Sunny Khanna vs State Of Chhattisgarh

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL No(s). 1546 OF 2017

SUNNY KHANNA Appellant(s) VERSUS

STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Respondent(s)

WITH

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1547 OF 2017

PRADEEP SINGH @ JUGU Appellant(s) VERSUS

STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

BANUMATHI, J.:

(1) These appeals arise out of judgment dated 17th November,

2014 passed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in

and by which the High Court has affirmed the conviction of the

appellants under Section 302 I.P.C. read with Section 34 I.P.C.

for the death/murder of deceased-Irfan @ Golu. So far as the

death/murder of Anil Chandrakar, the High Court has altered the

conviction of the appellants from Section 302 I.P.C. to Section

307 I.P.C. read with Section 34 I.P.C. and sentenced them to

undergo imprisonment for seven years.

(2) Signature Not Verified

Case of the prosecution is that on 21 st March, 2008 at Digitally signed by MAHABIR SINGH Date: 2018.10.09

about 17:41:49 IST Reason: 10.30 pm deceased-Irfan @ Golu and decased-Anil

Chandrakar were present near Holika dahan. An altercation took

place between deceased Irfan @ Golu and Chotu which resulted in 2

heated arguments. Thereafter, both the appellants Sunny Khanna

and Pradeep Singh @ Jugu caught hold of the deceased - Irfan @

Golu and the juvenile accused Chotu inflicted stabbed injuries

twice on abdomen and right elbow and Irfan @ Golu fell down.

At that time second deceased-Anil Chandrakar rushed to save

Irfan @ Golu and then both the appellants are alleged to have

caught hold of him and juvenile accused Chotu assaulted him by

knife and caused injuries. Complainant-Aavez Khan (PW-1) took

the deceased persons to hospital where deceased Irfan @ Golu

was declared dead. Deceased-Anil Chandrakar also succumbed to

injuries on 13th April, 2008 i.e. twenty days after the

incident. After completion of the investigation, a chargesheet

was filed against the accused under Section 302 I.P.C. read

with Section 34 I.P.C. on two counts.

(3) Upon consideration of the evidence of Salim Khan (PW-10)

and also Aavez Khan (PW-1), the Trial Court vide judgment dated

24th January, 2009 convicted the appellants-accused under

Section 302 I.P.C. read with Section 34 I.P.C. for causing

murder of both the deceased – Irfan Khan @ Golu and Anil

Chandrakar, and sentenced them to undergo life imprisonment.

(4) In appeal, the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by

the appellants thereby confirming the conviction of the

appellants under Section 302 I.P.C. read with Section 34 I.P.C.

and affirmed the sentence of life imprisonment awarded to them

for causing murder of the deceased – Irfan Khan @ Golu. So far

as the death of the deceased – Anil Chandrakar, as aforesaid in 3

para (1) the conviction of the appellants was altered from

Section 302 I.P.C. read with Section 34 I.P.C. to Section 307

I.P.C. read with Section 34 I.P.C.

(5) In his evidence Salim Khan (PW-10) has stated that the

appellants-accused, Sunny Khanna and Pradeep Singh @ Jugu held

the deceased-Irfan @ Golu and juvenile accused, Chotu, stabbed

the deceased Irfan @ Golu with a weapon like butter knife. When

the deceased-Anil Chandrakar ran to save Irfan @ Golu, the

appellants-accused caught hold of Anil Chandrakar and the

juvenile accused, Chotu, stabbed him in the abdomen. On

raising alarm, the accused fled away from the scene of

occurrence.

(6) Mr. S. Nagamuthu, learned senior counsel appearing for the

appellant-Sunny Khanna, and Mr. Dushyant Parashar, learned

counsel appearing for the appellant-Pradeep Singh @ Jugu,

submitted that Salim Khan (PW-10) is related to the deceased

person-Irfan @ Golu and, therefore, his solitary testimony

ought not to have been made the basis for conviction, unless

being corroborated. The occurrence was at the night time on

the day of Holika Dahan, a day prior to Holi and at that time

it cannot be expected of the prosecution to examine any

independent witnesses. Further, as pointed out by the Trial

Court as well as the High Court the evidence of Salim Khan (PW-

10) is corroborated by the medical evidence as well as by the

recovery of weapon from juvenile accused – Chotu. When both

the courts have accepted the evidence of Aavez Khan (PW-1) as 4

credible witness, we do not find any good reason to interfere

with the said concurrent findings.

(7) So far as the conviction of the appellants under Section

302 I.P.C. regarding the death of Irfan @ Golu, from the

evidence of Salim Khan (PW-10) it emerges that when preparation

was going on to burn Holika and when they were all standing

there, juvenile accused-Chotu was using abusive language and

Irfan @ Golu asked Chotu to stop using abusive language and

there was heated arguments, scuffle and sudden fight between

them. It is in these circumstances, the juvenile accused,

Chotu, inflicted injuries on deceased-Irfan @ Golu while the

appellants herein held the deceased-Irfan @ Golu. As the

occurrence took place in the course of sudden fight between the

deceased and the accused party the occurrence would fall under

sub-section (4) of Section 300 I.P.C. The injuries inflicted

on the deceased-Irfan @ Golu is on the backside piercing the

left lung which shows the intention of the juvenile accused who

inflicted the injury. Keeping in view the nature of the

injuries and considering the fact that the appellants-accused

had not taken undue advantage of the deceased and in the facts

and circumstances of the case, the conviction of the appellants

under Section 302 I.P.C. read with Section 34 I.P.C. is

modified as the one under Section 304 Part-I I.P.C. It is

submitted that both the appellants have undergone imprisonment

for more than ten years.

5

(8) In the result, the conviction of the appellants under

Section 302 I.P.C. read with Section 34 I.P.C. is modified to

Section 304 Part-I I.P.C. and the sentence of life imprisonment

awarded to the appellants is reduced to the period already

undergone by each of the accused.

(9) The appeals are partly allowed. The appellants are on

bail. Their bail bonds shall stand discharged.

..........................J. (R. BANUMATHI)

..........................J. (INDIRA BANERJEE) NEW DELHI, OCTOBER 4, 2018.