Supreme Court of India
SURENDRA PAL & ORS.versusSTATE OF U.P. & ANR.
- Citation
- 2010 INSC 622
- Decided
- 16 September 2010
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- B SUDERSHAN REDDY
Holding
The Supreme Court upheld the convictions and reduced the death sentence to life imprisonment, finding no error in the evidence or procedure.
Summary
The appellants, who had earlier demanded a compromise in a kidnapping case, allegedly opened fire with country‑made pistols and a rifle, killing three members of the victim's family and injuring three others. The first informant, PW‑1, lodged an FIR within five hours of the incident and identified the accused in both moonlight and electric light; the injured witnesses PW‑2 to PW‑4 corroborated his account. The defence argued that the FIR was delayed, that the inquest report omitted the names of the accused and weapons, and that the witnesses were interested relatives, rendering their testimony unreliable. The Supreme Court held that the FIR was timely, the omission in the inquest report was not fatal, and the witnesses were natural and reliable despite their relationship to the victims. Consequently, the Court affirmed the Sessions Court and High Court findings of guilt under IPC sections 302, 147, 148, 307 r/w 149 and upheld the substitution of the death sentence with life imprisonment, dismissing the appeal.
Issues considered
- Whether the FIR was lodged with an inordinate delay and after deliberations, affecting the prosecution case.
- Whether the omission of the accused's names and weapon details in the inquest report under Section 174 CrPC vitiates the prosecution's case.
- Whether testimony of relatives of the deceased, being interested witnesses, can be relied upon for conviction.
- Whether identification of the accused in moonlight and electric light is reliable.
- Whether the convictions under IPC sections 302, 147, 148, 307 r/w 149 are legally sustainable.
- Whether the death sentence should be upheld or reduced to life imprisonment.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 174
- Constitution of Indias. 136
- Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 147, s. 148, s. 149, s. 302, s. 307
Subjects
murderculpable homicideFIR delayinquest reporteyewitness testimonyidentification in low lightinterested witnessesdeath penaltylife imprisonmentIPC sections 302 147 148 307 149
Judgment
[2010] 11 S.C.R. 968
A SURENDRA PAL & ORS.
v.
STATE OF U.P. & ANR.
(Criminal Appeal No. 662 of 2006)
SEPTEMBER 16, 2010.
B
[B. SUDERSHAN REDDY AND SURINDER SINGH
NIJJAR, JJ.)
Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 302, 147, 148, 307 rlw 149 -
C Conviction under - Indiscriminate firing by accused armed
with deadly weapons resulting in death of three family
members and injuries to three eye-witnesses - Conviction u/
ss. 302, 147, 148, 307 rlw 149 by trial court - Upheld by High
Cowt - However, death sentence reduced to imprisonment
o for life - On appeal held: There was no inordinate delay in
lodging FIR nor FIR came into existence after consultation
and deliberations - Omission of names of accused and
minute details of assault in the inquest report not fatal to
prosecution case - PW 1 was first informant and eye-witness
E to the incident anp injuries sustained by PW 2 to 4 in the
incident established their presence at the scene of offence -
PW 1 to 4 were natural witnesses to the occurrence - Their
evidence cannot be disbelieved on the ground that they are
inter-related to each other and also the deceased -
F Consistent evidence of eye-witnesses that accused were
identified in the moonlight as well as electric bulb - High
Court on re-appreciation of evidence concurred with the
findings recorded by trial court which does not call for
interference - Evidence - Re-appreciation of - Witnesses -
Natural witness - Delayllaches - FIR - Identification -
G Sentence/Sentencing - Constitution of India 1950 - Article
136 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 174.
