LexASHOK SINGH versus STATE OF U.P.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009) 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 810 A ASHOK SINGH v. STATE or= U.P. (Criminal Appeal No. 640 of 2005) / ., SEPTEMBER. 18, 2009/ I B [HARJIT SINGH BEDI AND J.M. PANCHAL,., JJ.] I / Penal Code, 1860- s.302 rlw s.34- Murder- Death due • to gun-shot injury - Common intention - PW3's father was ~- c shot at from short distance which proved fatal - Conviction of accused-appellants - Propriety of - Held: Proper.....: Evidence of PW3 was corroborated by PW4, an independent witness - ~ Ocular evidence was fully borne out by medical evidence - Both appellants had been armed with shot guns - Two spent D cartridge cases picked up from the place of incident indicated .., that both appellants had fired a shot each at the deceased - I Conviction of appellants confirmed. ,._ ... According to the prosecution, due to previous E enmity, the accused persons fired at PW3's father from short distance which proved fatal. Placing reliance upon the statements of PW-3 and PW-4, the trial court convicted all the four accused under Section 302 r/w Section 34 IPC and sentenced them to life imprisonment. F On appeal, the High Court granted benefit of doubt to two ..... ,accused and acquitted them but upheld the conviction ' ' ~ of the other two accused, i.e. the appellants in the present I- appeal. Dismissing the appeal, the Court G HELD: 1.1. There is no reason to disbelieve PW3 ~ supported fully as he is by the statement of PW4 who is a truly independent witness. An attempt by the defence to show that PW4 was indebted to deceased for some H favour earlier in point of time has not been substantiated 810 . ASHOK SINGH v. STATE OF U.P. 811 on record. It is also found that the ocular evidence is fully A • borne out by the medical evidence as a pellet was recovered from the dead body at the time of the post- mortem examination. [Para 3) [813-F-H; 814-A] 1.2. It is true that two shots were alleged to have been B fired at the deceased whereas only one wound entry on the head by a fire arm had been detected at the time of post-mortem. However, it would be impossible for any witness in a case of simultaneous firing of two or more .,, shots to give a categorical statement as to which of the c two shots had hit the victim. It is also seen from the evidence of ASI (PW5) that two spent cartridge cases had been picked up from the place of incident meaning thereby that both the appellants had fired a shot each at the deceased. Also if two different types of weapons had D been used it would have been open to the defence to -4 -- argue that in the light of the fact that a shot gun pellet had . been recovered from the dead body, the other weapon had not been used, which factor undoubtedly could cause some speculation about the prosecution's case. This is not the situation in the present case, as both the E appellants had been armed with shot guns. The judgment of the High Court is therefore confirmed. (Para 4) (814-8- E) • CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal F Appeal No. 640 of 2005. From the Judgment & Order dated 12.1.2004 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Lucknow Bench,) Lucknow in Criminal Appeal No. 519 of 1980. G Siddhartha Luthra, Jagjit Singh Chhabra, Amreeta Swarup .. and Arundhati Katju for the Appellant. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by HARJIT SINGH BEDI, J. 1. This appeal by way of special H 812 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009) 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R A leave arises out of the following facts: • 2. At about 7 a.m. on the 11th July 1977 deceased Chhota Singh was on his way from his residential house to the nearby Devi Ji Mandir for the purpose of supervising the repairs of the 'B chabutra of the temple. The four accused, namely Ashok Singh, Shiv Raj, Shyam Saran Singh and Sheo Narayan were hiding near the flour mill, all armed with guns. Shiv Raj and Sheo Narayan gave a lalkara that Chhota Singh be killed and on this call Ashok Singh and Shyam Saran Singh fired at him on which he fell down at a short distance from his residential house and I,. c succumbed to his injury. The incident was witnessed amongst others by Ranieshwar Singh (PW3) son of the deceased and Durjan (PW4). After the assailants left the scene, Chhota Singh was shifted from the place where he lay dead. Rameshwar D Singh (PW3) rushed to the Police Station and lodged a report with Police Station Hasan Ganj at 9.30 a.m. whereafter Ram Prakash Shukla Sub-Inspector (PW5) r
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.