LexSURENDRA PAL & ORS. versus STATE OF U.P. & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2010] 11 S.C.R. 968 SURENDRA PAL & ORS. v. STATE OF U.P. & ANR. (Criminal Appeal No. 662 of 2006) SEPTEMBER 16, 2010. [B. SUDERSHAN REDDY AND SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, JJ.) Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 302, 147, 148, 307 rlw 149 - C Conviction under - Indiscriminate firing by accused armed with deadly weapons resulting in death of three family members and injuries to three eye-witnesses - Conviction u/ ss. 302, 147, 148, 307 rlw 149 by trial court - Upheld by High Cowt - However, death sentence reduced to imprisonment o for life - On appeal held: There was no inordinate delay in lodging FIR nor FIR came into existence after consultation and deliberations - Omission of names of accused and minute details of assault in the inquest report not fatal to prosecution case - PW 1 was first informant and eye-witness E to the incident anp injuries sustained by PW 2 to 4 in the incident established their presence at the scene of offence - PW 1 to 4 were natural witnesses to the occurrence - Their evidence cannot be disbelieved on the ground that they are inter-related to each other and also the deceased - F Consistent evidence of eye-witnesses that accused were identified in the moonlight as well as electric bulb - High Court on re-appreciation of evidence concurred with the findings recorded by trial court which does not call for interference - Evidence - Re-appreciation of - Witnesses - Natural witness - Delayllaches - FIR - Identification - G Sentence/Sentencing - Constitution of India 1950 - Article 136 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 17 4. 'AS' filed a case of abduction of his daughter against 'R' and 'V'. The appellants insisted 'AS' to withdraw the H 968 SURENDRA PAL & ORS. v. STATE OF U.P. & ANR. 969 case and enter into a compromise. On refusal by 'AS', the A appellants along with the other accused and two · unknown persons armed with deadly weapons killed three persons in the family - 'AS', 'HS' and 'G' and injured PW 2 to 4-eye witnesses to the incident. PW 1 lodged the FIR. The investigation was carried out. Eleven accused B were tried. Accused 'R' was absconding. The Court of Session acquitted five accused and convicted the others u/ss. 302, 147, 148, 307 read with s.149 IPC and imposed sentence of death. The High Court upheld the order of conviction but reduced the sentence of death to c imprisonment for life. Therefore, the appellants filed the instant appeal. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. The High Court on re-appreciation of the D evidence concurred with the finding recorded by the Sessions Judge. The concurrent finding of facts arrived at by the courts below is not interfered with. [Para 14] [985-C-D] 2.1 The first information report was lodged within 5 to 5% hours immediately after the incident which could not be characterized as the delayed one. Not only three persons died on the spot but PWs 2, 3 and 4 were also seriously injured. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that there was unexplained delay in lodging the first information report. The first information report was not signed by PW 1. It was scribed by one 'R' on his dictation. The report was received by the Station House Officer and E F the FIR was issued immediately thereafter. It is of no consequence whether the first information report G contained his signature or not. There is no material available on record to arrive at any conclusion that the first information report lodged by PW 1 itself was after some deliberations and consultations in the police H 970 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 11 S.C.R. A station. There is no such case made out by the appellants. [Para 11] (980-981-E-H] 2.2 The evidence of PW 1 was clear and categorical which depicted the sequence of events. The courts below 8 rightly placed reliance upon his evidence. An attempt was made to point out certain minor discrepancies in his evidence to impeach the testimony but the minor inconsistencies, if any, were not such by which his evidence could be disbelieved. The whole narration of the incident is natural. The deceased 'AS' was none other C than the nephew of PW 1, living adjacent to his house whose presence at the relevant time was also natural and there is nothing to disbelieve that he knew all the appellants who participated in the attack in which three persons died on the spot and PWs 2, 3 and 4 received D serious injuries. [Para 11] (981-B-D] 3. The names of the accused
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.