DILBAGH SINGH Vs STATE OF UTTARANCHAL(NOW STATE OF UT)
Bench: SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA,KURIAN JOSEPH
Case number: Crl.A. No.-000156-000156 / 2014
Diary number: 25826 / 2013
Advocates: ASHOK MATHUR Vs
Page 1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 156 OF 2014 [Arising out of S.L.P. (Criminal) No. 7833 of 2013]
Dilbagh Singh … Appellant (s)
Versus
State of Uttaranchal … Respondent (s) (Now State of Uttarakhand)
J U D G M E N T
KURIAN, J.:
Leave granted.
2. The appellant was convicted under Section 307 read with
Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to
as ‘IPC’) and sentenced to three years and six months
rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.500/- and, in default of
fine, for rigorous imprisonment for another one month by the
Fast Track Court, Haldwani, Uttarakhand as per Judgment
and Order dated 29.09.2001. The appeal therefrom at the
instance of the appellant herein was dismissed as per the
Judgment dated 06.04.2013 of the High Court of Uttarakhand
at Nainital and, hence, the appeal.
1
NON-REPORTABLE
Page 2
3. The incident relates back to 04.11.1993. While the informant
Trilok Singh along with his sister were doing work in their
agriculture field in their village Rampura Kazi under Police
Station Bazpur, the appellant armed with country-made pistol
along with his brother Makkhan Singh who carried a country-
made gun opened fire at them. The informant Trilok Singh
suffered bullet injuries on the hand, shoulder and stomach,
the sister suffered only minor abrasions which were later
certified by the Doctor to have been caused not by gun shot.
During the course of the trial under Section 307 read with
Section 34 IPC, appellant’s brother and the main accused
Makkhan Singh died. On the basis of evidence tendered by
the injured witnesses as PWs 1 and 2, and PW3 - another eye-
witness who came to the scene for rescue, the appellant was
convicted under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC and
sentenced as stated above. The appellant was not successful
before the High Court.
4. This Court on 06.09.2013, issued notice limited to the
quantum of sentence.
5. Having special regard to the fact that the bullet injuries
suffered by PW1 are not from the pistol of the appellant,
having regard to the fact that PW2 has not suffered any 2
Page 3
bullet injury and that she suffered only minor abrasions
caused on account of fall while running, having regard to the
fact that the incident is of the year 1993, having regard to
the fact that the evidence tendered before the Trial Court
was after eight years, and, thus, having regard to the weak
evidence on the latter part of Section 34 IPC on the
participation in commission of the offence, we are of the view
that the proper sentence on the appellant would be two
years of rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/- and the
default sentence of additional one month as the same would
meet the ends of justice. Ordered accordingly.
6. Appeal is allowed as above.
……………………………….….. …………J.
(SUDHANSU JYOTI
MUKHOPADHAYA)
……….………...…….. ……………………J.
(KURIAN JOSEPH)
New Delhi; January 17, 2014.
3