LexSUKHDEEP SINGH @ DEEP SINGH versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 1252 A SUKHDEEP SINGH @ DEEP SINGH v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR. .. (Criminal Appeal No. 1037 of 2005) 'r B DECEMBER 01, 2009 [HARJIT SINGH BEDI AND T.S. THAKUR, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860: c s. 302 - Murder - Accused firing at his rival - Causing Ji his death -Acquittal by trial court on ground that oral evidence was at variance with medical evidence and that empty cartridge recovered from scene of occurrence did not match the crime weapon - Conviction by High Court u/s 302 - D HELD: Trial court misread the evidence - Testimony of prosecution witnesses was consistent - Medical evidence far from dislodging the prosecution case, fully supports the same ;... - Prosecution has also explained the confusion, if any, with regard to the cartridge and the weapon - Forensic. expert has E deposed that .3Q3 bore cartridge was compatible with firing from .315 bore rifle and that the crime cartridge had in fact been fired from crime weapon as distinctive characteristics matching the two were available on forensic examination - There is no reason to interfere with the conviction recorded by High Court - Evidence - Medical evidence vis-a-vis oral it. F testimony - Evidence regarding forensic examination of crime weapon. CRIMINAL APP ELLA TE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 1037 of 2005. G From the Judgment & Order dated 05.05.2005 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Government Appeal No. 1441 of .1981. Rohan Thawani and Prashant Kumar, for the Appellant. H 1252 SUKHDEEP SINGH @ DEEP SINGH v. STATE OF 1253 UTTAR PRADESH & ANR. S.K. Dwivedi, AAG, Pramod Swarup, Sahdev Singh and A Anuvrat Sharma, for the Respondents. The following Order of the Court was delivered ORDER . B 1. This appeal by way of special leave is directed against · the judgment of the Allahabad High Court whereby the judgment of acquittal of the Sessions Judge has been reversed and the accused appellant has been convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life etc. under Sec.302 of the IPC. c 2. The facts of the prosecution story are as under: The appellant Sukhdeep Singh and the acquitted co- accused Raje were friends whereas Gurbachan Singh (PW.2) the first informant and Karam Singh were brothers. Balvendra D Singh, brother of Sukhdeep Singh aforesaid, had some dispute with one Kashmir Singh against whom some Criminal and Civil proceedings were also going on. As per the prosecution story about a month before the incident the two accused had come to the house of Gurbachan Singh and had threatened Karam e Singh to leave the company of Kashmir Singh, failing which they would kill him. As this threat had no effect on Karam Singh, the two accused arrived at his home at about 6;00 a.m. on 5th June, 1980 and whereas Sukhdeep Singh was carrying a rifle belonging to Balvendra Singh, Raje was carrying a shotgun. It F appears that a compromise was proposed even at that time and to ensure that it would not be violated the accused suggested that they go to the Gurudwara to take an oath before the Guru Granth Sahib. On this assertion Gurbachan Singh and Karam Singh accompanied by the accused left for the G Gurudwara and along the way assodated Mahender Singh and Darshan Singh and also told them as to what had transpired and the terms of the compromise. As the group reached the crossing of village Nateura, Gurbachan Singh, Darshan Singh and Mahender Singh who were following the two accused and H . ' 1254 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. A Karam Singh who had gone swiftly ahead, Raje suddenly ~- caught hold of Karam Singh and Sukhdeep Singh fired a shot which struck him in the stomach. Gurbachan Singh and the others raised an alarm on whi<;:h Sukhdeep Singh fired another shot towards them without hitting anybody. The accused then B ran away with their weapons. One Ninder Singh (PW.3) who was working in a nearby field also saw the incident. Gurbachan Singh and the others also found that Karam Singh had died instantaneously on account of the gun shot injury suffered by him. Gurbachan Singh also rushed to the police station which c was about 9 miles away and recorded the FIR at about 1.30 p.m. ASI Ragghu Singh (PW.7) reached the murder site, recorded the inquest report and sent the dead body for its post- mortem examination. The post-mortem examination was held on the next day at about 4.15 p.m. by Dr. C.P.Srivastava D (PW.1 ). On the compl
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.