Natthu Singh vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1651 of 2019

NATTHU SINGH …APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH …RESPONDENT(S)

JUDGMENT

B.R. GAVAI, J.

1. The present appeal challenges the judgment and order

dated 25th April 2019 passed by the High Court of

Allahabad, thereby dismissing the appeal filed by the

present appellant and accused No.2-Rajesh, challenging

the judgment and order passed by the learned Additional

Sessions Judge, Jalaun at Orai (hereinafter referred to as

“the trial court”) in Sessions Trial No.223/2004, convicting

the accused-Rajesh under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Narendra Prasad Code, 1860 (for short, “IPC”) and sentencing him to Date: 2023.01.23 17:46:47 IST Reason:

undergo rigorous imprisonment for life with a fine of

1 Rs.20,000/- and convicting the appellant herein for

offences punishable under Section 302 IPC read with

Section 34 IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous

imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.20,000/-.

2. The prosecution case, as could be gathered, is that

when the deceased Vineet along with PW-1-Rajveer Singh

and PW-3-Jitendra Singh were passing through the shop of

one Raju Paanwala, four accused persons surrounded

them. The present appellant exhorted the accused No.2-

Rajesh to kill deceased Vineet, after which the accused

No.2-Rajesh fired shots from the double barrel gun upon

deceased Vineet, which hit him and he fell down after

getting injured and died on the spot.

3. Shri R. Basant, learned Senior Counsel appearing on

behalf of the appellant, submits that the trial court and the

High Court have grossly erred in convicting the appellant

and maintaining the same respectively. He submits that

the rest of the eye witnesses have turned hostile. Though

independent witness i.e. Raju Paanwala, in front of whose

shop the occurrence has taken place, was examined by the

Investigating Officer (I.O.), he has not been examined as the

2 prosecution witness in the trial. He, therefore, submits

that solely on the basis of testimony of PW-3, the conviction

would not be sustainable.

4. Ms. Sansriti Pathak, learned counsel appearing on

behalf of the respondent-State, submits that there is no

reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact. She

submits that since a coordinate Bench of this Court, vide

judgment and order dated 29th November 2019, has already

dismissed the appeal of co-accused Rajesh, the present

appeal, arising out of the same judgment, is also required

to be dismissed.

5. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the

appellant and the respondent, we have scrutinized the

material on record.

6. No doubt that the learned counsel for the respondent-

State is justified in submitting that the appeal of the co-

accused has already been dismissed by this Court;

however, it is settled law that dismissal of a special leave

petition does not amount to affirmation of the view taken by

the High Court or the trial court. Since, the leave is

granted in this matter and that too prior to the date on 3 which the special leave petition of the co-accused Rajesh

was dismissed, we are entitled to scrutinize the evidence.

7. PW-1-Rajveer Singh and PW-5-Satish Chandra have

not supported the prosecution case. The evidence of the

I.O. would reveal that he had recorded the statement of

Raju Chaurasia, the owner of paan shop, in front of which

the incident took place. He has not been examined as

prosecution witness.

8. That leaves us only with the testimony of PW-3-

Jitendra Singh. If his evidence is found to be trustworthy,

the appeal would fail, however, in the event his evidence is

found to be doubtful, the appellant would be entitled to

benefit of doubt.

9. We have scrutinized the evidence of PW-3 minutely.

No doubt that he refers to an exhortation made by the

present appellant to Rajesh co-accused to kill the deceased.

However, it is to be noted that his statement is recorded

after a period of two months from the date of the

occurrence. He admits in his evidence that he was in his

house for the said period of two months. The distance

between the village and the police station is only six 4 kilometers and that too connected by a pucca road. His

conduct during the said period is also required to be taken

into consideration. Though, the police station was at a

distance of two kilometers from the place of occurrence, he

chose not to go to the police station to report about the

incident during the entirety of the period.

10. It is further to be noted that, though in the

examination-in-chief, he states that all of them were

encircled by the accused persons, in the cross-examination

he states that only deceased Vineet was encircled by the

accused and that they were at a distance of 5-6 paces.

11. The perusal of the evidence of I.O./PW-6 (Lalmani

Gautam) would reveal that there is no explanation as to

why the statement of the witnesses was recorded belatedly.

The only explanation given by him is that he has recorded

the statement of these witnesses after the investigation was

given to him.

12. We find that the inordinate delay in recording the

statement of the witnesses, coupled with no explanation to

that effect from the I.O. and further the conduct of PW-3

would bring him in the category of witnesses who are not 5 wholly reliable. In our considered view, conviction on the

sole testimony of such a witness, without there being any

corroboration to his evidence, would not be justified.

13. In that view of the matter, the appellant is entitled to

benefit of doubt. The appeal succeeds. The impugned

judgment and order is quashed and set aside. The accused

is acquitted of the charges charged with.

14. The appellant-accused is directed to be set at liberty

forthwith, if his detention is not required in any other case.

15. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed.

16. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

..............................J [B.R. GAVAI]

..............................J [VIKRAM NATH] NEW DELHI;

JANUARY 19, 2023

6