2025 INSC 409
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(HON’BLE SANJIV KHANNA, CJI. AND
HON’BLE SANJAY KUMAR, JJ.)
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
Appellant
VERSUS
SATENDRA, ETC.
Respondent
Criminal
Appeal Nos. 550-551 of 2015-Decided on 20-03-2025
Criminal
Penal Code, 1860, Sections 148, 450/149, 323/149,
307/149 and 302/149 – Murder – Acquittal set aside - The three
eye-witnesses, namely PW-1 to 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 - Names and the parentage of both the respondents,
namely, Satendra and Neetu, were duly recorded and mentioned in the complaint
and the First Information Report dated 31.01.2004 registered soon thereafter at
02.30 a.m. - 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 – Held that alleged
discrepancy which weighed with the High Court to upset the findings recorded by
the trial court and disbelieve the eye-witness is not there at all - Although
there are some minor discrepancies in their versions, the overall consistency
between their statements in the 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 - Would not treat the versions given
by PW-1, PW-2 and 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 - 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
(Exhibit-Ka. 13/1) - This would not, in any way, dilute the eye-witness
accounts of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 - It would only show that the police were not
able to recover the cartridge/weapon of the offence - As per the version given
by PW-1 and PW-2, three bullets were fired, but only two empty cartridges were
recovered from the spot - The postmortem report (Exhibit-Ka. 3) stated that the
bullet had pierced and gone through the body of the deceased, Dharampal – Held
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 - Benefit of doubt
given insofar as the charge under Sections 148 and 149 of the IPC is concerned
- 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 for the charge under Section 302 of the IPC, they
shall undergo life imprisonment and pay a fine of 10,000/- each - 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 - 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 - For the charge under
Section 323 of the IPC, they shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 year
- In case of non-payment of the afore
stated 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.
(Para 7 to 23)
ORDER
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, I860. [For short, 'IPC .]
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; [Shamshad, son of
Farzanda, died during the pendency of the trial. Therefore, the case against
him stood abated.] 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.
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, Raj pal
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, were duly recorded and mentioned
in the complaint and the First Information Report[For short, "FIR".] No. 24 of 2004 dated 31.01.2004 registered
soon thereafter at 02.30 a.m. with Police Station - Buclana, 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 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 Raj pal 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), Raj pal
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.
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 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 (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 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,
[For short, "the Code".] 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 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:
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.
------