LexKARAN SINGH versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B C D E F G H 473 [2022] 2 S.C.R. 473 473 KARAN SINGH v. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS (Criminal Appeal No. 327 of 2022) MARCH 02, 2022 [INDIRA BANERJEE AND V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860: s.302 r/w s.149; s.307 r/w s.149 and s.148 – Conviction of appellant along with other accused by trial court as well as by High Court under the aforesaid sections – Prosecution case was that there was dispute between the prime accused and the victim-deceased over the price of buffalo for which the deceased stopped the prime accused from harvesting his crops – On the fateful day, six accused persons armed with rifles and guns came to the site of occurrence where the deceased had come to collect the price of buffalo – When the deceased asked for money, the prime accused opened fire with his rifle and shot the deceased which hit his head – Thereafter, the associates of prime accused also opened fire from their respective weapons, whereafter complainant and others ran away – One shot hit ‘M’ – Trial Court convicted the accused persons, inter alia, for murder and sentenced them, inter alia, to undergo life imprisonment – While the appeal was pending before High Court, five out of six accused persons died – Only the appellant was alive – High Court did not find any major contradiction either in the evidence of the witnesses or any conflict in medical or ocular evidence, which could tilt the balance in favour of the appellant – Appeal against conviction – Held: The tenor of the evidence of the doctor who conducted the post mortem supported the case of the prosecution witnesses that all the accused persons, who were present, carrying arms had fired – The injured witness ‘M’ may not have specifically named the appellant – However, two of the other eye- witnesses, that is, PW2 and PW3 confirmed that he was present at the place of occurrence and was carrying rifle – PW3 saw appellant fire – Prosecution was required to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, which it did – The fact that one of the injured witnesses may not have mentioned the name of appellant would not demolish the evidence of the other witnesses – No ground to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the High Court. A B C D E F G H 474 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 2 S.C.R. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. The Appellant’s presence has been proved by two eye witnesses. It has been proved by the eye witnesses, that the Appellant carried a rifle. But PW2 and PW3 deposed that all the accused had opened fire. The prosecution was required to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, which it has done, and not beyond all iota of doubt. The fact that one of the injured witnesses may not have mentioned the name of Appellant does not demolish the evidence of the other witnesses. [Para 46] [485-F-H] Rohtash Kumar v. State of Haryana (2013) 14 SCC 434 : [2013] 3 SCR 884; Narayan Chetanram Chaudhary and Another v. State of Maharashtra AIR 2000 SC 3352 : [2000] 3 Suppl. SCR 104; Kuriya and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan (2012) 10 SCC 433 : [2012] 10 SCR 570; Shyamlal Ghosh v. State of West Bengal (2012) 7 SCC 646 : [2012] 10 SCR 95 – relied on. Palvinder Kaur v. State of Punjab AIR 1952 SC 354 : [1953] SCR 94; Hanumant Govind Nargundkar v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1952 SC 343 : [1952] SCR 1091; Mrinal Das and Others v. State of Tripura AIR 2011 SC 3753 : [2011] 14 SCR 411; Navaneethakrishnan v. State By Inspector of Police (2018) 16 SCC 161 : [2018] 6 SCR 749 – referred to. Case Law Reference [1953] SCR 94 referred to Para 31 [1952] SCR 1091 referred to Para 31 [2011] 14 SCR 411 referred to Para 32 [2018] 6 SCR 749 referred to Para 33 [2013] 3 SCR 884 relied on Para 41 [2000] 3 Suppl. SCR 104 relied on Para 42 [2012] 10 SCR 570 relied on Para 43 [2012] 10 SCR 95 relied on Para 44 A B C D E F G H 475 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 327 of 2022. From the Judgment and Order dated 30.07.2018 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Appeal No.1813 of 1983. Ajit Kumar Sinha, Sr. Adv., Sanjeev Agarwal, Ekansh Agarwal, Advs. for the Appellant. Sanjay Kumar Tyagi, Rohit Pandey, Jagjit Singh Chhabra, Advs. for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by INDIRA BANERJEE, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. This Appeal is against a judgment and order dated 30th July 2018 passed by a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court, dismissing Criminal Appeal No. 1813 of 1983 filed by the Appellant along with other accused pe
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.