The State Of Uttar Pradesh Home Department Secretary vs Satendra, Etc.

NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 2025 INSC 409 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 550-551/2015

THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH ..... APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

SATENDRA, ETC. ..... RESPONDENT(S)

O R D E R

1. The State of Uttar Pradesh filed the present appeals

challenging the judgment dated 29.02.2012 passed by the High Court

of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Appeal Nos. 5509/2007 and

4954/2007, accepting the appeals filed by the respondents, namely,

Satendra and Neetu, and acquitting them of the charges under

Sections 148, 450/149, 323/149, 307/149 and 302/149 of the Indian

Penal Code, 1860.1

2. The trial court, by judgment dated 25.07.2007, had convicted

the respondents, namely, Satendra and Neetu, on the aforestated

charges, while acquitting as many as six accused, namely, Abdul

Rehman; Shamsad, son of Khursheed; Shamshad, son of Farzanda;2

Fateh Mohammad alias Fotu/Photu; Jabir; and Tausif.

3. The acquittal of the aforesaid accused persons was not

challenged by the State and has become final.

Signature Not Verified

1 For short, ‘IPC’.

Digitally signed by babita pandey Date: 2025.03.27

2 Shamshad, son of Farzanda, died during the pendency of the trial. 19:05:27 IST Reason:

Therefore, the case against him stood abated.

1

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the State of Uttar

Pradesh and for the respondents, namely, Satendra and Neetu, at

some length.

5. In our opinion, the High Court erred in appreciating the

evidence of the three eye-witnesses, namely, Rajveer Singh (PW-1),

son of Lakshman Singh, Rajpal Singh (PW-2), son of Lakshman Singh

and Lakshman Singh (PW-3). Rajveer Singh (PW-1) and Rajpal Singh

(PW-2) are the brothers of the deceased, Dharampal, while Lakshman

Singh (PW-3) is their father.

6. The date and time of the occurrence is the night between 30th

and 31st January, 2004, at about 12.00 midnight. The incident

occurred at the house where Lakshman Singh (PW-3) and his family,

including Rajveer Singh (PW-1) and Rajpal Singh (PW-2), were

residing.

7. The three eye-witnesses, namely, Rajveer Singh (PW-1), Rajpal

Singh (PW-2) and Lakshman Singh (PW-3) have, in seriatim, deposed

about the presence of the respondents, namely, Satendra and Neetu,

along with three or four other persons, who had broken into the

house. It is deposed that two persons came from the roof, and the

others entered through the main door, carrying firearms and arms.

They also testified about identifying the respondents, namely,

Satendra and Neetu, because of the light available from the torch

and the lantern. It is important here to state that the names and

the parentage of both the respondents, namely, Satendra and Neetu,

2 were duly recorded and mentioned in the complaint and the First

Information Report3 No. 24 of 2004 dated 31.01.2004 registered soon

thereafter at 02.30 a.m. with Police Station – Budana,

Muzzafarnagar, Uttar Pradesh.

8. Shish Kanwar Rana (PW-5), Constable, deposed about the

registration of the said FIR at about 02.30 a.m. on 31.01.2004 by

Krishan Pal Rathi, Constable, who could not be examined as he had

expired in 2005. Shish Kanwar Rana (PW-5) was posted at the

aforesaid police station and was present during the registration of

the FIR. He identified the signatures and handwriting of Krishan

Pal Rathi, Constable.

9. We will now deal with the so-called discrepancies which

weighed with the High Court to upset the findings recorded by the

trial court and disbelieve the eye-witness version of Rajveer Singh

(PW-1), Rajpal Singh (PW-2) and Lakshman Singh (PW-3).

10. The first ground and reason given by the High Court is that

there was a discrepancy as to whether the accused had muffled up

their faces when they entered the house. Reference was made to the

purportedly divergent testimonies of Rajveer Singh (PW-1) and

Rajpal Singh (PW-2), who had stated that the intruders did not have

their faces covered, whereas Lakshman Singh (PW-3) had deposed that

the intruders, including the respondents, Satendra and Neetu, had

muffled up their faces. Lakshman Singh (PW-3), however, deposed

that, during the scuffle, he saw their faces and was able to

3 For short, “FIR”.

3 identify and recognize the respondents, Satendra and Neetu.

