LexSATYAVIR SINGH RATHI versus STATE THR. C.B.I
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c [2011] 6 S.C.R. 138 SATYAVIR SINGH RATHI v. STATE THR. C.B.I. (Criminal Appeal No. 2231 of 2009) MAY 2, 2011 [HARJIT SINGH BEDI AND CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860: ss. 302134, 307134, 193, 201134 and 203134 - Police shoot out - Two innocent citizens killed in mistaken identity of a hardcore criminal and third one grievously injured - FIR by father of one of the deceased, against police personnel - 0 Investigation by CBI - Conviction by trial court u/ss 3021120- B and 3071120-B of ten police officials - Two of them further convicted u/ss 193, 201134 and 203134 -High Court convicting the accused ulss 302 and 307 with the aid of s.34 and maintaining the sentence of imprisonment for life - Conviction of two accused u/ss 193, 201134 and 203134 also E maintained - HELO: It has been established that the police party surrounded the car of the victims and fired indiscriminately at the car due to which two occupants died and the third one grievously injured - The defence that the one of the occupants of the car, when asked to come out, fired F at the police party which thereafter opened fire in self-defence has not been supported by the evidence on record - Though the prosecution is bound to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, obligation on an accused uls 105 of Evidence Act is to prove it by preponderance of probabilities - The trial court G and the High Court have accordingly opined on the basis of the overall assessment that the defence version was a concoction and that the prosecution story that it was the unprovoked firing by the appellants which had led to the death of the two persons and grievous gun shot injuries to the other H 138 SATYAVIR SINGH RATH! v. STATE THR. C.B.I. 139 had been ptoved on record - Therefore, High Court rightly A convicted the accused u/ss 302134, 307134- Evidence Act, 1872 - s.105 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - ss. 313 and 386(b)(ii). s.300 - Exception 3 - Death caused by public servants - Police shoot out - Two innocent citizen killed in mistaken 8 identity of a hardcore criminal - HELD: The Exception pre- supposes that a public servant who causes death must do so in good faith and in due discharge of his duty - The accused police officials fired without provocation killing two innocent C persons and injuring grievously the third one - Trial court and High Court rightly rejected the defence. s. 34 - Common intention - Police shoot out - A notorious criminal being tracked by police party - A person resembling the criminal, spotted and he along with his two D friends in the car followed by police personnel - More police force requisitioned - At the place of incident both the police parties joined together in indiscriminate firing resulting in death of two occupants of the car and grievous injuries to the third one - HELD: The courts below have observed that E keeping in mind the background in which the incident happed it was pursuant to the common intention to kill the notorious criminal - The High Court was, therefore, justified in holding that in the light of the facts, it was not necessary to assign a specific role to each individual accused as the firing at the F car was undoubtedly with a clear intention to annihilate those in it and was resorted to in furtherance of the common intention of all the accused. ss. 79 and 34 - Police shoot out - Ten police officials prosecuted for two murders - Plea of some of the accused G that they acted on the directions of superior officer - HELD: There is absolutely no evidence that the firing had been resorted to by seven accused on the direction of the senior officer, but it was pursuant to the common intention of all the H 140 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2011) 6 S.C.R. A accused that the incident had happened- s.315 CrPC makes an accused a competent witness in his defence - The accused did not choose to come into the witness box to support their plea - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.315. B Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.386(b)(ii) read with s.220- Power of appellate court to alter the finding of trial court while maintaining the sentence - Charge framed by trial court u/ss 3021120-B and 3071120- C B and alternative charge u/ss 302134 and 307134 - Conviction by trial court uls 3021120-B, 3071120-B, 1931120-B, altered by High Court to s.302134, 307134, 193134, while maintaining the sentence - HELD: Justified -Charges had been fram
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.