Deo Narain vs State Of U.P

CRL.A. NO. 750 OF 2005 REPORTABLE 1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 750 OF 2005

DEO NARAIN ..... APPELLANT

VERSUS

STATE OF U.P. ..... RESPONDENT

O R D E R

1. Six persons in all namely Raj Narain, Deo Narain,

Shiv Singh, Vijay Singh, Raj Bahadur Singh and Anirudh

Singh were brought to trial for offences punishable

under Section 302 read with 149 of the Indian Penal

Code for having committed the double murder of Ram

Swarup and Ram Pratap Singh. They were all convicted

by the trial court. While their appeal was pending in

the High Court, Raj Narain, Vijay Singh, Raj Bahadur

Singh and Anirudh Singh passed away. The High Court,

accordingly, went into the matter qua Deo Narain and

Shiv Singh, the two surviving accused, and vide the

impugned judgment, dismissed the appeal. A Special

Leave Petition was thereafter filed in this Court by CRL.A. NO. 750 OF 2005 REPORTABLE 2

the two convicted accused. By order dated 12th May,

2005, this Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition

vis-a-vis Shiv Singh and granted leave to the present

appellant. It is in this situation that the matter is

before us and has been heard at length.

2. The facts of the case are as under:

2.1 At about 7:00a.m. on 4th June, 1980 a quarrel

took place in which Ram Pratap Singh, deceased, was

assaulted by one Shiv Ram Yadav near village Hyderpur.

Ram Pratap Singh sustained a simple injury on his leg

and after returning home he along with his brother Jai

Singh - P.W. 7 and several others including Raj Bali

etc. and Ram Swarup deceased left the village on two

bicycles to lodge a report at the Bidhnu Police

Station. Jai Singh - P.W. 7 and Raj Bali were on one

bicycle where as the second bicycle was being plied by

Ram Swarup with Ram Pratap Singh sitting on the

pillion. Ram Swarup and Raj Bali were also carrying

their licensed weapons. As the party neared village

Harbaspur at about 8:00a.m., Raj Narain and Vijay

Singh armed with guns, Raj Bahadur with a pistol, and

Deo Narain, Shiv Singh and Anirudh Singh armed with

lathis emerged suddenly from their hiding place. Vijay

Singh and Raj Bahadur opened fire on Ram Pratap Singh CRL.A. NO. 750 OF 2005 REPORTABLE 3

as a result whereof he fell down from the cycle

whereas Raj Narain fired on Ram Swarup with the result

that the gun fell from his hand. Ram Swarup attempted

to run away. In the meanwhile, as Raj Bahadur was

about to open fire with his pistol on Ram Pratap Singh,

Raj Bali fired at him with his licensed gun. Anirudh

Singh and Shiv Singh thereafter snatched the gun of Ram

Swarup and Anirudh Singh picked up the gun of Raj Bali

and all of them chased Ram Swarup who ran for his life

towards a tube well. Shiv Singh and Anirudh Singh

thereafter fired at him killing him instantaneously.

Deo Narain as well as the other accused also assaulted

Ram Swarup with their weapons. Ram Pratap Singh too

was killed in the attack. An FIR was, accordingly,

lodged at the police station by P.W. 7 and on the

completion of the investigation the accused were

brought to trial and convicted and sentenced for the

various offences under which they had been charged. As

already mentioned above, we are now concerned only with

the appeal of Deo Narain as four of the other accused

have died and the special leave petition filed by Shiv

Singh has been dismissed in limine.

3. Mr. Subodh Patil, the learned counsel for the

appellant has pointed out that there was a clear doubt CRL.A. NO. 750 OF 2005 REPORTABLE 4

as to the participation of the appellant in the

incident as no specific role had been attributed to him

as the injuries caused to Ram Swarup with a lathi had

been attributed to three accused. It has also been

pointed out that there was admitted animosity between

the parties as would be evident from the FIR itself and

also from the statements of P.W. 7 and P.W. 8 which was

to the effect that several criminal litigations had

been initiated between them and they had different

political affiliations as well and for this reason also

the possibility of false implication of a large number

of persons from one group could not be ruled out. He

has further pointed out that the Bench hearing the

Special Leave Petition had noticed the difference in

the participation of Shiv Singh and Deo Narain and had

declined to grant leave to Shiv Singh.

4. Mr. T.N. Singh, the learned counsel for the State

of U.P. has, however, submitted that there were four

blunt weapon injuries on the person of Ram Swarup, one

of the deceased, and as such appellant had been rightly

convicted under Sections 148 and 302/149 of the IPC and

the mere fact that he may or may not have caused any

specific injury would be of no effect as the common

object of the unlawful assembly to commit murder was CRL.A. NO. 750 OF 2005 REPORTABLE 5

writ large on the facts of the case.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties

and have considered the arguments advanced before us.

6. It is true, as contended by Mr. T.N. Singh, that

the factum of causing an injury or not causing an

injury would not always be relevant where the accused

is sought to be roped in with the aid of Section 149 of

the IPC. At the same time, where the animosity between

parties is admitted with a series of murders and

attempted murders interse and political rivalries going

back for years together, a case of false implication is

also a clear possibility. It is for this reason that

the Courts sift the evidence to separate the grain from

the chaff and to see that in a case of admitted

animosity and a large number of accused some

corroborating evidence to support the eye witness

account must be looked for. We find that several

persons were armed with lathis including Deo Narain,

the appellant herein. The only allegation against him

is that after Ram Swarup had fallen down near the tube

well after being shot, the appellant, along with the

others, had caused him injuries with lathis. We have

also gone through the so called lathi injuries. They CRL.A. NO. 750 OF 2005 REPORTABLE 6

are all abrasions of very small dimensions. We are of

the opinion that such injuries could not have

ordinarily been caused by lathis. In this view of the

matter, it cannot be said with complete certainity

that he was one of those who had been involved in the

incident. It bears repetition that five of the other

accused have been attributed significant roles in the

two murders whereas the appellant has been given an

omnibus role of causing lathi injuries to Ram Swarup,

only. We are, therefore of the opinion that in this

background the appellant would be entitled to the

benefit of doubt. We, accordingly, allow this appeal

and order his acquittal. He shall be released

forthwith if not wanted in connection with any other

case.

......................J [HARJIT SINGH BEDI]

........................J [CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD]

NEW DELHI JULY 28, 2010.