Sanju vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1981 OF 2014

SANJU AND OTHERS ..... APPELLANTS

VERSUS

STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH ..... RESPONDENT

JUDGMENT

SANJIV KHANNA, J.

The impugned judgment dated 18th December 2012 passed

by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Appeal No.

5036 of 2005 upheld the conviction of Bhagwati Singh and his three

sons, Bhoop Singh, Balwant Singh and Sanju Singh, for murder of

Chandrapal Singh outside his residence in Village Sahnaul, District

Aligarh, Uttar Pradesh, on 11th August 2003 at about 4:30 p.m. The

appellants have been sentenced, for the offence under Section 302

of the Indian Penal Code, 18601, to imprisonment for life and fine of Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by SONIA BHASIN Date: 2022.08.29 17:07:33 IST Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple Reason:

1 For short, ‘IPC’

Criminal Appeal No. 1981 of 2014 Page 1 of 10 imprisonment for one month. The appellants have also been

convicted under Section 307 of the IPC for attempt to murder the

brother of the deceased Chandrapal Singh, namely, Rakesh

Kumar, who is also the informant and has deposed as PW-1. The

appellants have been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for

seven years with fine of Rs.3,000/- and in default of payment of fine,

additional simple imprisonment for fifteen days for the offence

under Section 307 of the IPC. The sentences are to run

concurrently.

2. Having considered the evidence on record, for the reasons stated

below, we are inclined to uphold the conviction, albeit we would

discard and not rely upon the testimony of Ramphal Singh (PW-2),

as an eye witness to the occurrence.

3. The appellants have questioned the place of occurrence as well as

the presence of Rakesh Kumar (PW-1) at his home located in

Village Sahnaul, District Aligarh, Uttar Pradesh, on 11th August

2003. These facts, in our opinion, are not only proved from the

testimony of Rakesh Kumar (PW-1), but are also established from

the depositions of Special Sub-Inspector2 Veerpal Singh (PW-6)

2 For short, ‘SSI’

Criminal Appeal No. 1981 of 2014 Page 2 of 10 and Dr. Anil Kumar Purwani (PW-5) who had conducted the

medical examination of Rakesh Kumar (PW-1) on 12th August 2003

and had deposed about the injuries caused on his body.

4. Rakesh Kumar (PW-1) has testified that, on the date of the incident,

he had come to his village from Aligarh, where he and his brother

were working, on account of the Rakshabandhan festival. They had

reached the house separately, within 5-10 minutes, as deceased

Chandrapal Singh had gone to drop his children to his in-laws’

house. At about 4:30 p.m. on 11th August 2003, the appellants had

come to their house. Bhagwati Singh was armed with a lathi while

the three brothers were armed with country-made pistols. Bhagwati

Singh had asked deceased Chandrapal Singh as to why he had

stored bricks on his land. He had also hurled abuses at Chandrapal

Singh. Chandrapal Singh had replied that he would remove the

bricks in 2-3 days, but Bhagwati Singh was not convinced by the

explanation and consequently raised an alarm calling other

appellants to fire and kill Chandrapal Singh. Bhoop Singh had then

fired a shot at Chandrapal Singh with the country-made pistol.

Balwant Singh and Sanju had also fired at Rakesh Kumar (PW-1)

with their country-made pistols, but the latter managed to save

himself by taking shelter behind a wall. Rakesh Kumar (PW-1) did

Criminal Appeal No. 1981 of 2014 Page 3 of 10 not receive any firearm injury, but when he had tried to run inside

his house, he was assaulted by Bhagwati Singh with the lathi.