'AS' filed a case of abduction of his daughter against
'R' and 'V'. The appellants insisted 'AS' to withdraw the
H 968
SURENDRA PAL & ORS. v. STATE OF U.P. & ANR. 969
case and enter into a compromise. On refusal by 'AS', the A
appellants along with the other accused and two
· unknown persons armed with deadly weapons killed
three persons in the family - 'AS', 'HS' and 'G' and injured
PW 2 to 4-eye witnesses to the incident. PW 1 lodged the
FIR. The investigation was carried out. Eleven accused B
were tried. Accused 'R' was absconding. The Court of
Session acquitted five accused and convicted the others
u/ss. 302, 147, 148, 307 read with s.149 IPC and imposed
sentence of death. The High Court upheld the order of
conviction but reduced the sentence of death to c
imprisonment for life. Therefore, the appellants filed the
instant appeal.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The High Court on re-appreciation of the D
evidence concurred with the finding recorded by the
Sessions Judge. The concurrent finding of facts arrived
at by the courts below is not interfered with. [Para 14]
[985-C-D]
E
2.1 The first information report was lodged within 5
to 5% hours immediately after the incident which could
not be characterized as the delayed one. Not only three
persons died on the spot but PWs 2, 3 and 4 were also
seriously injured. In the circumstances, it cannot be said
F
that there was unexplained delay in lodging the first
information report. The first information report was not
signed by PW 1. It was scribed by one 'R' on his dictation.
The report was received by the Station House Officer and
the FIR was issued immediately thereafter. It is of no
consequence whether the first information report G
contained his signature or not. There is no material
available on record to arrive at any conclusion that the
first information report lodged by PW 1 itself was after
some deliberations and consultations in the police
H
970 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 11 S.C.R.
A station. There is no such case made out by the
appellants. [Para 11] (980-981-E-H]
2.2 The evidence of PW 1 was clear and categorical
which depicted the sequence of events. The courts below
rightly placed reliance upon his evidence. An attempt was
8
made to point out certain minor discrepancies in his
evidence to impeach the testimony but the minor
inconsistencies, if any, were not such by which his
evidence could be disbelieved. The whole narration of the
incident is natural. The deceased 'AS' was none other
C than the nephew of PW 1, living adjacent to his house
whose presence at the relevant time was also natural and
there is nothing to disbelieve that he knew all the
appellants who participated in the attack in which three
persons died on the spot and PWs 2, 3 and 4 received
D serious injuries. [Para 11] (981-B-D]
3. The names of the accused and details of weapons
possessed by each one of the accused who participated
in the assault were not mentioned in the inquest report.
E The panchayatnamas dated 25th May, 1999 were
prepared in between 6.30 a.m. to 9.30 a.m. over the dead
bodies of the three deceased individuals. The inquest
reports were dispatched along with the copy of the first
information report. PW 1 who is the first informant and
F eye-witness to the incident was one of the witnesses to
the inquest reports. The first information report was
available with the investigating officer at the time of
preparation of the inquest reports. The mere fact that PW
1 did not repeat the names of all the accused so as to be
incorporated in the inquest reports, is of no
G consequence. The purpose of preparation of inquest
report is to ascertain whether a person died in some
suspicious circumstances· or an unnatural death and as
to the apparent cause of death. The inquest report need
not contain the details as to how the deceased were
H assaulted or who assaulted them. Section 174 of the
SURENDRA PAL & ORS. v. STATE OF U.P. & ANR. 971
Code of Criminal Procedure does not mandate the A
investigating officer to mention the names of the
assailants in the inquest report. There is no other
provision in law or practice requiring the purpose to
mention the names of the assailants and weapons
possessed by them in the inquest report. The omission B
of names of the accused and the minute details of assault
in the inquest report itself is not enough to disbelieve the
prosecution case. Such omissions are not fatal to the
prosecution case. Merely because the witnesses to the
inquest report who were also eye-witnesses did not give C
out the names of the accused persons while describing
the cause of death in the inquest report did not render
the presence of the eye-witnesses on the spot doubtful.
In the circumstances, it cannot be said that PW 1 was not
an eye-witness to the incident. [Para 12) [981-E-F]
D
Suresh Rai Vs. State of Bihar (2000) 4 SCC 84; Eqba/
Baig Vs. State of A.P. (1986) 2 sec 476 - relied on.
