies of the eye
witnesses, the courts below have convicted the accused and it is
sustainable.
The occurrence had taken place at 11.00 a.m. on 14.4.1991 in the field of
Ranjit Singh when PW2 Suggan and Jai Ram were harvesting the wheat crop in
the said field. PW2 Suggan informed PW1 Gajendra Singh, son of Ranjit
Singh, about the occurrence, who rushed to the place of occurrence and took
severely injured Ranjit Singh to Roorkee hospital and after admitting him
there, lodged Exh.Ka-1 complaint at Police Station Bhagwanpur leading to
registration of case against the accused persons. On the death of Ranjit
Singh on 15.4.1991 in the hospital the offence was altered to one of
murder. Though PW1 Gajendra Singh is the author of FIR, he has not
witnessed the occurrence and he has lodged the complaint on the basis of
information furnished by PW2 Suggan, in which he has mentioned about the
attack with weapons made by all the four accused on his father Ranjit Singh
during the occurrence. Though Suggan was examined as PW2, he did not
support the prosecution case and was declared hostile.
PW3 Atmaram and PW4 Chaman Lal were examined by the prosecution as having
witnessed the occurrence. The agricultural land of PW3 Atmaram in village
Almaspur lay near the agricultural land of Ranjit Singh in village
Mohammedpur Panda. According to the PW3 Atmaram the boundary of land of
both villages join at the place of occurrence. PW3 Atmaram and PW4 Chaman
Lal have testified that they were harvesting the crop of wheat in the
agricultural land of PW3 Atmaram in the morning on the occurrence day and
at 11.00 a.m. they were eating breads sitting on tube-well and on hearing
shrieks of Ranjit Singh they stood up and saw accused no.1 Kunwarpal with
pointed tabbal and the other three accused with lathis attacking Ranjit
Singh with the said weapons and when they went near, the accused fled away.
They have further testified that PW2 Suggan and Jai Ram were cutting wheat
in the occurrence land and they also witnessed the occurrence.
It cannot be denied that the occurrence took place during harvest season
and PW3 Atmaram was harvesting the crop of wheat in his land with the help
of PW4 Chaman Lal. Their presence near the occurrence place is natural and
they cannot be termed as chance witnesses as contended by the appellants.
It is true that their names are not found mentioned in the FIR. As already
seen, the complaint was lodged by PW1 Gajendra Singh on the basis of
information furnished by PW2 Suggan about the occurrence. There is no
requirement of law for mentioning the names of all the witnesses in the
FIR, the object of which is only to set the criminal law in motion [Nirpal
Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana (1977) 2 SCC 131; Bhagwan Singh & Ors.
Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2002) 4 SCC 85; Raj Kishore Jha Vs. State
of Bihar & Ors. (2003) 11 SCC 519]. In this context it is relevant to
point out that the statements of all witnesses were recorded by the
Investigation Officer in the night of the occurrence day itself. Non
mention of the names of PW3 Atmaram and PW4 Chaman Lal in the FIR does not
affect the prosecution case as rightly held by the courts below.
The other contention raised by the learned counsel of the appellants is
that PW3 Atmaram and PW4 Chaman Lal being at a distance of 450 Ft. from the
occurrence place could not have seen the attack made on Ranjit Singh. The
site plan prepared by the Investigation Officer is exhibited in the case
and it shows the occurrence place as well as the land belonging to PW3
Atmaram. Harvesting of the wheat crop in the land of PW3 Atmaram commenced
one day prior to the day of occurrence and got completed just before the
occurrence. In their testimonies PW3 Atmaram and PW4 Chaman Lal have
stated that they could view the occurrence from the place where they were
standing and when they rushed near all the accused fled away. Evidence on
record discloses that there was no standing crop in between the lands and
the view was clear enabling them to see the occurrence and there is no
doubt in it. It was argued on behalf of the appellants that PW3 Atmaram
had animosity against accused no.1 Kunwarpal since marriage of his sister's
sister-in-law with A1 failed. PW3 Atmaram in his cross-examination has
admitted that there was marriage proposal of accused no.1 Kunwarpal with
his sister's sister-in-law and that did not materialize and he was not the
person who mediated it and he has also specifically denied the suggestion
that he developed animosity against A1 in this regard. Hence this
contention of the appellants is devoid of merit. As already seen PW3
Atmaram and PW4 Chaman Lal are independent witnesses and their testimonies
corroborate each other and there is no reason for them to falsely depose
against the accused persons and nothing is elicited in the cross-
examination to discredit their testimonies and they are credible and merit
acceptance.
Ranjit Singh died of injuries sustained by him in the occurrence is
established by the oral testimony of PW6 Dr. K.P. Sarabhai who conducted
autopsy and the post-mortem report issued by him.
According to the complainant there was litigation between them and the
accused persons leading to enmity. PW3 Atmaram has also stated that there
was litigation between them and it culminated in the occurrence. Animosity
is a double edged sword. While it can be a basis for false implication, it
can also be a basis for the crime [Ruli Ram & Anr. Vs. State of Haryana
(2002) 7 SCC 691; State of Punjab Vs. Sucha Singh & Ors. (2003) 3 SCC
153]. In the instant case there is no foundation established for the plea
of false implication advanced by the accused and on the other hand evidence
shows that enmity has led to the occurrence. The conviction and sentence
imposed on the appellants is based on proper appreciation of evidence on
record and does not call for any interference.
There are no merits in the appeal. The same is dismissed.
..................................J.
(V. Gopala Gowda)
.................................J.
(C. Nagappan)
New Delhi;
December 9, 2014.
ITEM NO.1A-For Judgment COURT NO.10 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). 820/2010
KUNWARPAL @ SURAJPAL & ORS. Appellant(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTARKHAND & ANR. Respondent(s)
Date : 09/12/2014 This appeal was called on for JUDGMENT today.
For Appellant(s) Mr. Prafulla K. Behera, Adv.
Mr. S. S. Nehra,Adv.
For Respondent(s)
Mr. Rajiv Ranjan Dwivedi,Adv.
Mr. Mukesh Verma, Adv.
Mr. Jatinder Kumar Bhatia,Adv.
Mr. Rajiv Nanda,Adv.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice C. Nagappan pronounced the judgment of the
Bench comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.Gopala Gowda and His Lordship.
The appeal is dismissed in terms of the signed order.
(VINOD KUMAR) (MALA KUMARI SHARMA)
COURT MASTER COURT MASTER
(Signed Reportable judgment is placed on the file)
For the Latest Updates
Join Now