Supreme Court of India
KUNWARPAL @ SURAJPAL & ORS.versusSTATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND ANR.
- Citation
- 2014 INSC 849
- Decided
- 9 December 2014
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- V GOPALA GOWDA
Holding
The conviction under IPC sections 302/34 is upheld as the evidence, including credible eyewitness testimony and medical findings, was properly appreciated and the FIR omission is immaterial.
Summary
The appellants were convicted under IPC sections 302 and 34 for the murder of Ranjit Singh, allegedly attacked with lathis and tabbal by the accused amid a land dispute. The prosecution relied on eye‑witnesses PW3 Atmaram and PW4 Chaman Lal, whose testimonies were corroborated and supported by a post‑mortem report establishing fatal injuries. The defence challenged the credibility of these witnesses, arguing that they were chance witnesses, were 450 ft away, and their names were omitted from the FIR, contending that animosity could indicate false implication. The Supreme Court held that the non‑mention of witnesses in the FIR does not vitiate the case, that the witnesses were credible and could see the incident, and that animosity was a motive for the crime, not false implication. Consequently, the Court affirmed the conviction and dismissed the appeal.
Issues considered
- Whether the omission of eye‑witnesses' names from the FIR defeats the prosecution case.
- Whether witnesses standing 450 ft away can be considered reliable eyewitnesses.
- Whether the presence of animosity between parties gives rise to a presumption of false implication.
- Whether the evidence on record sustains conviction under IPC sections 302 and 34.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 313
- Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 302, s. 34
Subjects
murderIPC 302Section 34eye‑witness testimonyFIR omissionfalse implicationenmityconviction upheld
Judgment
• [2014] 11 S.C.R. 245
KUNWARPAL @ SURAJPAL & ORS.
v.
A
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND ANR.
(Criminal Appeal No. 820 of 2010)
DECEMBER 09, 2014
B
[V. GOPALA GOWDA AND C. NAGAPPAN, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860 - s. 302134 - Prosecution case that
on account of animosity between the parties, accused persons
attacked the victim with weapons resulting in his death - C
Incident witnessed by the prosecution witnesses - Conviction
and sentence u/s. 302134, by courts below - Interference with
- Held: Not called for - Order of conviction and sentence
based on proper appreciation of evidence on record -
Evidence of the prosecution witnesses is credible - Injuries D
sustained by the victim established by the oral testimony of
the doctor who conducted autopsy and the post-mortem -
Non-mentioning of the names of PW3 and PW4 in the FIR
does not affect the prosecution case - Plea of false implication
by the accused not established - Evidence shows that enmity E
led to the occurrence.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1. Evidence on record discloses that there
was no standing crop in between the lands and the view F
was clear enabling PW 3 and PW 4 to see the occurrence.
PW3 and PW4 are independent witnesses and their
testimonies corroborate each other and there is no
reason for them to falsely depose against the accused
persons and nothing is elicited in the cross-examination G
to discredit their testimonies and they are credible and
merit acceptance. The victim died of injuries sustained by
him in the occurrence is established by the doctor who
245
H
246 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 11 S.C.R.
A conducted autopsy and the post-mortem report issued
by him. [Paras 13, 14] [253-D, F-H]
1.2. The complaint was lodged by PW1 on the basis
of information furnished by PW2 about the occurrence.
There is no requirement of law for mentioning the names
8
of all the witnesses in the FIR, the object of which is only
to set the criminal law in motion. The statements of all
witnesses were recorded by the Investigation Officer in
the night of the occurrence day itself. Non-mention of the
names of PW3 and PW4 in the FIR does not affect the
C prosecution case as rightly held by the courts below.
[Para 12] [252-F-H; 253-A]
1.3. There is no foundation established for the plea
of false implication advanced by the accused and on the
D other hand evidence shows that enmity has led to the
occurrence. The conviction and sentence imposed on
the appellants is based on proper appreciation of
evidence on record and does not call for any interference.
[Para 15] [254-C-D] •
E
Nirpal Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana 1977 (2) SCR
901: (1977) 2 SCC 131; Bhagwan Singh & Ors. Vs. State of
Madhya Pradesh (2002) 4 SCC 85; Raj Kishore Jha Vs. State
of Bihar & Ors. 2003 (4) Suppl. SCR 2008 : (2003) 11 SCC
F 519; Rufi Ram & Anr. Vs. State of Haryana 2002 (2) Suppl.
SCR 426 : (2002) 7 SCC 691; State of Punjab Vs. Sucha
Singh & Ors. (2003) 3 SCC 153 - referred to.