4. PW 1 and PWs 2 to 4 and as well as the deceased
were closely inter-related. There cannot be any iota of ·E
doubt that PWs 1, 2, 3 and 4 are natural witnesses to the
occurrence. The mere fact that they are related to each
other itself is no ground to discard their evidence unless
something critical is brought to notice that all of them
being interested witnesses were speaking falsely to
F
implicate the appellants. None would have been present
at the scene of occurrence except PWs 1 to 4. There was
nothing unnatural in the evidence of PWs 1 to 4 to
disbelieve their evidence. It is true that the evidence of
relatives of the deceased is to be carefully scrutinized
and appreciated before resting the conclusions to G
convict the accused in a given case. The Court of
Session properly appreciated the evidence and
meticulously analyzed the same and the High Court upon
re-appreciation of evidence concurred with the view
H
972 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 11 S.C.R.
A taken by the Court of Session. The very fact that PWs 2
to 4 were injured in the incident established their
presence at the scene of offence. There is no reason to
disbelieve their evidence only on the ground that they are
inter-related to each other and also to the deceased. [Para
8 13]
5. PW 1 stated in the first information report itself that
he had seen and identified the accused persons in the
moonlight and "in the light of electricity". There is no
dispute whatsoever that the appellants and other
C accused barring two were all previously known to PWs
1 to 4. The occurrence did not take place all of a sudden.
The accused after reaching the spot insisted for a
compromise of a previous case, obviously some
exchange of words took place between the deceased and
D the accused and the parties must have come close to
each other. The appellants were not strangers to any of
the witnesses. The evidence of PWs 1 to 4 is consistent
with what was stated by PW 1 in the very first information
report that the accused were identified in the moonlight
E and electric light. In the site plan also, the existence of
electric bulb at place '8' was shown. That apart, there
was no suggestion by the defence that there was no
moon light whatsoever on that fateful night. [Para 14]
[984-985-D-C]
F
Case law Reference:
(2000) 4 sec 84 Relied on. Para 12
(1986) 2 sec 476 Relied on. Para 12
G CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No. 662 of 2006.
From the Judgment and order dated 02.12.2005 of the
High Court at Judicature at Allahabad in CRLA No. 4703 of
H 2004. .
SURENDRA PAL & ORS. v. STATE OF U.P. & ANR. 973
Dinesh Dwivedi, Abhishek Chaudhary, Garvesh Kabra and A
Adarsh Upadhyay for the Appellants.
Ratnakar Dash, Rajeev K. Dubey and Kamlendra Mishra
for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by B
B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, J. 1. This appeal by special
leave is directed against the final judgment and order dated
2nd December, 2005 passed by the High Court of Judicature
at Allahabad in Criminal Appeal No. 4703 of 2004 whereby C
the Hon'ble High Court dismissed the appeal preferred by the
appellants and thereby maintaining the conviction of the
appellants under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for
short 'IPC') with modification of sentence of death by
substituting it to imprisonment for life. The conviction and D
sentences awarded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Fast Track Court No. 4, Meerut against the appellants for the
offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 307 read with
149, IPC have been confirmed. Hence this appeal.
2. The main question that arises for our consideration in E
the instant appeal is whether the courts below committed any
serious error in convicting the appellants for the offence
punishable under Section 302? Whether the courts below
committed any error in convicting the appellants for the offences
punishable under Sections 147, 148, 307 read with Section F
149? Whether the findings concurrently recorded by the courts
below to convict the appellants under the said provisions are
so perverse and ex-facie unacceptable and therefore require
our interference in this appeal preferred with leave granted
under Article 136 of the Constitution of India? G
3. It is fairly well settled and needs no restatement that
this Court should not embark upon a reappreciation of the
evidence, when both the Sessions Court and the High Court
have agreed in their appreciation of the evidence and arrived
H
974 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010) 11 S.C.R.
A at concurrent findings of fact. This Court time and again held
that it is always necessary to bear in mind the limited scope
of the proceedings under Article 136 of the Constitution of
India which cannot be converted into a third appeal on facts.
Mere errors in appreciation of the evidence are not enough to
B attract this Court's 'invigilatory jurisdiction'. It is settled law that
this Court may interfere in rare and exceptional cases where
there is some manifest illegality or grave and serious
miscarriage of justice.
