DEEPAK VERMA versus STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

Citation: [2011] 14 S.C.R. 270 · Decided: 11-10-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RAJENDRA MAL LODHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2011] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 270 
DEEPAK VERMA 
v. 
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH 
. (CRIMINAL APPEAL N0.2423 OF 2009) 
OCTOBER 11, 2011 
[R.M. LODHA AND JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860: 
c 
ss.302 and 323 rlw s.27 of Arms Act- Conviction of two 
accused under, for causing death of two persons by gun shot 
injuries - Allegation that offence was committed on account 
of retaliation and vengeance - Accused no. 1 fired shots at 
the first victim from his double barrel gun -
Thereafter, 
D accused no. 2 handed over cartridges to accused no. 1 who 
reloaded his gun - When second victim came to save the first 
victim, accused no. 1 shot at him - Conviction by courts below 
- On appeal, held: Prosecution established that it was only 
on account of the rejection of marriage proposal of accused 
E no. 1 by the first victim's father that the accused nos. 1 and 2, 
as an act ofretaliation and vengeance, jointly committed the 
offence - Discrepancies in recording time, as well as the 
overwriting in the dying declaration were too trivial to brush 
aside the overwhelming oral evidence produced by the 
prosecution - Dying declaration of the victim and the 
F statements of her relations, who had appeared as prosecution 
witness, duly established the commission of the offence, as 
well as, the common motive for the two accused to have joined 
hands in committing the crime - Conviction upheld. 
G 
ss.302 and 323 r/w s.27 of Arms Act- Conviction of two 
accused under, for causing death of two persons - Plea of 
accused no.2 that no role whatsoever was attributed to him -
Held: Evidence on record showed that the two accused had 
come together on a scooter to commit the offence - Accused 
H 
270 
DEEPAK VERMA v. STATE OF HIMACHAL 
271 
PRADESH 
no. 1 fired first two shots at the victim from his double barrel 
A 
gun - Thereafter, there were no live cartridges in the gun and 
it was accused no.2 who provided two live cartridges to the 
accused no. 1 - After commission of the crime, both accused 
jointly made escape on a scooter - Therefore, it cannot be 
held that accused no.2 was merely a bystander and was 
B 
incidentally present at the place of occurrence - He was 
rightly convicted. 
Evidence: 
Delay in lodging FIF' - Effect on prosecution case - Plea 
C 
that all the family members of deceased did not make any 
statement to police until the eventual disclosure of the.names 
of the two accused by deceased herself in her dying 
declaration - Held: It is not expected that the close family 
members would proceed to police station to lodge a report 
D 
when the injured are in critical condition - Full attention for 
the welfare of the two close family members is the expected 
behaviour of all family members - Therefore, delay in lodging 
complaint could not be considered fatal to the prosecution 
case. 
Motive - Held: Proof of motive is not a sine qua non 
before a person can be held guilty of the commission of a 
crime - Motive being a matter of the mind, is more often than 
not, difficult to establish through evidence. 
The prosecution case was that the father of the 
appellants-accused no.1 and 2 was tenant in the house 
of PW-2. Accused no.2 was giving home tuitions to the 
children of PW-2. One and half years prior to the incident, 
E 
F 
the appellant-accused no.2 had approached PW-2 with 
G 
the marriage proposal of daughter of PW-2 'KV' with his 
brother the appellant-accused no.1. PW-2 did not accept 
the proposal. Thereafter 'KV' was married and staying in 
a different city. On the day of incident, 'KV' had come to 
her father's ho.use to stay. At 10.30, the appellants-
H 
272 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 
A accused no.1 and 2 went to the hou~e of PW-2 on a 
scooter. Appellant-accused no.1 had in his possession 
a double barrel gun. When 'KV' came in the courtyard, 
appellant-accused no.1 fired two shot at 'KV' from his 
double barrel gun which hit her on her abdomen and 
B shoulder. PW-4, grandmother of 'KV' came to the 
courtyard and tried to catch the two accused. Appellant-
accused no.1 hit PW-4 in her abdomen, chest and on her 
wrist with the butt of the gun. After the two shots were 
fired by appellant-accused no.1, appellant-accused no.2 
c handed over two cartridges to appellant-accused no.1 
who reloaded his gun and shot at 'RK' maternal uncle of 
'KV' who had come to the courtyard and trying to lift 'KV'. 
Thereafter the two accused fled away. PW-3, wife of 'RK' 
on hearing the first shot

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