Chandrapal Singh died on the spot. Before his death, he had taken

two-three steps from the place he had received a bullet injury and

then fell on the ground. The blood had spilled at that place where

he fell. Rakesh Kumar (PW-1) had proceeded to the Police Station,

Atrauli, Uttar Pradesh, where his statement (Exhibit Ka-1) was

recorded and the First Information Report (FIR) No. 136 dated 11th

August 2003 (Exhibit Ka-2) was registered. The FIR mentions the

names of the four appellants as the perpetrators. It states that the

deceased Chandrapal Singh had died due to firearm injury and that

the informant, that is, Rakesh Kumar (PW-1), had also suffered

injuries inflicted by lathi.

5. Rakesh Kumar (PW-1) was subjected to a very lengthy cross-

examination, and was questioned on the motive or the reason for

the occurrence. He has deposed that the bricks were brought by his

brother Chandrapal Singh, but Rakesh Kumar (PW-1) could not tell

how many days before the occurrence the bricks were brought, as

he resided in Aligarh due to his job, and the bricks were stored near

the village well on the land of the Gram Sabha. Relying on the

cross-examination, during the course of arguments, it was

Criminal Appeal No. 1981 of 2014 Page 4 of 10 suggested that the site plan/spot map, relied upon by the

prosecution, marked as Exhibit Ka-12, did not show the location of

the well or the stored bricks. In our opinion, the argument does not

have any merit as the written complaint (Exhibit Ka-1) does refer to

the well and states that the bricks were stored on the platform of

the well, which existed on the Gram Sabha/Samaj land, but does

not state that the well was located near the house. The questions

put to Rakesh Kumar (PW-1) have been answered with great clarity

and conviction. Rakesh Kumar (PW-1) deposed that the police

station was located at a distance of 6-7 kilometres from his village.

They had left the village at about 5:30 p.m. on 11th August 2003 to

reach the police station. There, they met the SSI Veerpal Singh

(PW-6), and the written complaint (Exhibit Ka-2) was given. They

returned from the police station to the house, and at about 12:00

midnight, they had proceeded to Atrauli Hospital, where Rakesh

Kumar (PW-1) had got his medical examination conducted. The

dead body of Chandrapal Singh was also taken to Aligarh, located

at a distance of 32-33 kilometres from the village, and the post-

mortem examination was conducted. At the end of the lengthy

cross-examination, the defence gave two suggestions to Rakesh

Kumar (PW-1). First, that Rakesh Kumar (PW-1) had been called

from Aligarh to the police station to make a report, which Rakesh

Criminal Appeal No. 1981 of 2014 Page 5 of 10 Kumar (PW-1) categorically denied as incorrect. He has denied that

the complaint against the appellants was false. Secondly, it was

suggested that Rakesh Kumar (PW-1) was not medically examined.

Rakesh Kumar (PW-1) denied that there was no medical

examination and that he had shown fake/self-inflicted injuries.

6. Dr. Anil Kumar Purwani (PW-5), who had examined Rakesh Kumar

(PW-1) on 12th August 2003, has deposed that Rakesh Kumar (PW-

1) had as many as six injuries, which included one lacerated wound

and five contusions. The injuries were simple in nature and could

have been caused by a hard blunt object. The injuries could have

been caused in the preceding 12 hours, and thus, might have been

caused on 11th August 2003 at about 4:30 p.m.

7. The death of the deceased Chandrapal Singh by a firearm injury is

not disputed and is proven by the post mortem report (Exhibit Ka-

10), and vide deposition of Dr. Hira Singh (PW-4), who had

conducted the post mortem on 12th August 2003 at 3:30 p.m. in the

District Hospital, Aligarh. He has testified, and as per the post

mortem report (Exhibit ka-10), the death of Chandrapal Singh was

due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of the ante-mortem

injuries inflicted by a firearm. Dr. Hira Singh (PW-4) has testified

Criminal Appeal No. 1981 of 2014 Page 6 of 10 about the entry and the exit wound on the front and backside of the

left side chest of Chandrapal Singh.

8. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that empty

cartridges were not found at the spot and have not been exhibited.