4. We shall bear this settled legal position in mind and
C proceed to consider whether the findings of fact reached by
the courts below concurrently on appreciation of evidence suffer
from any error of law or have resulted in miscarriage of justice
requiring our interference in this appeal. Whether the view
taken by the High Court on reappreciation of the evidence to
D agree with the appreciation of evidence by the Sessions Court
is so perverse resulting in miscarriage of justice.?
5. In all there were 11 accused sent up for trial before the
learned Sessions Judge, the Sessions Court, however,
E acquitted five accused and found them not guilty of charges
framed against them. Accused Rajneesh is absconding.
Accused Aman Singh did not file any appeal. Hence, in this
appeal, we are concerned with conviction and sentence of
only the present appellants i.e. accused nos. 1 to 4.
F BACKGROUND FACTS
6. The prosecution case in short is that an incident
occurred on the intervening night of 24/25th May, 1999 at about
12 O'clock in Lalpur village, Police Station Bhawanpur, District
G Meerut. It is the case of the prosecution that on that intervening
night the appellants along with other accused and two unknown
persons armed with country made pistols and rifle came to the
village demanding Ajab Singh (one of the deceased) to enter
into a compromise with regard to a case lodged by Ajab Singh
H complaining about his daughter's abduction on 5.11.1997 by
SURENDRA PAL & ORS. v. STATE OF U.P. & ANR. 975
[B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, J.]
Rajneesh and Vikram. The said case was pending in a court. A
Apart from that case, some other cases were also pending
between the parties. Ajab Singh did not agree for the proposal
and enraged by adamant attitude of Ajab Singh, the accused
all of a sudden started indiscriminate firing from their weapons
resulting in death of Ajab Singh, Hari Singh @ Hariya and B
Geeta. Raj Pal (PW-3), Veer Singh (PW-2) and Bala (PW-4)
received injuries. The accused threatened Kripal (PW-1) to kill
him but he saved himself by hiding in a room of his house.
Aman Singh (A-5) threatened that nobody should go to the
police station and lodge any complaint and if any one dares c
to do so would also be killed. Kripal Singh (PW-1) lodged the
report in the early morning at about 5.00 A.M in the Police
Station which is at a distance of about 4 kms. from the scene
of occurrence. After the registration of the first information
report, Hukum Singh, SHO, recorded the statement of the D
informant at the police station and thereafter reached the place
of occurrence. On his instructions Sub-Inspector - Sripal Singh
(PW-13) prepared the inquest memos. Recovery memos of
blood stained and plain earth, empty cartridges and bullets
were also prepared. Site plan is exhibited as Ka-17. The
statements of inquest witnesses were recorded. The statements E
of injured PWs -2, 3 and 4 were recorded at Lokpriya Hospital.
Thereafter the investigation was taken up by Jai Dev Arya
(PW-11) and upon completion of the investigation a charge
sheet was filed against the appellants.
F
7. The post mortem on the dead bodies of Ajab Singh,
Smt. Geeta and Hari Singh was conducted by Dr. K.N. Tiwari
(PW-8). He found the following ante-mortem injuries on the
person of the deceased Ajab Singh:
G
1. Gun shot wound of entry 2 cm x 1 cm on the back of
chest Rt. side 7 cm below angle of scapula and 3 cm Rt.
to midline, margins inverted an area of blackening &
tattooing 15 cm x 11 cm around wound present, direction
of wound is towards Lt. Bullet recovered from Lt. Side neck.
H
976 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 11 S.C.R.
A 2. Gun shot would of entry Rt. side chest interiorly 1 cm.
medial to Rt. nipple 1 cm x 1 cm margins inverted, an area
of blackening & tattooing of 8 cm x 7 cm. present around
wound. Direction of wound is towards chest cavity. Bullet
recovered from post chest wall.
B
3. Gun shot wound of entry 1.5 cm x 1.5 cm on Rt. side
neck 1 cm below Rt. ear lobule at 6 O'clock position.
