PAPPU TIWARY versus STATE OF JHARKHAND

Citation: [2022] 8 S.C.R. 121 · Decided: 31-01-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SANJAY KISHAN KAUL · Disposal: Dismissed
cites 7 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
121
[2022] 8 S.C.R. 121
121
PAPPU TIWARY
v.
STATE OF JHARKHAND
(Criminal Appeal No. 1492 of 2021)
JANUARY 31, 2022
[SANJAY KISHAN KAUL AND M. M. SUNDRESH, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860: ss. 302/34 – Arms Act, 1959 – s.27 –
Murder – Five people collectively inflicted knife injuries on the
deceased after he was shot – Accused P fired at deceased and others
inficted knife blows– Conviction and sentence u/s. 302/34, and P
additionally charged u/s. 27 of the Arms Act – Upheld by the High
Court, except for one who was a minor –In appeal before this Court
by the two accused, held: As regards, accused L, on all the aspects,
the accused failed to discharge the burden to establish the plea of
alibi – It was not a case where opportunity was not granted to him
– Thus, the courts below committed no error in rejecting the plea of
alibi and there is no merit in his appeal – As regards, accused P, on
perusal of the evidence it cannot be said that there are any major
discrepancies in the testimony of the eye witnesses as to throw doubt
on the prosecution case – Submission that FIR is ante timed, cannot
be accepted as sequence of timings and dates pointed out leave no
scope of ante dating the FIR – Furthermore, it cannot be said that
the mandate of law u/s. 157 Cr.P.C. was not met out – On the
intimation of the incident, the fardbeyan was recorded expeditiously,
inquest report prepared and the FIR was registered within 25 minutes
of the same – Body was sent for post-mortem immediately and the
FIR was sent to the court the next morning – It cannot be said that
there was any loophole – There was little doubt that there is not a
minor but a major difference in recording the number of injuries
suffered by the deceased in the inquest report and the post-mortem
report, however, this would not be fatal – Inquest report is not
substantive evidence and the objective is to find out whether a person
had died under suspicious circumstances, what may be the apparent
cause of his death – Death was unnatural, it was a homicide case –
There were wounds – Two fire arm injuries have been clearly
identified with the wounds at the entry and at the exit being identified
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
122
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 8 S.C.R.
– Proximity of the time period between the intimation and police
proceeding with it right up to the stage when the post-mortem
commenced is seen – There was no discrepancy between the medical
and ocular evidence – There is no reason why the eye-witness story,
which is believable should not be given full credence – Prosecution
case established and had not been dented by the accused to cast
doubt and entitle them to benefit of doubt.
Vijay Pal v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) (2015)
4 SCC 749 : [2015] 3 SCR 394; Jitender Kumar v.
State of Haryana (2012) 6 SCC 204 : [2012] 4 SCR
408; Sudarshan & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra (2014)
12 SCC 312 : [2014] 6 SCR 437; Maula Bux & Ors. v.
State of Rajasthan (1983) 1 SCC 379; Suresh Roy v.
State of Bihar (2000) 4 SCC 84 : [2000] 2 SCR 796;
Surjan & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1956 SC 425;
Pedda Narayana & Ors v. State of Andhra Pradesh
(1975) 4 SCC 153 : [1975] Suppl. SCR 84; Yogesh
Singh v. Mahabeer Singh & Ors. (2017) 11 SCC 195 :
[2016] 7 SCR 713; Tehseen Poonawalla v. Union of
India (2018) 6 SCC 72 : [2018] 9 SCR 1; Prahlad Singh
& Ors. v. State of M.P. (2011) 15 SCC 136 : [2011] 9
SCR 282 - referred to.
Case Law Reference
[2015] 3 SCR 394
referred to
Para 16
[2012] 4 SCR 408
referred to
Para 16
[2014] 6 SCR 437
referred to
Para 27
(1983) 1 SCC 379
referred to
Para 29
[2000] 2 SCR 796
referred to
Para 29
AIR 1956 SC 425
referred to
Para 29
[1975] Suppl. SCR 84
referred to
Para 29
[2016] 7 SCR 713
referred to
Para 30
[2018] 9 SCR 1
referred to
Para 31
[2011] 9 SCR 282
referred to
Para 34
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
123
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
1492 of 2021.
From the Judgment and Order dated 07.05.2012 of the High Court
of Judicature at Ranchi in Criminal Appeal No. 398 of 2002.
With
Criminal Appeal Nos. 1202-1203 of 2014.
Shree Prakash Sinha, Rakesh Mishra, Ms. Mohua Sinha,
Nawalendra Kumar, Sidharth Singh, Shekher Kumar, Advs. for the
Appellant.
Tapesh Kumar Singh, AAG, Aditya Pratap Singh, Aditya Narayan
Das, Advs. for the Respondent.
Seshadri Sekhar Ray (Amicus Curiae)
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.
Background:
1. On 07.03.2000 at about 1:00 p.m. Vikas Kumar Singh, aged
about 22 years was going from his house towards Bhand
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.