LexRANGNATH SHARMA versus SATENDRA SHARMA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
[2008] 12 S.C.R. 324
RANGNATH SHARMA
v.
.SATENDRA SHARMA & ORS.
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 55.3-554 of 2001)
AUGUST 20, 2008
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR.' MU.KUNDAKAM
SHARMA, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1-860 :
.
.
C
s.302 rlw s.34 ·_Murder- Caused by gun-shot injury-
Common intention - .Three accused - They took deceased to
the place of incident - Main accused fired gun shot after the
other two accused held the deceased - .Whether. the two other
ace.used were jointly liable =- Held, Yes - They shared common
o intention with the.-main accuse&' and were thus· liable to be
convicl~d uls.302 with the aid of s.34 -Arms Act, .1959 - s.27.
. .
..
.
s .. 34 ...:. Commornntention ~ Principle of joint liab.ility in
-(
doing of a criminaJ act - Applicability of s. 34_ - Discussed.
~ +
E
s. 302 rlw s. 34 - Murder - Setting aside oiconviction by'
High Court on ground of delay in recording of FIR -·
·Justification - Held, not justified, since time period between
the incident and filing of Fl.R was satisfactorily explained by
the prosecution.
F
Crimina'I trial -
Identification of accused -
Held:·
Probability of identification, even from far away place, is muc{J
higher where accused is well known to the..eye-witn.ess.
According to the prosecution, in view of a previous
enmity, the three accused-Respondents took the
G nephew of PW7 to the place of the incident and grappled
and exchanged hot words with him, whereafter
Respondent Nos.2 and 3 held PW7's nephew and
Respo'ndent No.1 took out a pistol from '1is waist and
fired it on his chest resulting in his death.
H
324
RANG NATH SHARMA v. SATENDRA SHARMA
325
& ORS.
_.. ··T
The Trial Court·convicted. the_ Respondents under A
s.302 r/w s.34 and s.364 IPC. Respondent No.1 was
additionally convicted under s.27 of the Arms Act.
On appeal, the High Court acquitted the Respondents
inter alia on grounds i) that the place of occurrence was at
B
a considerable distance and therefore, neither it was
.r
possible for PWs 4,5,6 and 7 to hear the quarr~I nor it was
t
possible for them to see the occurrence from the place
where they were stationed and (ii) that since there was
· considerable delay in recording the FIR, the prosecution
case had become tainted. Hence the present appeals.
c
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD:1. PW-7, the informant, stated in his deposition
that the three accused.- came to his house and asked the
deceased to accompany them .. It is also stated by him D
that ·he prevented the deceased from going with them
)
but Respondent No.1 told that the deceased would return .
....,.
soon. The aforesaid version of the informant was not at
all challenged by the defense by putting any direct
question or otherwise in the cross-examination. The only
E
stand taken by defense was that the occurrence did not
take place in the manner it is alleged. There is no. other
• evidence available on record from whiCh even a doubt
with respect to correctness of the said·statement could
be created. [Para 6] [334-8-C]
F
¥
2.1. The place of occurrence was a terrace meaning .
thereby that it was a little bit high land. The height of the
terrace was about two feet. From the evidence, it is
- clearly proved and established that ~he place where the
appellant (PW7) had reached at the time of occurrence G
......
was not very far from the place of occurrence. Therefore,
it could not have been said that the said place was not
visible and accordingly the High Court was not justified
in arriving at the conclusi.on that the said place where
the occurrence took place could not have been visible H
326
SUPREME ·coURT REPORTS
[2008] 12 S.C.R.
'1 ""'
A
from the place where the informant was stationed at the
time of occurrence. PW-7 as also the other witnesses
have vividly described the manner in which the
occurrence had taken place. All the said witnesses were
examined at length. during the trial by defense but on
B perusal of the· same no contradiction was found. [Para
7] [334-G H, 335-335-A-C]
-1-
~
2.2. Even otherwise if a person is well known to the
other, then the probability of identification of said person
even from a far away place is much higher. [Para 8] [335-C]
c
State of A.P v. Dr M. V Ramana Reddy (1991) 4 SCC
536 - relied on.
3. The action of the eye witnesses is corroborated
by the medical evidence. The doctor, PW-8, conducted
D the post mortem examination and injuries were found
on the body of the deceExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.