Case Law Reference:
1977 (2) SCR 901 referred to Para 12
G
(2002) 4 sec 85 referred to Para 12
2003 (4) Suppl. SCR 2008 referred to Para 12
. 2002 (2) Suppl. SCR 426 referred to Para 15
H
• KUNWARPAL@ SURAJPAL v. STATE OF
UTTARAKHAND
(2003) 3 SCC 153 referred to
247
Para 15 A
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No. 820 of 2010.
From the Judgment & Order dated 18.08.2009 of the High
Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in Criminal Appeal No. 1418 B
of 2001.
K.T.S. Tulsi, Guru Krishna Kumar, Prafulla Kr. Behera,
Rakesh Kr. Tewari, Raj Kamal, S.S. Nehra for the Appellants.
J.C. Gupta, Jatinder Kumar Bhatia, Mukesh Verma, Sanjay
c
Kumar Dubey, Krishna Kant Dubey, Karn Pal Singh, Pramod
Kumar, Upendra Narain Mishra, Rajiv Ranjan Dwivedi for the
Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by D
C. NAGAPPAN, J. 1. This appeal is preferred against the
judgment dated 18.8.1991 passed by the High Court of
Uttarakhand at Nainital in Criminal Appeal No.1418 of 2001.
E
2. Appellants 1 to 4 stood charged for the offence under
Section 302/34 in Sessions Trial No.195 of 1991 on the file of '
Additional Sessions Judge Roorkee and the Trial Court
convicted all and sentenced them each to undergo life
imprisonment and to pay a fine ofRs.500 in default, to undergo F
rigorous imprisonment for one year each. Accused Nos. 1 to
4 preferred appeal in CriminalAppeal No.1418 of 2001 on the
file of High Court and the appeal came to be dismissed.
Challenging the conviction and sentence accused Nos. 1 to 4
preferred the present appeal. During the hearing the learned G
senior counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that
appellant No.4 Atara Singh died during pendency of the appeal
and it was endorsed by the learned counsel appearing for the
respondent-State. Hence the appeal stands abated insofar as
he is concerned.
H
A
248 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014) 11 S.C.R.
3. Shorn of unnecessary details the case of the prosecution
is as follows: PW1 Gajendra is the son of deceased Ranjit
•
Singh. Accused Nos. 1 to 3 are real brothers. Accused No.4
is their cousin. PW1 Gajendra owned plot No.180 in village
Mohammadpur Panda and the adjacent plot belonged to the
B accused persons and on account of the pending litigation
between them there was enmity.
4. On 14.4.1991 at about 11.00 a.m. PW2 Suggan and
Jai Ram were cutting wheat in the field of PW1 Gajendra and
C Ranjit Singh came to the field. Thereafter accused Nos.1 to 4
armed with /athies and tabbal came there and threatened
Ranjit Singh to withdraw the case against them and beat him
with /athles and tabbal . PW 2 Suggan, PW3 Atmaram and
PW4 Chaman Lal and others saw the occurrence. Ranjit Singh
D became unconscious. PW2 Suggan informed PW1 Gajendra
about the occurrence. PW1 Gajendra came and took his father
injured Ranjit Singh to JNSM Hospital Roorkee. Dr. Jugal
Kishore Mittal examined Ranjit Singh at 1.20 p.m. on 14.4.1991
in the said hospital and admitted him as in-patient. At about
E 5.30 p.m. on same day PW1 Gajendra lodged Ex.Ka-1 written
complaint in the Police Station, Bhagwanpur and a case under
· Sections 323, 324, 506 and 307 IPC was registered against
the accused persons. Exh. Ka-4 is the First Information Report,
Exh. Ka-70 is the G.D. Report. PW9 Sub-Inspector R.S. Tiwari
took up the investigation and examined PWs 2 to 4 and some
F other witnesses. On 15.4.1991 Ranjit Singh succumbed to his
injuries. The First Information Report was altered and the
investigation was taken up by SHO Ajay Kumar and he visited
the place of occurrence and prepared Exh.Ka-8 plan and
seized the blood stained clothes under Exh.Ka-9 Memo. He
G conducted inquest and prepared Exh.Ka-5 report. He gave
Exh.Ka-11 requisition for conducting post mortem.
5. PW 6 Dr. K.P. Sarabhai conducted post-mortem on the
body of Ranjit Singh at 4.30 p.m. on 15.4.1991 and found the
H following ante-mortem injuries:
• KUNWARPAL @ SURAJPAL v. STATE OF
UTIARAKHAND [C. NAGAPPAN, J.]
(i)
249
Stitched wound 4 cm x 4 stitches on beam of head, A
12 cm from left ear.
(ii) Traumatic swelling 1O cm x 7 cm on beam of right
upper arm.
(iii) Traumatic swelling 22 cm x 7 cm on beam of right B
forearm and hand and there-was fracture on both
bones of right forearm.
