INDRA PAL SINGH versus STATE OF U.P.

Citation: [2008] 16 S.C.R. 990 · Decided: 02-12-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

INDRA PAL SINGH v. STATE OF U.P . 
991 
.\. 
1 
case. Trial court disbelieving the prosecution version, 
A 
acquitted them. High Court, in appeal, convicted the 
accused u/s 302/149 and s.148 IPC. Hence the present 
appeals by two of the accused. 
Appellants-accused contended that there was delay 
B 
in lodging FIR; that there were several contradictions in 
,IA 
the evidence of PWs 1 and 4; that evidence of PW-4 was 
not reliable as the fact that his statement was recorded. 
by the police after 7-8 days of the incident renders his 
presence on the scene of occurrence doubtful; that· c 
ocular testimony of ;PWs 1 and 4 were at variance with 
the medical evidence; that there was no motive to commit. 
the murder; that the deceased being a member of gang. 
of dacoits might have been killed in gang rivalry and 
accused had been falsely implicated; and that PWs 1 and 
4 were interested witnesses. 
D 
i 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
,; 
HELD: 1.1. The High Court has subjected the 
prosecution evidence to critical scrutiny and has reached 
the conclusion that so far the appellants are concerned, . E 
the charges under Sections 302 read with Section 149, 
IPC and Section 148, IPC are fully established against 
them. The prosecution has successful!~ proved its case 
against the appellants. [Para 15] [1004-D-E] 
1.2. The testimony of P.Ws.1 and 4 has been found 
F 
-~ 
to be satisfactory, consistent and credible by the High 
Court. Both the witnesses have been subjected to 
searching cross-examination by the defence, but nothing 
tangible material has been extracted from their evidence 
to create any shadow of doubt to disbelieve and discard 
.G 
,A. 
their truthful testimony. [Para 13] [1003-H; 1004-A-B] 
1.3. The approach of the trial judge in appreciating 
the evidence of the eye- witness was wholly unwarranted 
and uncalled for. The presence of P.W. 4 at the time of the 
incident has been fully proved on record and his 
H 
, 
I 
992 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008]' 16 S.C.R. 
A 
evi~~m~e i~ CQn~i~\~nt arid trustworthy to prove that the 
accused persons had fired gun shots at the deceased on 
the day of occurrence when he along with deceased; his 
father P.W. 1, and other co-villagers were returning fr~m 
the railway station to their village. It has come in the 
B evidence of P.W. 1 that his son was a patient of asthma 
and therefore he used to be vigilant that his son should 
not fake much physical strain and because of that reason 
he went to the railway station to share with his son the 
burden of the load of one bag containing 15 kgs. of 'khalli'. 
c There is nothing wrong if P.W. 1 had gone to the railway 
station for extending some help to his son. Thus, The 
entire approach of the t~ial court in appreciating the 
evidence of the eye witnesses is perverse and grossly 
improper. [Para 11) (1000-D-H; 1001-A] 
D 
1.4. If the eye witness is related to the deceased; his 
E 
evidence has to be accepted if found to be reliable and 
believable because he would honestly be interested in 
ensuring that real culprits are punished. [Para 14] (1004-
B-C] 
1.5. There was no deliberate delay ori the part of PW 
1 in reporting the crime to the police. P.W. 1 has given 
explanation that due to fear from the accused and non-
availability of conveyance, he could not promptly go to 
the police station to lodge FIR of the occurrence. In the 
F circumstances of the case_, the explanation offered by 
P.W. 1 for not lodging the FIR soon after the occurrence, 
was quite satisfactory and convincing. [Para 9] (997-G; 
998-B] 
1.6. High Court has rightly held that the trial judge 
G has given undue importance to minor inconsistencies 
appearing in the statements of the two eye-witnesses 
which are of very trivial nature and the accused could not 
have been acquitted on such insignjficant contradictions. 
P.W. 1 and P.W. 4 have categorically rstated before the 
H 
.. 
INDRA PAL SINGH v. STATE OF U.P. 
993 
,. 
Court that in addition to torch light it was moonlit night 
A 
--1 
in which the accused were easily recognized by them. It 
is the evidence of P.W. 7 that at about 9:30 a.m. on the 
following morning of the incident, he took torches from 
P.W. 1 and the witness 'S' and on inspection thereof, 
these were found in working condition. [Para 1 O] [999-G-
8 
H; 1000-A] 
,I -+ 
1.7. The High Court has rightly held that there was 
no real inconsistency between the ocular testimony of 
eye-witnesses and medical evidence. The finding of the c 

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