NARINDER KUMAR versus STATE OF JAMMU & KASHMIR

Citation: [2010] 8 S.C.R. 779 · Decided: 21-07-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: AFTAB ALAM · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2010] 8 S.C.R, 779 
NARINDER ~UMAR 
v. 
STATE OF JAMMU & KASHMIR 
(Criminal Appeal No. 2093 of 2008) 
JULY 21, 2010 
[AFTAB ALAM AND T.S. THAKUR, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Ranbir Penal Code -
s. 302 -
Culpable homicide 
amounting to murder - Exchange of hot words and abuses 
between the accused-appellant and the victim leading to 
C 
death of the latter due to gunshot injury -Testimony of four 
eye witnesses - Conviction of appellant - Justification of -
Held: On facts, justified - The version given by all the eye 
witnesses was consistent in regard to the genesis of the 
incident leading to the death of the victim - Ocular evidence 
D 
of the witnesses was also fully corroborated by the medical 
evidence - In the absence of anything to suggest that the 
witnesses had any reason to screen the real offender and 
falsely implicate the appellant, the courts below were justified 
in accepting their version - Plea of private defence raised by 
E 
the appellant not sustainable - Conviction upheld. 
Evidence -
Testimony of interested witness -
Appreciation of. 
FIR - Delay in the dispatch of a copy of the FIR to the 
F 
.Jurisdictional Magistrate - Held: Is not per se fatal to the case 
of the prosecution -Effect of the delay has to be determined 
in the context of the facts and circumstances of each case. 
According to the prosecution , when a 'bhangra' 
G 
party was returning from the ' Baisakhi' Mela, one reveller 
(the elder brother of the first informant) trampled the foot 
of the accused-appellant, on which an exchange of hot 
words and abuses ensued between the two. The 
779 
H 
780 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2010] 8 S.C.R. 
A appellant left the spot in anger but returned a short while 
later with a 12 bore gun in his hand, whereafter he fired 
at the elder brother of the first informant from close range 
and fled from the spot carrying the weapon with him. The 
victim was removed to hospital where he was declared 
B dead. The trial court held the appellant guilty under 
Section 302 RPC, and sentenced him to undergo 
imprisonment for life. The High Court affirmed the 
conviction of the appellant. 
Before this Court, the appellant contended that he 
C had been falsely implicated and that there were serious 
flaws in the prosecution story that entitled him to the 
benefit of doubt. 
D 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD:1. There is no room for interference with the 
judgment and order passed by the courts below. The trial 
court as well as the High Court have in their respective 
judgments critically evaluated the evidence adduced by 
E the prosecution and the defence and correctly arrived at 
the conclusion that the prosecution had succeeded in 
bringing home the charge of culpable homicide 
amounting to murder against the appellant beyond any 
shadow of doubt. [Para 6] [787-A-C] 
F 
2.1. The prosecution case stands proved on the 
basis of the testimony of four out of five eye-witnesses 
examined at the trial. The deposition of the first informant 
(the younger brother of the deceased) which was 
recorded before the trial court gave a graphic account of 
G the genesis of the incident leading to the death of the 
victim. Despite extensive cross-examination on various 
aspects nothing, that could possibly shatter his 
testimony, was extracted by the defence. The witness 
stuck to his version that it was the appellant who had 
H 
NARINDER KUMAR v. STATE OF JAMMU & 
781 
KASHMIR 
fired at the deceased leading to his death. [Paras 6 and 
A 
7] [787-D-E; 788-D-E] 
2.2. The statement made by the second witness, PW 
4, is also to the same effect. The cross-examination of 
this witness has also been extensive but nothing that 
8 
could affect the credibility of this witness or the 
truthfulness of the version of the prosecution has been 
extracted by the defence. [Para 8] [788-C-D] 
2.3. The third eye witness examined by the 
prosecution is not related to the deceased or his family 
C 
in any way and, cannot, therefore, be described as 
partisan in any manner. This witness too has given a 
similar account as the one given by the first informant 
about the genesis of the incident that led to the death of 
the deceased. The cross-examination of this witness has, 
D 
like the other two eye witr:iesses, been extensive but there 
is nothing worthy of any criticism for the defence as 
regards his credibility or the truthfulness of his version. 
The witness was firm that it was the appellant who had 
fired at the deceased. [Para 9] [789-0-E] 
E

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