(iv) Stitched wound 2 cm x 2 stitches on beam of left
upper arm 4 cm above left elbow. c
(v) Abraded contusion with traumatic swelling 14 cm
x 8 cm on beam of left elbow on upper arm, and
fracture of shaft of humerus
(vi) Traumatic swelling 6 cm x 4 cm on beam of left wrist D
joint and fracture of ulna lower end.
(vii) Abraded contusion 4 cm x 3 cm on lateral part of
right side chest, 6 cm below right nipple.
E
(viii) Contusion 1O cm x 8 cm on left side of chest, 6 cm
below the nipple.
(ix) Contusion 20 cm x 10 cm on right thigh.
(x) Abrasion 2 cm x 1 cm on right side of right knee F
joint
(xi) Stitched wound 4 cm x 4 stitches on front side of
right leg.
(xii) Stitched wound 3 cm x 2 stitches on front part left G
leg.
(xiii) Abraded contusion 10 cm x 5 cm on lower part of
left leg
H
250 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 11 S.C.R. •
A (xiv) Abrasion 2 cm x 1 cm on left side of iliac crest.
(xv) Contusions of 28 cm x 18 cm on beam of left side
chest and abdomen.
On internal examination he found fracture of 4th to 7th ribs on
B right side and 3rd to 8th ribs on the left side. He expressed
opinion that the death has occurred on account of shock and
hemorrhage due to ante-mortem injuries.
6. During the trial prosecution examined PWs 1 to 9 and
c marked documents. The accused persons were examined
under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code and their answers
were recorded. No witness was examined on their side. The
Trial Court convicted all the accused and sentenced them as
stated above. The appeal preferred by the accused came to
o be dismissed and hence they have filed the present appeal.
7. Mr. K.T.S. Tulsi, senior counsel appearing for some of
the appellants, contended that the alleged eye witnesses to the
occurrence PW3 Atmaram and PW4 Chaman Lal are chance
E witnesses and there is significant absence of their names in
the Fl R and the occurrence took place in a different village and
even if they were present they could not have seen the
occurrence and PW3 Atmaram had animosity against accused
no.1 Kunwarpal @ Surajpal since marriage proposal of his
F sister's sister-in-law with A 1 failed and the prosecution has not
proved motive and it is unsafe to convict the appellants/accused
and the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside.
8. Mr. Gurukrishna Kumar, senior counsel appearing for
the other appellants, contended that PW3 Atmaram and PW4
G Chaman Lal were not aware of the name of the village where
the land they were harvesting is situated and they could not have
witnessed the occurrence from a distance of about 450Ft. and
the entire story is not narrated in the complaint and the said
factors if taken individually may not be significant but taken
H
• KUNWARPAL @ SURAJPAL v. STATE OF
UTTARAKHAND [C. NAGAPPAN, J.]
cumulatively, the presence of the said witnesses in the
occurrence place is doubtful and the conviction imposed on
251
A
them cannot be sustained.
9. Per contra, Mr. Jatinder Kumar Bhatia, counsel for the
first respondent-State and Mr. J.C. Gupta, senior counsel 8
appearing for the second respondent, contended that village
Mohammedpur Panda and Almaspur are adjacent villages and
the occurrence land lies in the border of both the villages and
the occurrence took place during harvest season and PW3
Atmaram and PW4 Chaman Lal were harvesting crops in the c
nearby land and on hearing the hue and cry of Ranjit Singh they
happened to see accused nos.1 to 4 attacking Ranjit Singh with
tabbal and lathis and there is no requirement of mentioning the
names of all the witnesses in the FIR and the statements of
witnesses were recorded by the Investigation Officer on the
0
occurrence night itself and relying on the testimonies of the eye
witnesses, the courts below have convicted the accused and it
is sustainable.
10. The occurrence had taken place at 11.00 a.m. on
14.4.1991 in the field of Ranjit Singh when PW2 Suggan and E
Jai Ram were harvesting the wheat crop in the said field. PW2
Suggan informed PW1 Gajendra Singh, son of Ranjit Singh,
about the occurrence, who rushed to the place of occurrence
and took severely injured Ranjit Singh to Roorkee hospital and
after admitting him there, lodged Exh.Ka-1 complaint at Police F
Station Bhagwanpur leading to registration of case against the
accused persons. On the death of Ranjit Singh on 15.4.1991
in the hospital the offence was altered to one of murder. Though
PW1 Gajendra Singh is the author of FIR, he has not witnessed
the occurrence and he has lodged the complaint on the basis G
of information furnished by PW2 Suggan, in which he has
mentioned about the attack with weapons made by all the four
accused on his father Ranjit Singh during the occurrence.
Though Suggan was examined as PW2, he did not support the
prosecution case and was declared hostile. H
252 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 11 S.C.R..
