DEENA @ DEEN DAYAL versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

Citation: [1979] 1 S.C.R. 107 · Decided: 11-08-1978 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.S. SARKARIA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
107 
DEENA @ DEEN DAY AL 
v . 
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH 
August 11, 1978 
[R. S. SARKARIA AND P. S. KAILASAM, JJ.] 
Indian Penal Code, S. 302-Murder by convict serving life 
sentence 
for 
offence u/s 302 I.P.C., while on bail-lnzposition of capital sentence confirmed. 
The appellant was convicted for having committed an offence u/s 302 I.P.C., 
and was serving a sentence of imprisonment for life. He was released on bail, 
and during that period, committed the murder of a prosecution witriess in the 
earlier murder case .. The Sessions Court found him guilty and imposed the 
sentence of death on him. The sentence was confirmed by the High Court in 
appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD :The murder was committed by a person under a sentence of impri-
sonment for life for an offence under section 302 I.P.C. while he was on b1iil. 
The offence was rommitted for the purpose of teaching a lesson to a witness 
who gave evidence against him in the earlier murder case and was committed 
after delibera.t:e planning, in the night when the 
victim 
was 
sleeping. 
We 
confirm the sentence of death. [110F-HJ 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ; Criminal Appeal No. 239 
of 1975. 
Appeal by special leave from the Judgment and Order dated 
17-10-1974 of the Allahabad High Court in Cr. A. No. 1013 of 1974 
and Reference No. 18/74. 
Badri Das Sharma ( amicus curiae) for the appellant. 
0. P. Rana for the respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
KAILA SAM J .-This appeal is preferred by Deena alias Din Dayal 
by ~pecial leave against the judgment of the High Court convicting 
and sentencing him. 
The case for the prosecution is that on the night of the 20th and 
21st June, 1971 the deceased Nainsukh, his brother Hari Singh, his 
distant uncle Tika Ram, Chandra Pal, daughter's son of Tika Ram and 
Chokhey slept on a platform of the Chaupal in village Jar. Accord-
ing to the prosecution a lantern was hanging on the platform from the 
branch of a Neem tree. 
In the morning at about 4 a.m. the appellant 
Deena and four other came to the Chaupal of Nainsukh. 
The dogs 
began to bark as a result of which Hari Singh (P.W. 1) and others were 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
108 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1979] l S.C.R. 
awakened. 
Deena and his associates carried pistol and electric 
torches. 
Deena challenged Nainsukh saying' that he would be tauglit 
a lesson for appearing as a witness and fired his pistol striking Nainsukh 
on his head. 
Hari Singh and Chandra Pal shouted for help. 
They 
were also injured. After hearing the alarm Nihal Singh, Panna Lal and 
others reached the place of the incident but before their arrival the 
accused had made good their escape. 
The First Information Report was written by Bharat Singh on the 
dictation of Hari Singh. 
The injured witness Hari Singh and Chandra 
Pal then went to Etah Police Station where' the report Ex. Ka-4 was 
handed over at Police Station Kotwali at 2.0S a.m. on 21st June, 1971. 
The Police Officer took up the investigation and reached the scene at 
about 1.30 p.m. 
He found the dead bOdy 'Of N ainsukh and held the 
inquest, prepared the site plan and recovered the material objects. 
Nihal Singh, P.W. 2, produced the lantern before the Investigating 
Officer which was burning at the time the QCcnrrence took place. 
A 
shell of used cartridge was also recovered from the scene. 
Dr. N. K. Mittal (P.W. 13), the Medical Officer of Etah, found 
two injuries caused by fire-arm on Chandra Pal and one injury on 
Hari Singh. 
The autopsy on the body of Nainsukh was conducted 
by Dr. Prasad on 21st June, 1971. He found two gun shot injuries, 
one on the right side of head above the rigl;lt ear and the other was 
non traumatic swelling on the back surface of the right hand. 
On 
internal examination it wa8 found that the ,surface of the scalp of the 
right side was congested under injury No. l. The doctor found a 
fissured fracture of the right parietal bone,, vertically placed from the 
suture line to eye-brow. 
The doctor was of the vpinion that the 
injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of natnre to cause 
death. 
Apart from the eye-witness P.W. 1 the 
prosecution examined 
P,W. 2 Nihal Singh, P.W. 3 Panna Lal who saw the accused running 
away after the incident. 
Reliance was not' placed by the conrts below 
on the evidence of P.Ws 2 and 3. The conviction therefore solely 
G 
rests on the testimony of eye-witness Hari Singh, P.W. I. 
Hari Singh P.W.

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.