KUNWARPAL @ SURAJPAL & ORS. versus STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND ANR.

Citation: [2014] 11 S.C.R. 245 · Decided: 09-12-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V. GOPALA GOWDA · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

• 
[2014] 11 S.C.R. 245 
KUNWARPAL @ SURAJPAL & ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND ANR. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 820 of 2010) 
DECEMBER 09, 2014 
[V. GOPALA GOWDA AND C. NAGAPPAN, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860 - s. 302134 - Prosecution case that 
A 
B 
on account of animosity between the parties, accused persons 
attacked the victim with weapons resulting in his death -
C 
Incident witnessed by the prosecution witnesses - Conviction 
and sentence u/s. 302134, by courts below - Interference with 
- Held: Not called for - Order of conviction and sentence 
based on proper appreciation of evidence on record -
Evidence of the prosecution witnesses is credible - Injuries 
D 
sustained by the victim established by the oral testimony of 
the doctor who conducted autopsy and the post-mortem -
Non-mentioning of the names of PW3 and PW4 in the FIR 
does not affect the prosecution case - Plea of false implication 
by the accused not established - Evidence shows that enmity 
E 
led to the occurrence. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. Evidence on record discloses that there 
was no standing crop in between the lands and the view 
F 
was clear enabling PW 3 and PW 4 to see the occurrence. 
PW3 and PW4 are independent witnesses and their 
testimonies corroborate each other and there is no 
reason for them to falsely depose against the accused 
persons and nothing is elicited in the cross-examination 
G 
to discredit their testimonies and they are credible and 
merit acceptance. The victim died of injuries sustained by 
him in the occurrence is established by the doctor who 
245 
H 
246 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014] 11 S.C.R. 
A conducted autopsy and the post-mortem report issued 
by him. [Paras 13, 14] [253-D, F-H] 
1.2. The complaint was lodged by PW1 on the basis 
of information furnished by PW2 about the occurrence. 
8 There is no requirement of law for mentioning the names 
of all the witnesses in the FIR, the object of which is only 
to set the criminal law in motion. The statements of all 
witnesses were recorded by the Investigation Officer in 
the night of the occurrence day itself. Non-mention of the 
names of PW3 and PW4 in the FIR does not affect the 
C prosecution case as rightly held by the courts below. 
[Para 12] [252-F-H; 253-A] 
1.3. There is no foundation established for the plea 
of false implication advanced by the accused and on the 
D other hand evidence shows that enmity has led to the 
occurrence. The conviction and sentence imposed on 
the appellants is based on proper appreciation of 
evidence on record and does not call for any interference. 
E 
[Para 15] [254-C-D] 
• 
Nirpal Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana 1977 (2) SCR 
901: (1977) 2 SCC 131; Bhagwan Singh & Ors. Vs. State of 
Madhya Pradesh (2002) 4 SCC 85; Raj Kishore Jha Vs. State 
of Bihar & Ors. 2003 (4) Suppl. SCR 2008 : (2003) 11 SCC 
F 519; Rufi Ram & Anr. Vs. State of Haryana 2002 (2) Suppl. 
SCR 426 : (2002) 7 SCC 691; State of Punjab Vs. Sucha 
Singh & Ors. (2003) 3 SCC 153 - referred to. 
Case Law Reference: 
G 
1977 (2) SCR 901 
referred to 
Para 12 
(2002) 4 sec 85 
referred to 
Para 12 
2003 (4) Suppl. SCR 2008 referred to 
Para 12 
. 2002 (2) Suppl. SCR 426 
referred to 
Para 15 
H 
• 
KUNWARPAL@ SURAJPAL v. STATE OF 
247 
UTTARAKHAND 
(2003) 3 SCC 153 
referred to 
Para 15 
A 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal 
No. 820 of 2010. 
From the Judgment & Order dated 18.08.2009 of the High 
Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in Criminal Appeal No. 1418 
of 2001. 
K.T.S. Tulsi, Guru Krishna Kumar, Prafulla Kr. Behera, 
Rakesh Kr. Tewari, Raj Kamal, S.S. Nehra for the Appellants. 
J.C. Gupta, Jatinder Kumar Bhatia, Mukesh Verma, Sanjay 
Kumar Dubey, Krishna Kant Dubey, Karn Pal Singh, Pramod 
Kumar, Upendra Narain Mishra, Rajiv Ranjan Dwivedi for the 
Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
C. NAGAPPAN, J. 1. This appeal is preferred against the 
judgment dated 18.8.1991 passed by the High Court of 
Uttarakhand at Nainital in Criminal Appeal No.1418 of 2001. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
2. Appellants 1 to 4 stood charged for the offence under 
Section 302/34 in Sessions Trial No.195 of 1991 on the file of ' 
Additional Sessions Judge Roorkee and the Trial Court 
convicted all and sentenced them each to undergo life 
imprisonment and to pay a fine ofRs.500 in default, to undergo 
F 
rigorous imprisonment for one year each. Accused Nos. 1 to 
4 preferred appeal in CriminalAppeal No.1418 of 2001 on the 
file of High Court and the
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.