A 11. PW3 Atmaram and PW4 Chnman Lal were examined
by the prosecution as having witnessed the occurrence. The
agricultural land of PW3 Atmaram in village Almaspur lay near
the agricultural land of Ranjit Singh in village Mohammedpur
Panda. According to the PW3 Atmaram the boundary of land
B of both villages join at the place of occurrence. PW3 Atrnaram
and PW4 Chaman Lal have testified that they were harvesting
the crop of wheat in the agricultural land of PW3 Atmaram in
the morning on the occurrence day and at 11.00 a.m. they were
eating breads sitting on tube-well and on hearing shrieks of
C Ranjit Singh they stood Lip and saw accused no.1 Kunwarpal
with pointed tabbal and the other three accused with lathis
attacking Ranjit Singh with the said weapons and when they
went near, the accused fled away. They have further testified
that PW2 Suggan and Jai Ram were cutting wheat in the
o occurrence land and they also witnessed the occurrence.
12. It cannot be denied that the occurrence took place
during harvest season and PW3 Atmaram was harvesting the
crop of wheat in his land with the help of PW4 Chaman Lal.
E Their presence near the occurrence place is natural and they
cannot be termed as chance witnesses as contended by the
appellants. It is true that their names are not found mentioned
in the FIR. As already seen, the complaint was lodged by PW1
Gajendra Singh on the basis of information furnished by PW2
F Suggan about the occurrence. There is no requirement of law
for mentioning the names of all the witnesses in the FIR, the
object of which is only to set the criminal law in motion [Nirpal
Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana ( 1977) 2 SCC 131;
Bhagwan Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2002)
4 SCC 85; Raj Kishore Jha Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. (2003)
G 11 SCC 519]. In this context it is relevant to point out that the
statements of all witnesses were recorded by the Investigation
Officer in the night of the occurrence day itself. Non mention of
the names of PW3 Atmaram and PW4 Chaman Lal in the FIR
H
• KUNWARPAL @ SURAJPAL v. STATE OF
UTIARAKHAND [C. NAGAPPAN, J ]
does not affect the prosecution case as rightly held by the
253
A
courts below.
13. The other contention raised by the learned counsel of
the appellants is that PW3 Atmaram and PW4 Chaman Lal
being at a distance of 450 Ft. from the occurrence place could 8
not have seen the attack made on Ranjit Singh. The site plan
prepared by the Investigation Officer is exhibited in the case
and it shows the occurrence place as well as the land belonging
to PW3 Atmaram. Harvesting of the wheat crop in the land of
PW3 Atmaram commenced one day prior to the day of c
occurrence and got completed just before the occurrence. In
their testimonies PW3 Atmaram and PW4 Chaman Lal have
stated that they could view the occurrence from the place where
they were standing and when they rushed near all the accused
fled away. Evidence on record discloses that there was no D
standing crop in between the lands and the view was clear
enabling them to see the occurrence and there is no doubt in
it. It was argued on behalf of the appellants that PW3 Atmaram
had animosity against accused no 1 Kunwarpal since marriage
of hi~ sister's sister-in-law with A1 failed. PW3 Atmaram in his
E
cross-examination has admitted that there was marriage
proposal of accused no.1 Kunwarpal with his sister's sister-in-
law and that did not materialize and he was not the person who
mediated it and he has also specifically denied the suggestion
that he developed animosity against A 1 in this regard. Hence
F
this contention of the appellants is devoid of merit. As already
seen PW3 Atmaram and PW4 Chaman Lal are independent
witnesses and their testimonies corroborate each other and
there is no reason for them to falsely depose against the
accused persons and nothing is elicited in the cross- G
examination to discredit their testimonies and they are credible
and merit acceptance.
14. Ranjit Singh died of injuries sustained by him in the
occurrence is established by the oral testimony of PW6 Dr. K.P.
H
A
254 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2014) 11 S.C.R.
Sarabhai who conducted autopsy and the post-mortem report
•
issued by him.
15. According to the complainant there was litigation
between them and the accused persons leading to enmity.
8 PW3 Atmaram has also stated that there was litigation between
them and it culminated in the occurrence. Animosity is a double
edged sword. While it can be a basis for false implication, it
a
can also be basis for the crime [Rufi Ram & Anr. Vs. State
of Haryana (2002) 7 SCC 691; State of Punjab Vs. Sucha
c Singh & Ors. (2003) 3 SCC 153]. In the instant case there is
no foundation established for the 'plea of false implication
advanced by the accused and on the other hand evidence
shows that enmity has led to the occurrence. The conviction and
sentence imposed on the appellants is based on proper
0 appreciation of evidence en record and does not call for any
interference.
16. There are no merits in the appeal. The same is
dismissed.
E Nidhi Jain Appeal dismissed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "murder"Sign in to search