Margins inverted an area of blackening & tattooing 5 cm
x 4 cm around wound is present. Bullet recovered from
substance of liver.
c
He also conducted post-mortem examination on the body of
Geeta and noted the following ante-mortem injuries:
1. Gun shot wound of entry 1 cm x 1 cm on outer aspect
D of ~t. upper arm 3 cm below top of shoulder, margins
inverted, an area of blackening and tattooing 4 cm x 3 cm
seen around wound. Wound is directed medially and
continuous with inj. No. 2.
2. Gun shot wound of exit 1.5 cm x 1 cm-on medial aspect
E of Lt. shoulder 2 cm below top of shoulder, margins
inverted. Wound is continuous with inj. No. 1. One bullet
recovered from post abd. wall in relation with inj. No. 4.
3. Gun shot wound of entry 4 cm x 4 cm Lt. side head over
F upper half of Lt. ear. An area of blackening tattooing 6 cm
x 6 cm around wound is present hair singing seen. Wound
is cranial cavity deep. One bullet recovered from cranial
cavity.
4. Gun shot wound of entry on ant. Abd. wall 1 cm x 1 cm,
G ·below phistemum and 1 cm Lt. to mid line an area of blackening
& tattooing 4 cm x 3 cm around wound present. Wound is
abd. cavity deep.
He also found the following injuries on the body of Hari
H Singh:
SURENDRA PAL & ORS. v. STATE OF U.P. & ANR. 977
[B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, J.]
1. Gun shot wound of entry on back of abdomen 2 cm x 1 A
cm 27 cm below C 7 just Lt. to midline, abraded, cavity
deep, margins inverted, tattooing in an area of 8 cm x 6
cm present around wound. One bullet recovered from ant.
abraded wall.
B
2. Gun shot wound of entry 1.5 cm x 1.5 cm on Lt. side
forehead 3 cm above & lateral to outer border of Lt.
eyebrow, margins inverted an area 4 cm x 4 cm of
blackening and tattooing seen around wound. Wound is
crania cavity deep. One bullet recovered from cranial cavity. C
In the opinion of the Doctor the cause of death of each of the
deceased was due to haemorrhage and shock as a result of
injuries sustained by them.
Dr. Vinod Kumar (PW-6) had medically examined Smt. o
Bala on 25.9.1999 and noted the following injuries on her
person:
1. A lacerated wound of size 3 cm x 1 cm just above
the Public symphysis fresh bleeding present.
E
2. A lacerated wound of size 2 cm x 1 cm over at the
outer aspect of the (r) Arm fresh bleeding present
margins inverted. This is 12 cm above the elbow
joint.
3. A lacerated wound of size 2.5 cm x 1 cm over F
medial aspect of (r) arm 10 cm above the elbow
joint.
He also examined Veer Singh (PW-2) and noted the
following injuries on his person: G
1. Pt. G/C V. Poor Pt. In Hypovolumic shock, pains
present all over the abdomen.
2. A fire arm wound of size 4 cm x 2.5 cm present over
H
978 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 11 S.C.R.
A (1) back of abdomen with Irregular inverted margins,
bleeding from the wound present. Blackening and
Tattooing present around the wound.
The following injury on Raj Pal (PW-3) were noted by him:
B 1 An abrasion of size 4 cm x 1 cm present over the
(r) lower chest just above the (r) lowest costal
margin.
8. The prosecution in order to establish its case had
c altogether examined 13 witnesses amongst whom Kripal Singh
(PW-1 ), Veer Singh (PW-2), Raj Pal (PW-3) and Smt. Bala
(PW-4) are the eye witnesses to the occurrence. PW-1 is the
first informant and rest of them are injured persons. The whole
prosecution case turns upon the evidence of PWs-1 to 4. The
courts below did not find any reason whatsoever to disbelieve
0
their evidence. The courts found that there is nothing on record
to disbelieve their presence at the scene of offence. The courts
have meticulously examined and assessed their evidence and
found the same to be acceptable. On a careful consideration
of the impugned judgment of the High Court we have found
E that the conclusion to which the High Court reached at against
the appellants is well sustained on the evidence on record
which requires no interference.
