LexKIRPAL SINGH versus STATE OF U.P.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2010] 2 S.C.R. 1133 KIRPAL SINGH A v. STATE OF U.P. (Criminal Appeal No. 235 of 2006) FEBRUARY 23, 2010 B [B. SUDERSHAN REDDY AND J.M. PANCHAL, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860 - s. 302 - Murder - Dispute between the parties - Appellant firing gun shot to deceased resulting in his death - Conviction and sentence of all the accused for c the commission of offence - Conviction of appellant u/s. 302 \. and imposition of sentence of life imprisonment by courts below - Interference with - Held: Not called for - Appreciation of evidence by courts below neither perverse nor unreasonable - Homicidal death of deceased proved by D testimony of the doctor - Testimony of eye witnesses reliable - No major discrepancy therein - FIR filed promptly - Evidence. The question which arose for consideration in this E appeal is whether the courts below were justified in convicting the appellant u/s. 302 IPC and imposing sentence of life imprisonment. Dismissing the appeal, the Court F HELD: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the conviction of the appellant under section 302 IPC as well as imposition of sentence of life imprisonment is well-founded and no case is made out to interfere with the same. [Para 1 O] [1144-F] G 2.1 The fact that deceased died a homicidal death amply stands proved by the testimony of doctor-PW 7. The injuries, which were noticed by the Medical Officer while performing autopsy on the dead body of the H 1133 1134 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 2 S.C.R. A deceased, have been mentioned by him in his substantive evidence before the court. The injuries are also mentioned by him in the post mortem notes prepared by him. It is nobody's case that the deceased died an accidental death or natural death or had committed B suic;ide. Therefore, the finding recorded by the Sessions Court and the High Court that the deceased had died a homicidal death, deserves to be upheld and is upheld. [Para 7] (1141-E, F] 2.2 J-first informant was examined as PW-1. She C asserted in her sworn testimony that on the date of incident at about 2.00 pm a quarrel had ensued between children of the two families and, therefore, RS had gone to the house of KS with a view to get the matter reconciled amicably but the deceased was abused. It is D further asserted by her that at about 7.00 pm on May 30, 1983, when she along with her deceased husband and son RK was returning from jungle, they were accosted near the house of KS, who with his sons, was standing on the road in front of his house and that the appellant, E who was having a gun, had fired a shot at the deceased as a result of which the deceased had fallen down on the road. Though PW-1 was cross-examined searchingly, nothing could be elicited to establish that the appellant and others were falsely implicated in the case because F of enmity. Her testimony gets complete corroboration from the contents of FIR lodged by her. The courts below, on appreciation of evidence held that the FIR was neither · ante-timed nor delayed and that the same was filed promptly. When so.on after the occurrence the FIR is G lodged at the police station, false story being cooked up and/or false implication of accused stands ruled out. (Para 8] (1141-H; A-DJ 2.3. The testimony of wife of the deceased also gets complete corroboration from the testimony of witness H KIRPAL SINGH v. STATE OF U.P. 1135 RK-son of the deceased and examined as PW-2. Witness A RK stated that the appellant had fired a shot from his gun at the deceased as a result of which the deceased had died. Though this witness was cross-examined at length, no dent could be made in the assertion made by him that the deceased had died because of the gun shot fired by B the appellant. PW-1 is the wife of the deceased whereas RK, examined as PW-2, is the son of the deceased. They, being the close relatives of the decP.ased, would not allow -the real culprits to go scot free and implicate the appella.nt falsely in the case. KS was brother-in-law, i.e., husband c of the sister of J. Therefore, she would never make an attempt to implicate the appellant falsely in the case, as the appellant is closely related to her. It was easy for her to mention in her FIR and before the court that the shot was fired either by KS i.e., her brother-in-law or by VP or 0 by DK. But she has not made any such attempt and attributed the firing of the shot only to the appellant. The
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.