SATBIR SINGH & ORS. versus STATE OF U.P.

Citation: [2009] 3 S.C.R. 406 · Decided: 25-02-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

-
[2009) 3 S.C.R. 406 
A 
SATBIR SINGH & ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 951 of 2005) 
B 
FEBRUARY 25, 2009 
[S.B. SINHA AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.) 
Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 3021149, 148 and 3231149 -
c 
Murder of two and injury caused to one - Long standing 
enemity between accused and complainant party - Eye-
witnesses and injured eye-witness to incident - Timely lodging 
of FIR - Conviction by courts below - On appeal, held: 
Prosecution case proved - Conviction justified - Ocular 
evidence not at variance with medical evidence - Availability 
" 
D of independent witnesses in case of family enemity is difficult 
- However, one of the eye-witnesses was independent witness 
- Delay in examination of the witnesses was not of much 
relevance as the delay has been explained - Mentioning of 
names of the accused not necessary for proving the case -
E Common object also proved. 
Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - ss. 320 and 321 -
Prosecution uls. 302 /PC - Out of court settlement between 
accused and complainant party- Application before Supreme 
F 
Court for recording the compromise - Held: Offence u/s. 302 
/PC, since not compoundable, compromise cannot be 
recorded in violation of the statutory provision - Judgment of 
acquittal cannot be passed on the basis of compromise -
Supreme Court Rules, 1966 - 0. 47 rr. 1 and 6. 
G 
Appellants accused were prosecuted for having 
caused death of two persons and for causing injury to 
one. As per prosecution, complainant and accused 
parties were the two branches of the same family, having 
... 
long standing enemity. Accused Nos. 1 to 4 when started 
H 
406 
f. 
.. 
SATBIR SINGH & ORS. v. STATE OF U.P. 
407 
cutting the ridge of the field of the complainant party to 
A 
which deceased No. 1 objected. When the accused 
started abusing deceased No. 1, deceased No. 2 
intervened. The accused went away and came back with 
accused Nos. 5, 6 and 7 and assaulted deceased No.1. 
Witnesses to this assault were PWs 1, 5 and 6. PWS was 
B 
also injured. Thereafter, the accused persons proceeded 
to kill deceased No. 2 and assaulted him. PW4 (wife of 
deceased No.2) and PW 7 were the witnesses to this 
assault. Trial court relying on the testimony of the eye-
witnesses convicted the accused u/ss. 302/149, 148 and c 
323/149 IPC. High Court confirmed the conviction. Hence 
the present appeal. 
Pursuant to a settlement/compromise arrived at 
between the complainant and accused parties, one 
interlocutory application was filed before this Court D 
seeking impleadment of sons of both the deceased, as 
parties. Another interlocutory application was filed under 
Order 47 Rules 1 and 6 of Supreme Court Rules for 
acceptance of the settlement between the parties. 
Dismissing the appeal and the applications, the Court 
HELD:1.1. There is no reason to disbelieve the 
medical evidence that PW-5 suffered an injury. If he was 
E 
an injured witness, his presence at the place of 
occurrence cannot be doubted. Even otherwise his 
F 
evidence inspires confidence and has rightly been 
accepted by both the courts below. Similarly evidence of 
PW-6 also is reliable. Opinion of the doctor that the injury 
may be a self inflicted one is not of much significance, 
[Para 22] [420-B-D] 
G 
1.2. The second part of the prosecution case has 
been proved by PW-7 and PW-4. PW-7 is an independent 
witness. He had no animus against the accused. False 
implication of the accused at his hand had not been 
H 
408 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2009] 3 S.C.R. 
A suggested, far less established. The long standing 
enmity between two branches of the same family stands 
admitted. It is, therefore, unlikely that other villages would 
come to depose in favour of one of the parties or the 
other. Only because the witnesses are not independent 
B ones may not by itself be a ground to discard the 
prosecution case. If the prosecution case has been 
supported by the witnesses and no cogent reason has 
been shown to discredit their statements, a judgment of 
conviction can certainly be based thereupon. [Paras 23, 
c 24, 25 and 26] [420-G-H; 421-A] 
1.3. The ocular evidence cannot be said to be in 
variance with the medical evidence as stomach of the 
deceased contained undigested food. The materials 
D 
brought on record by the prosecution shows that 
deceased No. 2 had taken his food at about 10.00 a.m. 
The occurrence took place at about 11.30 a.m. Digestive 
process, depends upon the nature of the food. 
Evidence of PW-

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