9. However, it will be appropriate for us to consider the
F main submissions canvassed by Shri Dinesh Dwivedi, learned
senior counsel for the appellants. He submitted the following
points for our consideration:
I. There was inordinate delay in lodging the report
and the FIR itself came into existence after
G
consultations and deliberations. It was prepared in
the police station itself. This itself makes the whole
prosecution case suspicious and therefore it cannot
be said that the prosecution has proved the case
beyond reasonable doubt.
H
SURENDRA PAL & ORS. v. STATE OF U.P. & ANR. 979
[B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, J.]
II. The police did not record the names of the accused A
in the inquest report that was prepared at the
earliest point of time. There is no explanation as to
why PW 1, Kirpal Singh, did not disclose the names
of all the accused at the time of preparation of
inquest. B
Ill. That all the eyewitnesses are close relatives to the
deceased and therefore, they are interested
witnesses, whose testimony cannot be relied on and
made the sole basis to hold the petitioners guilty C
of the charged offences.
IV. The source of light mentioned in the FIR is moonlight
and as well as electric bulb. The Investigating Officer
had mentione,d the electric bulb at place 'B' in the
site plan. But there was no electricity connection to D
the deceased Ajab Singh's house. The witnesses
could not have identified the appellants in the dead
of the night.
10. The learned counsel for the State supported the
E
judgment and submitted that the concurrent findings of facts
arrived at by the Courts below are based on appreciation and
reappreciation of evidence which cannot normally be interfered
with by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article
136 of the Constitution. There are no exceptional and
extraordinary circumstances requiring any such interference in F
the present case.
11. Point I : The incident had taken place in the midnight
at about 12 0 Clock. The report was lodged by Kirpal Singh
(PW 1) in the early morning at about 5.30 a.m. in the police G
station which is at a distance of about 4 or 5 kilometers from
the place of occurrence. Be it noted, three persons in the
family were killed by a group of persons armed with deadly
weapons. The entire village was terror stricken. One does not
expect that under those circumstances someone to rush to the H
980 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 11 S.C.R.
A police station and lodge the first information report. PW1 (Kirpal
Singh) in his evidence in clear and categorical terms stated
that at the relevant time, he was present in his house situated
in Lalpur, the deceased Ajab Singh was none other than his
nephew, his house is adjacent one to that of deceased Ajab
B Singh's. He clearly identified the appellants who were armed
with deadly weapons and seen them committing the murderous
attack on the deceased. He was also threatened by the
appellants and he saved himself by hiding in a room in his
house. In the first information report itself it is stated that Ajab
c Singh's daughter, Kumari Manju was abducted by Rajneesh
(absconding) with the help of his uncle Vikram; the abducted
girl was recovered by the police and handed over to deceased
Ajab Singh. She was brought to Meerut for her medical
examination where she had committed suicide. The origin that
led the present incident is traceable to abduction of deceased
0
Ajab Singh's daughter. The appellants came to insist that Ajab
Singh should withdraw the said case and enter into a
compromise to which he refused.
Be it noted, the first information report was lodged within
E 5 to 5% hours immediately after the incident which by no stretch
of imagination could be characterized as the delayed one. Not
only three persons died on the spot but PWs 2, 3 and 4 were
also seriously injured. In the circumstances, we are not inclined
to agree with the submissions made by the learned senior
F counsel that there was unexplained delay in lodging the first
information report. Yet another aspect of the matter: The first
information report was not signed by PW 1 (Kirpal Singh). It
was scribed by oneHamveer on his dictation. The fact remains
that the report was received by the Station House Officer and
G the FIR was issued immediately thereafter. It is of no
consequence whether the first information report contained
his signature or not. There is no material available on record
to arrive at any conclusion that the first information report
lodged by PW 1 itself was after some deliberations and
H consultations in the police station. There is no such case made
SURENDRA PAL & ORS. v. STATE OF U.P. & ANR. 981
[B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, J.]
out by the appellants. In the circumstances, it is not possible A
to agree with the submissions made by the learned senior
counsel that FIR was lodged after consultations and
deliberations.
