LexUMESH SINGH versus STATE OF BIHAR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2013] 4 S.C.R. 7'::!7 UMESH SINGH v. STATE OF BIHAR (Criminal Appeal No. 43 of 2010) MARCH 22, 2013 [CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD AND V. GOPALA GOWDA, JJ.] A B Penal Code, 1860 - s. 302 rlw s. 34 - Murder - Deceased was shot at with revolver and rifle - Several accused - C Conviction of accused-appellant - Justification - Held: Justified - Statement of related eye-witness (PW2) was rightly treated as FIR - Evidence of PW2 supported by other witnesses (PW3, PW5 and PW7) - Claim of appellant that he was falsely implicated not tenable - His conviction based on legal D evidence on record and on proper appreciation of the same - Arms Act - s. 27. Evidence - Rigor mortis - Time of death - Opinion of doctor regarding complete vanishing of rigor mortis from the E dead body after 36 hours - Correctness of - Held: Not correct - The medical officer deposed contrary to the rule of medical jurisprudence - On facts, the same could not be the basis for acquittal of the accused. Evidence - Discrepancy between medical and ocular F evidence - Effect -Held: Between medical and ocular evidence, . the ocular evidence must be preferred. The prosecution case was that while the deceased . was going alongwith his cousin brother (PW2) to catch G a bus, the accused-appellant and the other accused persons, namely, Awadhesh Singh, Sudhir Singh, Jaddu Singh, Nawal Singh, Binda Singh surrounded the deceased and thereafter murdered him by shooting him 797 H 798 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 4 S.C.R. A with a revolver and rifle. The trial court (Additional Sessions Judge) convicted the accused persons under Section 302 read with Section 34, IPC and under Section 27 of the Arms Act and awarded sentence of imprisonment for life under Section 302 read with Section B 34, IPC. The High Court set aside the conviction and sentence insofar as Awadhesh Singh, Jaddu Singh and Nawal Singh is concerned who were held not guilty under Section 302 read with section 34, IPC but affirmed the conviction and sentence in relation to the appellant. c In the instant appeal, the appellant challenged his conviction and sentence. Dismissing the appeal, the Court D HELD: 1.1. PW2, the cousin brother of the deceased, accompanied him on the date of occurrence of the incident. At that point of time the appellant, along with other accused, surrounded them and it is stated that the appellant shot at the Kanpatti with revolver and other E accused persons Binda Singh with the rifle in the stomach of the deceased and Sudhir Singh with rifle in the left thigh. PW7 has stated in his evidence that the aforesaid accused persons fled away at that time Ashok Singh, Damodar Singh, Bairam Singh and Shyam Sunder Singh were going to the bazaar who have witnessed the F incident. His evidence is supported by the evidence of the other witness namely PW3, who has stated that he has seen Moti Singh and Jaddu Singh catching both hands of the deceased and Moti Singh ordered him to fire and the said witness also spoken about the firings by G Awadhesh Singh and Nawal Singh as stated by the PW2. Further, he has supported his evidence that Awadhesh Singh pushed the dead body in the Payeen and also stated that Moti Singh and Jaddu Singh had caught hold of the informant also. PW5 also claimed to have seen H Jaddu Singh and Moti Singh catching hands of the UMESH SINGH v. STATE OF BIHAR 799 B deceased and further he has stated that Umesh Singh, A the appellant, had fired at the temple region of the deceased. Further, he has given categorical statement. stating that Binda, Sudhir, Awadhesh and Nawal also had fired at the deceased with their rifles. Therefore, the evidence of PW2 has been supported by PW3, PWS and PW7. In so far as PW6 is concerned he has given a general statement that he has seen the several persons surrounding the deceased and killing the deceased with rifle and revolver. Therefore, the trial court was right in recording the finding on the charge against the appellant c on proper appraisal of the evidence of the eye-witness PW2 supported by PW3 and PWS. The said finding of fact on the charge of Sections 302 read with section 34, IPC against this appellant and others was seriously examined by the High Court and concurred with the same 0 and in view of the evidence of PW2 and PW9 the informant who was eye-witness and the 1.0.'s evidence regarding his evidence treating the statement of PW2 as FIR
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.