11. We find that the aforesaid alleged discrepancy is not there

at all. We considered the testimonies of Rajveer Singh (PW-1) and

Rajpal Singh (PW-2), who stated that, at about midnight, two

miscreants came down from the roof by climbing down the staircase

and opened the gate. Thereupon, three or four miscreants had come

inside. Lakshman Singh (PW-3), the father of the deceased,

Dharampal, had raised an alarm, upon which the miscreants had

started assaulting him. On hearing the noise, and after getting a

torch and a gas lantern from their rooms, the brothers, namely,

Rajveer Singh (PW-1), Rajpal Singh (PW-2), Dharampal (deceased),

Udaiveer (not examined), Jaipal (not examined) and Vijaypal (not

examined), ran towards their father, Lakshman Singh (PW-3), with

lathis and sticks. The miscreants fired gunshots from country-made

pistol(s) with an intent to murder them but missed. However, the

deceased, Dharampal, chased the miscreants while they were running

away, and the respondent, Satendra, who was a fellow villager,

fired a gunshot, which hit and killed Dharampal. They also named

respondent, Neetu, who belonged to the same village, as one of the

miscreants who had been identified by them. The death of Dharampal,

as a result of a gunshot injury, was duly proved by the postmortem

report (Exhibit – Ka. 3), which was conducted by Dr. Sudhir Kumar

(PW-4). It was proved that the bullet pierced and exited through

the upper side of the chest of the deceased, Dharampal, causing his

death.

4

12. We have also examined the testimony of Lakshman Singh (PW-3)

and compared the version given by him with the versions of Rajveer

Singh (PW-1) and Rajpal Singh (PW-2). While appreciating their

testimonies before the Court, one must keep in mind that they are

rustic villagers who were suddenly shaken up by the miscreants

entering their house at midnight. They confronted the miscreants,

and there was a scuffle between them and the miscreants. The

identification of the two accused, namely, Satendra and Neetu, is

specifically deposed to in their testimonies, and this factum is

corroborated by the FIR (Exhibit – Ka. 4), wherein their names were

duly recorded, shortly after the occurrence.

13. Another alleged discrepancy relied upon by the High Court to

acquit the respondents, Satendra and Neetu, in our opinion, is more

in the nature of a contradiction in the reasoning of the High

Court. The High Court observed that the eye-witnesses, Rajveer

Singh (PW-1), Rajpal Singh (PW-2) and Lakshman Singh (PW-

3), have deposed one and the same thing without deviating much from

the stand taken in the FIR and, therefore, their version should not

be accepted.

14. We not only find the above reasoning contradictory, but on

reading the testimonies of Rajveer Singh (PW-1), Rajpal Singh

(PW-2) and Lakshman Singh (PW-3), we are of the opinion that they

have been forthright about the facts in the versions stated by

them. Although there are some minor discrepancies in their

versions, the overall consistency between their statements in the

5 Court and their earlier statements implicating both the

respondents, namely, Satendra and Neetu, and the acts on their

part, has been clearly and lucidly brought out.

15. Thus, we would not treat the versions given by Rajveer Singh

(PW-1), Rajpal Singh (PW-2) and Lakshman Singh (PW-3) as improbable

or unnatural. On the other hand, their versions and the facts

stated by them are utmost believable and should be accepted, as

held by the trial court.

16. The third reason given by the High Court, in our opinion,

refers to a minor discrepancy as to how the grapple had taken

place. The High Court also accepted that there was grappling, as

was stated by the three eye-witnesses. As per the versions given by

Rajveer Singh (PW-1) and Rajpal Singh (PW-2), at the time of the

incident, on account of the light of the torch and the lantern,

they were able to identify both the respondents, Satendra and

Neetu, who belonged to the same village. We, therefore, reject the

reasoning of the High Court that because the respondents, Satendra

and Neetu, belonged to the same village, they would not have gone

to commit dacoity or would have hidden their faces so as to not be

identified.

17. The High Court also referred to the recovery of the pistol

(Exhibit-Ka. 13/1) from Satendra and the ballistic report (Exhibit-

Ka. 26). As per the ballistic report (Exhibit-Ka. 26), the two

empty cartridges recovered from the spot (Exhibit-Ka. 12) could not

be matched with the fired cartridge from the country-made pistol

6 (Exhibit-Ka. 13/1). This, in our opinion, would not, in any way,

dilute the eye-witness accounts of Rajveer Singh (PW-1), Rajpal

Singh (PW-2) and Lakshman Singh (PW-3). It would only show that the

police were not able to recover the cartridge/weapon of the

offence. It may be noted that, as per the version given by Rajveer

Singh (PW-1) and Rajpal Singh (PW-2), three bullets were fired, but

only two empty cartridges were recovered from the spot. The

postmortem report (Exhibit-Ka. 3), as noticed above, stated that

the bullet had pierced and gone through the body of the deceased,

Dharampal.