The evidence of PW 1 is clear and categorical which 8
depicts the sequence of events. The Courts below rightly placed
reliance upon his evidence. An attempt was made before us
to point out certain minor discrepancies in his evidence to
impeach the testimony but in our opinion, the minor
inconsistencies, if any, are not of that nature which makes us
to disbelieve his evidence. The whole narration of the incident C
is natural, the deceased Ajab Singh was none other than the
nephew of PW 1, living adjacent to his house, his presence at
the relevant time is also natural and there is nothing to
disbelieve that he knew all the appellants herein who
participated in the attack in which three persons died on the D
spot and PWs 2, 3 and 4 had received serious injuries.
12. Point II : It appears from the record that the names of
the a-:;cused and details of weapons possessed by each one
of the accused who participated in the assault are not E
mentioned in the inquest report. The panchayatnamas (Ext. K
25 to K 27) dated 25th May, 1999 were prepared in between
6.30 a.m. to 9.30 a.m. over the dead bodies of the three
deceased individuals. The inquest reports were dispatched
along with the copy of the first information report. PW 1 (Kirpal F
Singh) who is the first informant and eyewitness to the incident
is also one of the witnesses to the inquest repo1ts. The first
information report was available with the investigating officer
at the time of preparation of the inquest reports. The mere fact
that PW 1 did not repeat the names of all the accused so as G
to be incorporated in the inquest reports, in our considered
opinion, is of no consequence. The purpose of preparation of
inquest report is to ascertain whether a person has died in
some suspicious circumstances or an unnatural death and as
to the apparent cause of death. The inquest report need not
H
982 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 11 S.C.R.
A contain the details as to how the deceased were assaulted or
who assaulted them. The omission of names of the accused
and the minute details of assault in the inquest report itself is
not enough to di~f)elieve the prosecution case. It is fairly well
settled and needs no restatement at our hands that the purpose
B of holding an inquest is very limited, viz; to ascertain as to
whether a person has committed suicide or has been killed by
any other or by an accident or has died under circumstances
raising a reasonable suspicion that some other person has
committed an offence. Section 174 of the Code of Criminal
c Procedure does not mandate the investigating officer to
mention the names of the assailants in the inquest report.
There is no other provision in law or practice requiring the
purpose to mention the names of the assailants and weapons
possessed by them in the inquest report. The omission thereof
does not lead to any inference to doubt the prosecution case.
0
Such omissions are not fatal to the prosecution case. It is
settled principle that merely because the witnesses on the
inquest report who are also eyewitnesses did not give out the
name of the accused persons while describing the cause of
E death in the inquest report does not render the presence of
the eyewitnesses on the spot doubtful [see Suresh Rai Vs.
State of Bihar, (2000) 4 SCC 84; Eqbal Baig Vs. State of
A.P. (1986) 2 sec 476]. It is unnecessary to further dilate on
this particular aspect of the matter. In the circumstances, we
are not inclined to agree with the submission that PW 1 was
F not an eyewitness to the incident.
13. Point Ill: It is true, PW 1 and PWs 2 to 4 and as well
'
as the deceased are closely inter related. PW 2 is Veer Singh
who stated in his evidence that deceased Ajab Singh was his
G maternal uncle. It is in his evidence that he was on the fateful
night sleeping under the neem tree and nearby the deceased
Ajab Singh and his wife Bala, grandfather Hari Singh and
Rajpal were also sleeping. The appellants and other accused
along with two unknown persons reached there and all of them
H were armed with country made pistols and one of the unknown
SURENDRA PAL & ORS. v. STATE OF U.P. & ANR. 983
[B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, J.]
persons was armed with a rifle. It is in his evidence that he A
could recognize each one of the appellants and other accused
in the moonlight and electric light. His version is more or less
same as that of PW 1 who also speaks about the appellants
insisting the deceased Ajab Singh to compromise the
abduction case, deceased Ajab Singh told them that they could B
talk about it in the morning but Aman Singh (A 5, who did not
prefer any appeal against his conviction) insisted for a
compromise then and there. Enraged by the same, the
appellants started indiscriminate firing resulting in the death of
Hari Singh, Ajab Singh and Geetha on the spot. He himself c
was injured along with PWs 3 and 4.
