LexGOBIND SINGH versus KRISHNA SINGH AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
(
----(
'
(
....,,,
I
'
'
[2008] 16 S.C.R. 1103
GOBIND SINGH
v.
· KRISHNA SINGH AND ORS.
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 30-31 of 2003)
DECEMBER 3, 2008
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM
SHARMA, JJ.]
A
B
Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 302 rlw s. 149 - Conviction and
sentence under as also under other Acts - Award of death
C
sentence to one of the accused - Appeal by accused persons
- Reference for confirmation of death sentence - Disposal :
of, by High Court - On appeal, held: Conclusions arrived at
by High Court are not clear and contrary to the evidence on
record - They are based on surmises and conjectures - Thus,
D
order of High Court is set aside - Matter remitted to High Court ' -
for afresh consideration - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
- s. 366.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
E
Nos. 30-31 of 2003.
· From the Judgment dated 15.2.2002 of the High Court of
1
JudicatUre at Patna in Death Reference No.1 of 2001 with Crl.
A. Nos. 61 and 139 of 2001.
S.B. Sanyal and S.K. Sinha for the Appellant.
Neeraj Shekhar, Rajesh Kumar, Ambhoj ~umar Sinha and
Gopal Singh for the Respondent.
The Ju~gment of the Court was delivered by
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.1. Challenge in these appeals
is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Patna High Court,
accepting the appeals· filed by the accused persons who had
F
G
1103
H
':f1b4··· .. ·sUPREME'·CGURT RE~QRTS·· .. ·· [2o~-~J 16 S.C.R.
.·
.... ,,_..,.....
.
.
A filed two appeals before .the ~!gh · Qg~rt. qn~ W~§ ~Y th~
' respondents 1 tq 11 i!l Crirrif11~I App~~I Ng.§1 gf ?.QQf a.rid
other by respqn~~m ~9: 1 in Qr!m!n~l -Agpe~I NoJ 39 of 2001
before the. High Go4rt, which{ by the impugned judgment
dispq~~g of the twp agg~als @;~g gy th~ ;accuseq person$ and
· B tne reference made L!nder Section 366 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (in short the 'Code') for confirmation of death
sentence awarded by the trial Co.urt Which was numbered as
Death Reference No.1 of 2001. The present appeals have been
filed by the informant. The respondents in the present two
c appeals excluding respondent No.1-Krishna Singh were
. convicted for offence punishable under Section 302 read with
Section 1'49 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC')
and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and 'we.re also
convicted under section 17 of the criminal law amendment Acl,
0
1998 and sentenced. to undergo simple imprisonment for six
months. Respondent Suresh. was further convicte._d under
SeCtion 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 (in short 'Arms Act') and was
awarded 3 years pf rigorous imprisonment. Respondent No.1-
Krishna Singh was convicted for offence punishable under
. E, Section 302 IPC and was sentenced to be hanQ~d till (je9th.,
2. The allegations on the ba,sis, pf which l~w was set in
motion read as follow§;
.
A fardpayan gf @<;>~ind S.ingh (Exh.3). recorded on
•· F 6.8.1997 at 9.45 p,rn.. at the place of occurrence itself was that
abo~f twelve to thirteen days ago informanthad received a .letter
from re.spondent.,Brahmdeo Paswan, a member. of M.C.C.
Committee imposing ban upon him·from cultivating his fie.Id but
no action was t~ken as th~ informant had :no ~nmity with the
G said organization and again on 5.8.1997 at about .9.30 p.m.,
four accused persons had come to the house of the informant
and asked him to come to the orchard to have a talk with the
'
"
•
.
•
~
•
.
l
party members which, however, wa~ avoided by the informant.
On 6.8~ 1997 while the informant with his brother Madani Singh
(hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased') was returning on the
H
'"
.·
GOBIND SINGH v. KRISHNA SINGHAND ORS.
1105
[OR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
same bicycle after having made some purchases at
A
Aurangabad and reached near Rampur bridge at 5.00 p.m. the
informant got down and started talking to a labourer but
deceased Madan Singh moved ahead slowly on bicycle. As
soon as deceased Madan Singh 'reached the ~astern portion
of the bridge upon river Adari, the accused persons who have
1 B
been named and who were sitting in ambush, stood up and
surrounded Madan Singh and caught hold of him. Accused-
respondent Suresh Singh fired from revolver and accused-
respondent .No.1 Krishna Singh started cutting the neck of
Madan Singh with a 'Pasuli', an instrument used for tapping
C
toddy, catching hold of the hair of deceased. The informant
s~eing that ran away and reached Karma Village shouting
where he tolExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.