Virendra Kumar Chamar vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh

1 2024 INSC 606 NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.719 OF 2022

VIRENDRA KUMAR CHAMAR APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G E M E N T

ABHAY S. OKA, J.

1. The appellant is accused no.3. The Trial Court convicted

him for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘the IPC’). One

Jaggilal, a brother of the deceased Harilal, was the

complainant. He is the first informant. He stated that on

20th June, 2005, his brother, deceased Harilal, was

conversing with one Mohan Lal at around 6:30 p.m. At that

time, accused nos.1 and 2, holding pistols in their hand, and

the present appellant, holding a knife in his hand, came

there with the intention of killing the deceased. Accused

nos.1 and 2 fired on Harilal with their pistols. Harilal Signature Not Verified entered Mevalal’s house. He was shouting. Digitally signed by

The three accused, KAVITA PAHUJA Date: 2024.08.13 17:12:51 IST Reason:

while chasing him, entered Mevalal’s house and again fired

pistols. The appellant assaulted him by using a knife.

2 2. PW1—Ram Sumer is another brother of the deceased who

also claims to be an eyewitness. We may note here that

Jaggilal, another brother of the deceased who had filed the

complaint, died before the trial started. The appellant's

conviction is based on evidence of PW1 Ram Sumer.

3. With the assistance of learned counsel appearing for the

appellant and learned counsel appearing for the State, we

have carefully perused the evidence of PW1.

4. Before we appreciate the evidence of PW1, we may note

here that the case of the prosecution is that firearm

injuries caused the death of the deceased. The allegation

against the appellant is that he was carrying a knife in his

hand, and he assaulted the deceased after the bullets were

fired on the deceased by the other two accused.

Surprisingly, a charge under Section 34 of the IPC has not

been framed against the appellant.

5. PW1 - Ram Sumer, in his examination-in-chief, stated

that he heard the sound of fire and noise, and after hearing

the noise, he and his brother Jaggilal (complainant) ran

towards the spot. He saw his brother Harilal entering

Mevalal’s house, and three accused were running after him.

The three accused entered Mevalal’s house. He, along with

Jaggilal, also entered the house, and he saw accused nos.1 3

and 2 firing on his brother, and after that, the appellant

injured his brother with a knife.

6. In the cross-examination by the Advocate for the

accused, the PW1 admitted that he reached the spot two or

three minutes after hearing the firing sounds. He stated

that when he and his brother Jaggilal reached there, people

were shouting, and no one was standing near the spot. He

answered in the cross-examination that he had not seen the

actual incident of accused nos.1 and 2 firing bullets at the

deceased and accused no.3 (appellant) assaulting the deceased

with a knife. His statement in the cross-examination

indicates that the deceased had already died when he reached

the scene of the offence. In the cross-examination, he

further admitted that he did not know how many rounds were

fired on the deceased Harilal because, at that time, he was

at home. Thus, a serious doubt is created whether PW1 had

seen the incident of assault by the accused.

7. No other eyewitness was examined, though from the

evidence of PW1, it is apparent that the incident happened at

6.30 pm. and that there were many people around. We are

surprised to note that the courts have convicted the

appellant only based on evidence of PW1—Ram Sumer. He has

already undergone incarceration for sixteen years. This is a

shocking state of affairs.

4

8. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the

conviction of the appellant cannot be sustained.

Accordingly, the impugned judgments are set aside. The

appellant, accused no.3 in Sessions Trial No.82 of 2006

before the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge/FTC-Second,

Kaushambi is acquitted of the charges framed against him.

9. The appellant shall be immediately set at liberty if he

is not required to be detained in any other case.

10. The appeal is accordingly allowed.

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

......................J. (ABHAY S.OKA)

......................J. New Delhi; (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) August 7, 2024.

5

ITEM NO.107 COURT NO.6 SECTION II

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Criminal Appeal No.719/2022

VIRENDRA KUMAR CHAMAR Appellant(s)

VERSUS

THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Respondent(s)

(IA No. 47007/2024 - EARLY HEARING APPLICATION IA No. 47000/2024 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. IA No. 46998/2024 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/ FACTS/ANNEXURES)

Date : 07-08-2024 These matters were called on for hearing today.

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY S. OKA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH

For Appellant(s) Mr. Vishal Vishwadheesh, Adv.

Ms. Manju Jetley, AOR Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. Adarsh Upadhyay, AOR Mr. Rajesh Kumar Singh, Adv.

Mr. Aman Pathak, Adv.

Ms. Pallavi Kumari, Adv.

Mr. Shashank Pachauri, Adv.

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R

The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed non-

reportable judgment.

The operative portion of the judgment reads thus:

“Therefore, we are of the considered view that the conviction of the appellant cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the impugned judgments are set aside. The appellant, accused no.3 in 6

Sessions Trial No.82 of 2006 before the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge/FTC-Second, Kaushambi is acquitted of the charges framed against him.”

The appellant shall be immediately set at liberty if he is not required to be detained in any other case.

The appeal is accordingly allowed.”

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

(KAVITA PAHUJA) (AVGV RAMU) ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (NSH)

[Signed non-reportable judgment is placed on the file]