LexSURENDRA SINGH RAUTELA @ SURENDRA SINGH BENGALI versus STATE OF BIHAR (NOW STATE OF JHARKAHAND)
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A SURENDRA SINGH RAUTELA @ SURENDRA SINGH BENGALI v. ST ATE OF BIHAR (NOW STATE OF JHARKAHAND) NOVEMBER 27, 2001 B [M.B. SHAH AND B.N. AGRAWAL, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860/Arms Act, !959-Sections 302 & 307/Section 271( I) and (3 )-Conviction and senetence of accused-Corroboration of the testi- mony of the sole eye witnesses-Incident taking place in broad day light-No· C improbability in identification of accused-On basis of such evidence convic- tion and sentence of accused under sections 302 and 307 upheld. Criminal trial: Testimony ~f sole eye witness-Reliability of-Corroborated by his rela- D tive and also medical evidence-Held, testimony of such eye witness cannot be rejected mainly because another eye witness had not supported prosecution case and was declared hostile. E Identification ~f the other accused-Reliability of-From the statement of the informant in the FIR that he could not identify accused even by face- Such identification of the accused in the test identification parade becomes farce and his identification in the court cannot be relied on. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: F Section 377-Appeal by the State Government-Enhancement of sen- G tence-From life imprisonment to death penalty-ls justified only when oppor- tunity of hearing given. Section 220(3)--Simultaneous prosecution.for two offences-When act of an accused in same transactions-Constitutes o.ffences under the Penal Code as well as the Arms Act-Trial for each ~f such ~[fences is permissible in law. According to the prosecntion, informant alongwith his uncle and their bodyguards were travelling in~ car. Appellant 'S' sitting on the rear H seat of the motor cycle came from behind at the right side of the car and 340 \,_ I .. SURENDRA SINGH RAUTELA v. STATE 341 fired from the stengun and appellant 'MA' sitting on the rear seat of the A scooter also fired at the right side of the car. As a result informant got injured while his uncle died. First Information Report was registered. Motive alleged for the occurrence was that prior to the incident appellant 'S' had demanded ransom on two or three occasions from the informant which was refused. Magistrate took congizance and committed the ac- cused persons to Sessions Court for trial. Trial Court convicted and sen· tenced the appellants to life imprisonment. It also convicted and sentenced appellant 'S' to death penalty and appellant 'MA' to imprisonment under the Arms Act. Apppellant challenged their conviction and the Respondent· B State filed an appeal for enhancement of sentence awarded to appellant 'MA'. High Court dismissed the appeal filed by appellant 'MA' and the C Respondent-State and also set aside the conviction and sentence of Appel- lant 'S' under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act. It upheld the conviction and sentence of appellant 'S' under Section 307 of the Code and also upheld his conviction under S. 302 of the Code but awarded death penalty. Hence the present appeals. D Disposing of the appeals, the Court HELD : 1.1. It cannot be said that reliance could not be placed upon the testimony of the informant as prosecution case has not been supported by another eye witness who turned hostile since the informant is an injured E person whose evidence is corroborated by his father and his brother and the medical evidence. (346-A; BJ 1.2. Father of the informant stated that two or three times informant received telephone calls in his presence from appellant 'S' demanding ransom. He further stated that he also received a telephone call from appellant 'S' demanding ransom. Even the brother of the informant stated that the cause of incidence was demand of ransom from the informant by appellant 'S' which was not met. Therefore, the submission that the pros- ecution failed to prove the motive disclosed in the first information report as no evidence has been lead to prove the same is to be rejected.(346-C-E] 1.3. Informant stated in his evidence that five to six days before the incident he was introduced to appellant 'S' by one of their bodyguards in a hotel where they had gone for taking snacks. Therefore, since the incident F G had taken place in broad day light and as the appellant 'S' was introduced H 342 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. A to the informant in the hotel prior to the occurrence even though once, there is no improbability in identification of appellant 'S' by the inform- ant. (346-F; GJ B 1.4.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.