STATE OF U.P. versus SUKHPAL SINGH & OTHERS

Citation: [2009] 2 S.C.R. 24 · Decided: 12-02-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DALVEER BHANDARI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2009) 2 S.C.R. 24 
STATE OF U.P. 
vs. 
SUKHPAL SINGH & OTHERS 
Criminal Appeal No.1285-1287 of 2001 
FEBRUARY 12, 2009 
(DALVEER BHANDARI AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.) 
Penal Code, 1860 : 
s.396 - Oacoity and murder- Conviction by trial court-
C Acq1,1ittal by High Court - Held: Evidence on record clearly 
reveals that accused committed dacoity, killed two persons, 
and injured two others - High Court erred in discarding evi-
dence of injured eye-witnesses, whose statements were con-
sistent and corroborated by other evidence - It also gravely 
0 erred in ignoring dying declarations recorded by Magistrate -
Test identification parade was not required as accused were 
known to witnesses - Judgment of High Court set aside and 
that of the trial court restored - Dying declaration - Test Iden-
tification Parade. 
E 
The respondents were prosecuted for commission 
of offence punishable u/s 396 IPC. The prosecution case 
was that on 1.9.1979 at about 7.45 P.M., the respondents-
accused along with some others, armed with fire arms 
and other weapons, entered the house of the complain-
F ant with a view to commit dacoity, and started indiscrimi-
nate firing as a result of which four persons received fire 
arm injuries. Two of them succumbed to their injuries in 
the hospital after having made dying declarations. The 
accused were also stated to have looted a licensed gun 
G and some other items. The accused were named in the 
FIR as also in the dying declarations as they were known 
to the victims and were identified in the moonlight and 
lantern light, The trial court convicted and sentenced the 
H 
24 
/ 
STATE OF U.P. V. SUKHPAL SINGH AND ORS. 
25 
accused u/s 396 IPC. The High Court having acquitted 
A 
the accused, the State filed the appeal. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. 1 The judgment of the High Court is based 
on total misreading of the evidence of injured eye-wit-
B 
nesses PW3 and PWS. The High Court erred in discard-
ing the evidence of the injured eye-witnesses whose state-
-~ 
ment is consistent and corroborated by other evidence 
on record. (Para 30) [ 36-E ; 37-B] 
1.2 The findings of the High Court that neither the c 
accused intended to commit dacoity nor dacoity took 
place, that the chief intention of accused was not to com-
mit robbery, theft or extortion but to commit murder and it 
was subsequent to the murder that they removed certain 
property dishonestly, and that the prosecution could not D 
'>(, 
prove that dacoity took place and two deceased were mur-
dered during commission of dacoity, are contrary to the 
evidence on record. The High Court has not correctly con-
strued and analysed the evidence. All the witnesses have 
categorically stated that the accused persons committed 
E 
dacoity, taken away the licenced gun and other items and 
killed two persons, injured two others in the incident. 
~~ 
(Paras 20-24 and 26) [ 34-E, F, G, H; 35-A, B, c, D; 35-F] 
2. The High Court failed to appreciate that in the in-
F 
stant case, the test identification parade was not required 
since the accused were known to the witnesses. All the 
witnesses have stated that they had otherwise known the 
accused persons and were clearly identified in the moon-
light and lantern light. (Para 30 and 25) [ 36-E, F; 35:c1 
3. The High Court has gravely erred in totally ignor· G 
ing the dying declarations of both the deceased and 
has altogether failed to deal with them. (Para 30 and 26) 
[ 36-H; 37-A; 35-E, F] 
4. The application filed before the trial court that the 
H 
26 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 2 S.C.R. 
A accused persons ought to have been charged u/s 302 IPC 
t-
instead of section 396 IPC was rejected by the trial court 
on the ground that the accused persons were justifiably 
charged u/s 396 IPC. In the facts and circumstances, the 
trial court was justified in arriving at the correct conclu-
8 sion that the accused were correctly charged u/s 396 IPC 
and on ttre basis of clear evidence on record, were held 
guilty of the offence charged. The High Court erroneously 
set aside a well reasoned judgment of the trial court which 
4-
is based on correct evaluation of evidence of injured eye-
C witnesses and other witnesses, and dying declarations 
on record. The judgment of the High Court is contrary to 
the well settled legal principles which have been crystal-
lized by a series of decisions of this court. (Para 28, 27 
D 
and 31) [ 36-A, B; 35-G, H; 37-C] 
Ghf.fre Lal v. State of UP (2008) 10-
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.