SAHDEO AND ORS. versus STATE OF U.P.

Citation: [2004] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 918 · Decided: 30-04-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.G. BALAKRISHNAN · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
SAHDEO AND ORS. 
V. 
STATE OF U.P. 
APRIL 30, 2004 
B 
[K.G. BALAKRISHNAN AND B.N. SRIKRISHNA, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860-Sections 302, 149, 148 and 452-Evidence Act, 
1872-Sections 3 and 27-Accused persons armed with weapons intercepting 
a bus-Indiscriminate firing at deceased persons resulting in their death-
C Two of the deceased chased and killed thereafter. and two persons managed 
to escape-FJR lodged-Investigation conducted-Post mortem report showing 
only gun shot injuries on the bodies of deceased person-Deposition about the 
incident by those who managed to escape-Conviction of accused persons 
armed with fire arms and imposition of death penalty-Order upheld by High 
D Court-Acquittal of accused persons who were allegedly armed with lathis by 
trial court-However, High Court setting aside acquittal of accused S, convicted 
him and imposed death sentence-On appeal, held: Even though investigation 
conducted not satisfactory, evidence of those who managed to escape was 
clear and convincing with regard to the incident-FJR genuine and Investigating 
Officer not given opportunity to explain delay in sending FJR to the Magistrate 
E -Common object of unlawful assembly clear from evidence- However, no 
evidence with regard to the overt acts by individual accused-Possibility of 
some armed with firearms but not had the occasion to use it though shared 
common object of unlawful assembly -Hence,. imposition of death sentence 
not justified-Conviction upheld on all counts and death sentence commuted 
F to life imprisonment-Furthermore, it cannot be held that death sentence 
cannot be imposed in absence of various overt acts by individual accused-
Recovery of country-made pistol and motor cycle made pursuant to the 
confessional statement made by accused S not satisfactorily proved since 
recovery purported to have been made when accused produced in the Court-
Order of High Court not justified and accused S acquitted of all charges-
G Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-Sections 154 and 366. 
H 
There was enmity between two groups-accused persons and the 
deceased persons though they are the lineal descendents of one common 
ancestor. On the fateful day·deceased persons and PW-1 and PW-2 were 
918 
( 
l
SAHDEO v. ST A TE OF U.P. 
919 
returning to their village by bus. Accused persons came in cars and A 
motorcycle and intercepted the bus. They entered the bus armed with 
rifles, guns and revolvers and indiscriminately fired as a result of which 
five deceased persons died on the spot. Accused chased PW-1, PW_:-2, R 
and P to the house of H and fired at Rand P where they died. PW-1 and 
PW-2 hid themselves near the house of H and managed to escape. It is 
also alleged that the accused persons looted the house of H. FIR was lodged B 
. the same day. Names of all the accused were mentioned. Investigation was 
carried out. Postmortem was conducted and series of gun shot injuries 
were found on the bodies of the deceased persons. On the statement of 
appellant S, country made pistol and motor cycle were recovered and on 
the statement of other accused weapons, and car allegedly used by the C 
accused were recovered. Eleven accused were charged under IPC and 
Arms Act. Sessions Judge convicted accused persons armed with fire arms 
under Section 302 read wTtW Section 149 IPC, Sections 148 and 452 IPC 
and under Sections 25 and 27 of Arms Act and imposed death sentence. 
However, the other accused persons who were allegedly armed with lathis, 
were acquitted including appellant S. Accused convicted by Sessions Judge D 
filed an appeal. High Court dismissed their appeal and upheld their death 
sentence. State also filed appeal against acquittal of other accused. High 
Court convicted appellant S under Section 302 read with Section 149 and 
imposed death sentence. Hence the present appeals. 
Appellant-accused contended that the prosecution could not produce 
any satisfactory evidence to show that six persons were shot dead inside 
the bus; that there were. no fire marks at any part of the bus and the 
prosecution suppressed this material evidence; that the bus was not seized 
nor a proper 'mahzar' was prepared; that the driver and the conductor 
of the bus were not examined as witnesses, that PW-1 and PW 2 deposed 
that the accused fired indiscriminately and as such many other occupants 
of the bus would have sustained injuries; that the Magistrate received FIR 
E 
F 
six days later and prosecution failed to explain the delay; 

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