LexSATVIR versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009] 1 S.C.R. 431 SATVIR A v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH (Criminal Appeal No. 551 of 2005) JANUARY 21, 2009 B [LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA AND B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, JJ.] PENAL CODE, 1860: c s.302134- Eight accused convicted by trial court u/s 3021 149 - Conviction of three of them converted by High Court to s.302134 - Remaining acquitted - Appeal by one of the convicts contending that in the circumstances, he was also ~ entitled to acquittal on benefit of doubt at par with those acquitted - HELD: Prosecution case against appellant and D two other accused is fully established - They caused fatal knife injuries to victim - Appellant is constructively liable u/s 302134. E The appellant (A-4) alongwith seven others was prosecuted for commission of offences punishable u/ss 147, 148 and 3021149 IPC. The prosecution case was that the complainant (PW-1) and accused 2 to 6, were collaterals. There was enmity between the two sides. PW- F 1 and his father were facing a trial for murder of the son of A-5. Another criminal case was pending against PW-1 and his father. On the day of incident when they were returning from the Court of Magistrate, father of PW-1 was attacked by the accused. A-4 to A-6 inflicted fatal knife injuries to him. PW-2, PW-4 and some others, hearing the G )\ shouts of PW-1, reached the scene of occurrence. The / trial court convicted all the accused, inter alia, u/s 3021149 IPC and sentenced them to life imprisonment. During . 431 H 432 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009) 1 S.C.R. A pendency of the appeal filed by the accused, A-1 died. The High Court converted conviction of A-4 to A-6 to s.302/34 IPC, and acquitted the remaining accused of all the charges. B In the appeal filed by A-4, it was contended for the appellant that the accused were falsely implicated by PW- 1 due to enmity and, in any event, the evidence against the appellant was a verbatim version of the prosecution case on which the other accused were acquitted and, as c such, the appellant could not have been treated differently. Dismissing the appeal, the Court D HELD: 1.1. The evidence of eye witneses, namely, PW-1, PW-2 and PW-4 is found to be concise, precise and satisfactory on the point that they had seen the appellant(A-4), A-5 and A-6 each causing _grievous knife injuries to the deceased and due to the fatal injuries, he E died on the spot. They have been cross-examined at length but nothing tangible has been extracted from their evidence to create any shadow of doubt that they are not truthful witnesses. [Para 22 and 21] [440-B; 439-F-G] F 1.2. It is well-settled that if the witness is related to the deceased, his evidence has to be accepted if found to be reliable and believable because he would be interested in ensuring that real culprits are punished. There is no reason as to why PW-1, PW-2 and PW-4 would G falsely depose against the appellant. [Para 21 and 22] [439-G-H; 440-A-C] 1.3. The trial court as well as the High Court have rightly held that there was a motive for the accused to commit the murder; they were nursing a grudge against H SATVIR v. STATE OF UTIAR PRADESH 433 the deceased because of his involvement in the murder A of the son of A-5. The report of the incident has been promptly lodged by PW-1 in which names of iifl the accused persons as also of PW-2 and PW-4 as eyewitnesses were mentioned. The ocular version of the eyewitnesses finds corroboration from the medical B . evidence. The occurrence, as spoken by the eyewitnesses, is fully established. The appellant alongwith A-5 and A-6 is constructively liable u/s 302 read with s.34 IPC for commission of the crime. [Para 22 and 24] [440-C-D-F; 441-B-C] C CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 551 of 2005. From the Judgment and Order dated 25.2.2003 of the High D Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Appeal No. 3232 of 1979. · Shakil Ahmed Syed for the Appellant. E T.N. Singh, Rajeev Dubey and Kamlendra Mishra for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by F LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, J. 1. Eight accused, namely, (1) Fateh Singh, (2) Ram Chander, (3) Brahma, (4) Satvir, (5) Ram Saran, (6) Harbir, (7) Pratap and (8) Genda were tried by learned VI Additional District & Sessions Judge, Meerut, in Sessions Trial No. 70 of 1978 for committing the murder of Hari Dutt Singh. G 2. By judgment and order dated 05.12.1979, the learned trial judge convic
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.