18. During the course of the hearing, our attention was drawn to

some additional facts. First, the respondent, Neetu, was not even

charge-sheeted; secondly, the clothes worn by Rajveer Singh (PW-1)

and Rajpal Singh (PW-2) were not seized by the police. On the first

aspect, the eye-witnesses, Rajveer Singh (PW-1), Rajpal Singh

(PW-2) and Lakshman Singh (PW-3) had expressed their anguish and

anger at the manner in which the police had conducted the

investigation. They openly claimed that the ‘Darogaji’, who had

conducted the investigation, sided with and helped Neetu, who was

specifically disclosed/named with his parentage in the FIR

(Exhibit-Ka. 4). They had, in seriatim, denied having made any

statements on 16.02.2004 to the effect that they had misidentified

and wrongly mentioned the name of Neetu along with his parentage,

whereas the person who was present at the spot belonged to a

different village. On the other hand, they further deposed that

they had not implicated anyone else and had stated that the six

7 other accused, who were acquitted by the trial Court, were falsely

implicated and were never present at the spot.

19. It is also a fact that Neetu was not charge-sheeted, but

subsequently, when the statement of Rajveer Singh (PW-1) was

recorded, an application under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973,4 was moved, and Neetu was summoned and asked to

stand trial.

20. On the question of bloodstains on the clothes, we find that

the witnesses deposed that they, that is, the brothers, had lifted

the deceased, Dharampal, and had taken his body inside. They also

stated that their clothes did not have blood stains, as they lifted

the deceased together in a shoulder-leg position. The bullet

injury, as per the postmortem report (Exhibit-Ka. 3), was in the

chest area. The clothes worn by the deceased, Dharampal, as well as

the controlled earth sample (Exhibit-Ka.11), taken during the

course of the investigation, tested positive for human blood.

However, the blood group could not be ascertained due to the

putrefaction of the blood.

21. The contention, which was also accepted by the High Court,

that the miscreants had weapons and, therefore, the two eye-

witnesses, namely, Rajveer Singh (PW-1) and Rajpal Singh (PW-2),

and the other brothers would not have dared to confront and grapple

with the miscreants, must be rejected. We are dealing with

villagers who were perturbed when they found intruders entering

4 For short, “the Code”.

8 their house to commit dacoity and attacking their father, Lakshman

Singh (PW-3). They had not come out empty-handed but with

lathis/dandas/sticks to challenge the intruders/miscreants. We,

therefore, do not think that the conduct of Rajveer Singh (PW-1),

Rajpal Singh (PW-2) and their brothers in challenging the intruders

was unnatural, so as to be discarded as unbelievable.

22. Another contention was that Rajveer Singh (PW-1), Rajpal Singh

(PW-2) and Lakshman Singh (PW-3) had not given the names of the

known intruders to the fellow villagers who had come to the spot

after the occurrence. We do not think that this aspect dents the

prosecution case, given the fact that the names of the respondents,

Satendra and Neetu, were categorically mentioned in the FIR, which

was recorded immediately after the occurrence. Interestingly, the

Investigating Officer, Jagdish Singh (PW-7), stated that he had

visited the spot at 05.00 a.m. during the same night. This

corroborates the fact that the FIR was recorded immediately after

the occurrence without delay.

23. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that

charges under Sections 323, 450, 307 and 302 read with Section 34

of the IPC are made out against the respondents, Satendra and

Neetu. We would give the benefit of doubt insofar as the charge

under Sections 148 and 149 of the IPC is concerned. Accordingly,

the respondents, Satendra and Neetu, shall stand convicted under

Sections 323, 450, 307 and 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The

respondents, Satendra and Neetu, are sentenced as under:

9

i. For the charge under Section 302 of the IPC, they shall

undergo life imprisonment and pay a fine of ₹10,000/- each. ii. For the charge under Section 307 of the IPC, they shall

undergo 5 years of rigorous imprisonment and pay a fine of

₹5,000/- each.

iii. For the charge under Section 450 of the IPC, they shall

undergo 5 years of rigorous imprisonment and pay a fine of

₹5,000/- each.

iv. For the charge under Section 323 of the IPC, they shall

undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 year. v. In case of non-payment of the aforestated fine amounts, the

respondents, Satendra and Neetu, shall undergo 6 months of

simple imprisonment.

All sentences will run concurrently. The benefit of Section

428 of the Code will be given to them.

24. The respondents, Satendra and Neetu, shall surrender within a

period of four weeks from today to undergo their sentences, as

noted above. In case the respondents, Satendra and Neetu, fail to

surrender within a period of four weeks from today, the

police/trial Court will take steps to detain/arrest them for

undergoing their sentences.

25. The impugned judgment(s) is modified to the aforesaid extent

and the appeals are partly allowed.

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

................CJI.

(SANJIV KHANNA)

10 ..................J. (SANJAY KUMAR) NEW DELHI;

MARCH 20, 2025.

11