LexSHEO SHANKAR SINGH versus STATE OF U.P.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2013] 8 S.C.R. 1100 SHEO SHANKAR SINGH v. STATE OF U.P. (Criminal Appeal No. 1020 of 2004) JULY 2, 2013 [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860- s.302 rlw s.34 - Murder- Common C intention - Death caused by firing gunshots - Four accused including the appellants - Conviction of second appellant with the aid of s.34 - Challenged - Held: All the four accused opened fire towards the deceased, who started to run and after the initial firing, two of the accused continued to fire pursuant o to which the deceased fell down and finally, one of them ensured that the deceased lost his breath - Therefore, invoking of s. 34 /PC against the second appellant fully justified. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.157 - Delay in E sending FIR to the Magistrate - Alleged violation of s. 157 - Held: Mere delay in sending the FIR to the Magistrate by itself will not have any deteriorating effect on the case of the prosecution, unless serious prejudice was demonstrated to have been suffered as against the accused. F Evidence - Witnesses - Independent witness - Gruesome murder in broad daylight - Two eye-witnesses, PWs 1 and 3, who were close relatives of the deceased - Non- examination of independent witnesses - Held: Not fatal in the G facts and circumstances of the instant case - When Investigating officer approached the witnesses other than PWs 1 and 3, none of them were prepared to come and give evidence in the Court and they were not even prepared to disclose their names - Having regard to the background of H 1100 SHEO SHANKAR SINGH v. STATE OF U.P. 1101 the accused party who were notorious criminals, none of them A were prepared to risk their life and give evidence in the Court - Mere non-examination of independent witnesses in absence of any lacuna in the evidences of P. Ws. 1 and 3, not disastrous to the case of the prosecution. Evidence - Recovery evidence - Deceased stopped by B the accused persons when he was travelling in a motorcycle and then done to death - Non-recovery of the motorcycle - Effect - Held: On facts, no fault can be found with the prosecution on that score - According to the prosecution, the C motorcycle was stealthily removed by the accused after committing the crime - PWB stated that the vehicle was dismantled and disposed of in Kabarkhana - Moreover, it was brought out in evidence through PW1, as well as PW3 and the injury found on the body of PW1 as mentioned by the Doctor who examined him viz., PW2 that the injuries sustained D by PW1 were due to his fall from a running motorcycle. The prosecution case was that when 'L' was travelling as a pillion rider alongwith his son (PW1) in a motorcycle, the accused persons stopped the motorcycle E and fired at 'L' with revolver/country made pistols which resulted in his death, and then fled away. The incident allegedly occurred on account of a long-standing grievance of the accused party against the deceased. Placing reliance upon the evidences of PW1 and F PW3(brother of the deceased), the trial court convicted all the accused persons including the appellants under Section 302 rlw Section 34 IPC and sentenced them to life imprisonment. The appellants were further convicted under Section 379 IPC. The conviction of appellants was G affirmed by the High Court. In the instant appeal, the appellants challenged their conviction inter alia on grounds of: 1) non-examination of eyewitnesses other than PWs 1 & 3; 2) non-recovery of the motorcycle; and 3) non-consideration of the H 1102 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2013] 8 S.C.R. A evidence of P .W.8 about the motorcycle. Dismissing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1. The Trial Court noted that according to the investigating officer, when he approached the witnesses B other than PWs 1 and 3, none of them were prepared to come and give evidence in the Court and that they were not even prepared to disclose their names and that having regard to the background of the accused party who were notorious criminals, none of them were C prepared to risk their life and give evidence in the Court. The Trial Court also noted that the crime committed by the appellants in shooting the deceased to death in the broad day ligl'lt was so gruesome, there was a fear complex set in the minds of the people around that place D and, therefore., mere non-examination of the other independent witnesses in the absence of any l
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.