Page 1

1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.820 OF 2010

Kunwarpal @ Surajpal & Ors. .. Appellants  

versus

State of Uttarakhand And Anr.  ..  Respondents

J U D G M E N T

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.

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  of  Rs.500  in  default,  to  

undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each.  Accused

Page 2

2

Nos. 1 to 4 preferred appeal in  Criminal Appeal 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  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.

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  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  

Ranjit Singh came to the field. Thereafter accused Nos.1 to 4  

armed with  lathies and  tabbal   came there and threatened  

Ranjit Singh to withdraw the case against them and beat him

Page 3

3

with  lathies and  tabbal .  PW 2 Suggan, PW3 Atmaram and  

PW4  Chaman  Lal  and  others  saw  the  occurrence.   Ranjit  

Singh  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  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  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  

conducted  inquest  and prepared Exh.Ka-5 report.  He gave  

Exh.Ka-11 requisition for conducting post mortem.

Page 4

4

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  

following ante-mortem injuries:

i) Stitched wound 4 cm x 4 stitches  on beam of head, 12  

cm from left ear.

ii) Traumatic  swelling  10  cm x  7  cm on  beam of  right  

upper arm.

iii) Traumatic swelling 22 cm x 7 cm  on beam of right  

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.

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  

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.

viii) Contusion 10 cm x 8 cm on left side of chest,  6 cm  

below the nipple.

ix) Contusion 20 cm x 10 cm on right thigh.

Page 5

5

x) Abrasion 2 cm x 1 cm on right side of right knee 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 leg.

xiii) Abraded contusion 10 cm x 5 cm on lower part of left  

leg

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  

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  

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 be dismissed and hence they have filed the present  

appeal.

Page 6

6

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  

witnesses and there is significant absence of their names in  

the FIR 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  

sister’s sister-in-law with A1 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  

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 cumulatively, the presence of the said  

witnesses  in  the  occurrence  place  is  doubtful  and  the  

conviction imposed on them cannot be sustained.

Page 7

7

9. Per contra, Mr. Jatinder Kumar Bhatia,  counsel for the  

first  respondent-State  and  Mr.  J.C.  Gupta,  senior  counsel  

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  

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  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  

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

Page 8

8

hospital  and  after  admitting  him  there,  lodged  Exh.Ka-1  

complaint  at  Police  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  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.

11. PW3 Atmaram and PW4 Chaman 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  of  both  villages  join  at  the  place  of  

occurrence.   PW3  Atmaram  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

Page 9

9

sitting on tube-well  and on hearing shrieks of  Ranjit  Singh  

they stood up 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 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.  

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 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) 11 SCC 519].  In this

Page 10

10

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 does not  

affect  the  prosecution  case  as  rightly  held  by  the  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 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 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  standing  crop  in  between  the  

lands  and  the  view  was  clear  enabling  them  to  see  the

Page 11

11

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 his sister’s  

sister-in-law  with  A1  failed.   PW3  Atmaram  in  his  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  A1 in  this  

regard.  Hence 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-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. Sarabhai who conducted autopsy and the post-mortem  

report issued by him.

Page 12

12

15. According  to  the  complainant  there  was  litigation  

between them and the accused persons leading to enmity.  

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 can also be a basis for the crime [Ruli  

Ram & Anr.  Vs.   State of Haryana (2002)  7  SCC 691;  

State of Punjab  Vs.  Sucha 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  appreciation of  evidence on  

record and does not call for any interference.

16. There  are  no  merits  in  the  appeal.   The  same  is  

dismissed.     

                                                  …………………………….J. (V. Gopala Gowda)

……………………………J. (C. Nagappan)

New Delhi; December  9, 2014.

Page 13

13

ITEM NO.1A-For Judgment      COURT NO.10               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(s).  820/2010

KUNWARPAL @ SURAJPAL & ORS.                        Appellant(s)

                               VERSUS

STATE OF UTTARKHAND & ANR.                         Respondent(s)

Date : 09/12/2014 This appeal was called on for JUDGMENT today.

For Appellant(s)  Mr. Prafulla K. Behera, Adv.                      Mr. S. S. Nehra,Adv.

For Respondent(s)                      Mr. Rajiv Ranjan Dwivedi,Adv.

Mr. Mukesh Verma, Adv.                      Mr. Jatinder Kumar Bhatia,Adv.

                    Mr. Rajiv Nanda,Adv.

Hon'ble Mr. Justice C. Nagappan pronounced the judgment  

of the Bench comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.Gopala Gowda  

and His Lordship.

The appeal is dismissed in terms of the signed order.

   (VINOD KUMAR)    (MALA KUMARI SHARMA) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER

(Signed Reportable judgment is placed on the file)