LexDEO NARAIN versus STATE OF U.P.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2010] 9 S.C.R. 349 DEO NARAIN v. STATE OF U.P. (Criminal Appeal No. 750 of 2005) JULY 28, 2010 [HARJIT SINGH BEDI AND CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860: A B c s.3021149 - Double murder - Conviction of all the six accused by trial court - Pending appeal four of them died - High Court dismissed the appeal qua the two. surviving accused who filed SLP before Supreme Court - SLP dismissed qua one of the accused and leave granted to 0, appellant - HELD: It is true that the factum of causing or not causing an injury would not always be relevant where the accused is sought to be roped in with the aid of s. 149 - At the same time, where the animosity between parties is admitted with a series of murders and attempts to murder inter E se and political rivalries going back for years together, a case of false implication is a/so a clear possibility - It is for this reason that the courts sift the evidence to separate the grain from chaff and to see that in a case of admitted animosity and a large number of accused, some corroborating evidence to support the eye witness account must be lookeq for - In the F instant case, five of the accused have been attributed significant roles in the two murders whereas the appellant has been given an omnibus role of causing /athi injuries to one of the victims - Several persons including the appellant were armed with /athis - The only allegation against him is that after G the victim had fallen down on being shot at, the appellant, along with others, caused him injuries with lathis - The injury report shows that the so-called lathi injuries are all abrasions 349 H 350 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 9 S.C.R. A of very small dimensions - Such injuries could not have ordinarily been caused by lathis - In this view of the matter, it cannot be said with complete certainty that the appellant was one of those who had been involved in the incident - Therefore, in this background, the appellant is acquitted giving B him the benefit of doubt. CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 750 of 2005. From the Judgment and order dated 16.07.2004 of the C High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Appeal No. 1681 of 1981 . 0 E F Subodh S. Patil, Aarohi Bhalla, Sujata Kurdukar for the Appellant. Shail Kumar Owivedi, AAG, T.N. Singh, Shekhar Sharma, Chandra Prakash Pandey for the Respondent. The following order of the Court was delivered ORDER 1. Six persons. in all namely Raj Narain, Oeo Narain, Shiv Singh, Vijay Singh, Raj Bahadur Singh and Anirudh Singh were brought to trial for offences punishable under Section 302 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code for having committed the double murder of Ram Swarup and Ram Pratap Singh. They were all convicted by the trial court. While their appeal was pending in the High Court, Raj Narain, Vijay Singh, Raj Bahadur Singh and Anirudh Singh passed away. The High Court, accordingly, went into the matter qua Oeo Narain and Shiv G Singh, the two surviving accused, and vide the impugned judgment, dismissed the appeal. A Special Leave Petition was thereafter filed in this Court by the two convicted accused. By order dated 12th May, 2005, this Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition vis-a-vis Shiv Singh and granted leave to the H DEO NARAIN v. STATE OF U.P. 351 present appellant. It is in this situation that the matter is before A us and has been heard at length. 2. The facts of the case are as under: 2.1 At about 7:00a.m. on 4th June, 1980 a quarrel took place in which Ram Pratap Singh, deceased, was assaulted B by one Shiv Ram Yadav near village Hyderpur. Ram Pratap Singh sustained a simple injury on his leg and after returning home he along with his brother Jai Singh - P.W. 7 and several others including Raj Bali etc. and Ram Swarup deceased left the village on two bicycles to lodge a report at the Bidhnu Police C Station. Jai Singh - P.W. 7 and Raj Bali were on one bicycle where as the second bicycle was being plied by Ram Swarup with Ram Pratap Singh sitting on the pillion. Ram Swarup and Raj Bali were also carrying their licensed weapons. As the party neared village Harbaspur at about 8:00a.m., Raj Narain and D Vijay Singh armed with guns, Raj Bahadur with a pistol, and Deo Narain, Shiv Singh and Anirudh Singh armed with lathis emerged suddenly from their hiding place. Vijay Singh and Raj Bahadur opened fire on Ram Pratap Singh as a res
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.