PW 3 is one Rajpal who is also an eyewitness to the
occurrence. Ajab Singh was his nephew, he also speaks about
origin of the case that ultimately led to the attack on the
deceased and corroborates the version given by PWs 1 and D
2 in all its respects.
PW 4 is Smt. Bala who is none other than the wife of
deceased Ajab Singh. She 'was sleeping on the Chabutra on
that fateful night along with her daughter Geetha and husband E
Ajab Singh. She speaks about the appellants' presence at the
scene of offence and their insisting for a compromise in the
abduction case. She specifically speaks about the appellants'
participation in the crime and indiscriminate firing by the
appellants resulting in death of her husband Ajab Singh, F
daughter Geetha and father-in-law Hari Singh. It is in her
evidence that PW 2 Veer Singh, PW 3 Rajpal also received
injures along with her at the hands of the accused.
There cannot be any iota of doubt that PWs f, 2, 3 & 4
are natural witnesses to the occurrence. The mere fact that G
they are related to each other itself is no ground to discard
their evidence unless something critical is brought to our notice
that all of them being interested witnesses were speaking falsely
to implicate the appellants. Who else would have been present
H
984 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2010] 11 S.C.R.
A at the scene of occurrence except PWs 1 to 4? What is
unnatural in the evidence of PWs 1 to 4 to disbelieve their
evidence? None. It is true that the evidence of relatives of the
deceased is to be carefully scrutinized and appreciated before
resting the conclusions to convict the accused in a given case.
B In the present case, the Sessions Court properly appreciated
the evidence and meticulously analyzed the same and the High
Court upon reappreciation of evidence concurred with the view
taken by the Sessions Court. Moreover, the very fact that PWs
2 to 4 were injured in the incident establishes their presence
c at the scene of offence. We do not find any reason to disbelieve
their evidence only on the ground that they are interrelated to
each other and also to the deceased.
14. Point IV : This aspect of the matter has been dealt
with elaborately by the Courts below. PW 1 stated in the first
D information report itself that he had seen and identified the
accused persons in the moonlight and "in the light of electricity".
There is 'no dispute whatsoever that the appellants and other
accused barring two were all previously known to PWs 1 to 4.
The occurrence did not take place all of a sudden. The accused
E after reaching the spot insisted for a compromise of a previous
case, obviously some exchange of words took place between
the deceased and the accused and the parties must have
come close to each other. The appellants were not strangers
to any of the witnesses. The evidence of PWs 1 to 4 is
F consistent with what has been stated by PW 1 in the very first
information report that the accused were identified in the
moonlight and electric light. In the site plan also, the existence
of electric bulb at place 'B' is shown. In this regard the trial
Court dealt with the matter very elaborately and observed:
G
" ... And at place 'B' the bulb is stated and this house is of
PW-1 Kirpal Singh and where the position of the bulb is
shown the Chabutara of the occurrence is situated just in
front of in after the way (rad) towards north side. Therefore,
to identify, in one light of this bulb is quite natural and there
H
SURENDRA PAL & ORS. v. STATE OF U.P. & ANR. 985
[B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, J.]
js no contradiction in the staten:ient of any of the witnesses A
;on this point. All the witnesses have stated to have
identified the accused in the electric light and moon light.
Also otherwise, the houses of accused persons are
situated beside the house of victim party, after the raasta
and are of the same village. Therefore, under such B
circumstances, even in less and dim light to identify the
accused persons is quite natural".
That apart it is not even suggested by the defence that there
was no moon light whatsoever on that Jateful night. For the C
aforesaid reasons, we find no merit in the contention urged by
I the learned senior counsel for the appellants. The High Court
has bn reappreciation of the evidence concurred with that
' recorded by the learned Sessions Judge. We are not
finding
inclined to interfere with the concurrent finding of fact arrived
at by the Courts below. D
1.5. No other point is urged.
1"6":-For all the aforesaid reasons, we find no merit in this
appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. E
N.J. 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