This is correct. However, Veerpal Singh (PW-6) has deposed that

on 11th August 2003 he was posted as SSI at Police Station, Atrauli

and the investigation of the case was handed over to him. On the

same day, he had visited the place of incident and had prepared

the site map of the incident, which was marked Exhibit Ka-12. He

had prepared the seizure report of the blood-stained and plain earth

bearing his signatures, which was marked Exhibit Ka-9. The place

of incident was located at a distance of 5-6 kilometres from the

police station. With reference to the site map (Exhibit Ka-12),

Veerpal Singh (PW-6) had identified and demarcated the place

from where the blood-stained earth was collected. It was a rough

surface of concrete. Blood had also spilled on open soil.

9. What is clear from the above deposition is that there was a time gap

between the actual occurrence and the visit of the police to the

place of incident. By that time, the villagers had collected at the

spot, a factum which has been deposed to by Rakesh Kumar (PW-

1), wherein he has stated that the villagers saw the police taking

Criminal Appeal No. 1981 of 2014 Page 7 of 10 the dead body 2 hours after the incident. This was not controverted

and challenged in the cross-examination. Disappearance of the

empty cartridges can be explained, as a number of villagers had

gathered on the spot and had access to the place of occurrence.

Further, the place of occurrence cannot be challenged on this

ground. There is overwhelming evidence to establish that the place

of incident was outside the residence of the deceased Chandrapal

Singh and his brother Rakesh Kumar (PW-1).

10. Ramphal Singh (PW-2) has similarly deposed and stated that the

police arrived around 7:00-8:00 p.m. and several persons had gone

along with the dead body. He had also deposed that he was an eye-

witness who had seen the appellants and was a witness to the

firing. However, in his cross-examination, he accepted that the Sub-

Inspector3 had not recorded his statement and he had not informed

the SI that Bhoop Singh had shot at Chandrapal Singh. Further, he

had not told the SI that he had reached the spot after hearing a

noise and had seen the dispute between the appellants, deceased

Chandrapal Singh and Rakesh Kumar (PW-1). As per Veerpal

Singh (PW-6), Ramphal Singh (PW-2) was a signatory to the

panchnama (Exhibit Ka-9), but Veerpal Singh (PW-6) had neither

3 For Short, ‘SI’

Criminal Appeal No. 1981 of 2014 Page 8 of 10 recorded the statement of Ramphal Singh (PW-2) nor asked him

whether he was an eye-witness. Ramphal Singh (PW-2) did not tell

Veerpal Singh (PW-6) anything with regard to his being an eye-

witness. It appears that Ramphal Singh’s (PW-2) statement under

Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, on his being

an eye-witness, was recorded as late as 2nd September 2003,

which is nearly 20 days after the occurrence. The spot map/site

plan (Exhibit Ka-12) does not mention the location of the house of

Ramphal Singh (PW-2). We would, therefore, discard and not take

into account the testimony of Ramphal Singh (PW-2) as a purported

eye-witness. However, for the reasons stated above, we are of the

view that we can rely upon the testimony of Rakesh Kumar (PW-1)

to affirm the conviction of the appellants, which has been proved

and established beyond reasonable doubt.

11. Recording the aforesaid, the appeal is dismissed. The appellant

Bhoop Singh, who was released on bail pursuant to the order of this

Court dated 9th September 2014, as he had already suffered

incarceration for 11 years, shall surrender within one month from

the date of pronouncement of this judgment. In case he fails to

surrender, the authorities shall take steps in accordance with law to

take him into custody for undergoing the sentence. The other

Criminal Appeal No. 1981 of 2014 Page 9 of 10 appellants are incarcerated and would, therefore, undergo their

sentence. We are not interfering or modifying the order of sentence.

......................................J. (SANJIV KHANNA)

......................................J. (BELA M. TRIVEDI) NEW DELHI;

AUGUST 29, 2022.

Criminal Appeal No. 1981 of 2014 Page 10 of 10