Page 1

1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 205  OF  2009

Ranbeer  Singh  (dead) by L.R.    ...Appellant

:Versus: State of U.P. and Ors.    

...Respondents

J U D G M E N T

Pinaki Chandra Ghose,  J.

1. This  is  an  appeal  by  the  Complainant  against  the  

impugned judgment and order dated 30-04-2008 passed by  

the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Appeal  

No.1674 of 2006. In the impugned judgment the High Court  

had  allowed  the  appeal  of  three  accused  persons  and  

acquitted them while maintaining the conviction of the main  

accused. The present appeal before us has been filed by the  

complainant against the acquittal  of  the three accused by  

the High Court. The Sessions Court after trial had convicted  

the  main  accused  Shyamu  under  S.  302,  IPC  along  with  

Section 25 of the Arms Act while it convicted the other three  

accused  persons,  Balbir  Singh,  Vinod  and  Karua

Page 2

2

(respondents herein) under S. 302, IPC read with S. 34 IPC.  

The appeal  of  Shyamu against  his  conviction by the High  

Court  was filed in  this  Court  but  was dismissed,  thus,  his  

conviction has attained finality.

2. The facts of the present case are that Shyamu, Karua and  

Vinod are sons of Balbir Singh and Balbir Singh is the elder  

brother  of  the  complainant  Ranbeer  Singh.  The  deceased  

Pooran Singh was the son of the complainant Ranbeer Singh.  

Admittedly,  there  is  pending  criminal  litigation  between  

Ranbeer  Singh  and  Balbir  Singh,  the  two  brothers.  The  

pending criminal  litigation relates  to  an incident  13 to  14  

months  prior  to  the  incident  in  question  in  present  case  

wherein  Balbir  Singh  had  fired  at  Ranbeer  Singh  with  

intention of killing him. The pending civil litigation related to  

some property between the two brothers. As per the case of  

the prosecution, on the date of the incident in the instant  

case i.e. 07-02-2002, the complainant was irrigating his field  

along with his son Pooran Singh (the deceased) while the 7  

year  old  son  of  Pooran  Singh  was  sitting  on  the  Mendh  

nearby. The four accused persons were irrigating their field,  

which was adjoining the field of the complainant, and while

Page 3

3

they were at  the tubewell  of  their  field,  which is  100-150  

yards away from the tubewell of the complainant's field, at  

around  4:45  pm,  four  accused  persons  came  to  the  

complainant making an exhortation “Aaj mauke par mil gaye  

hain.  Inhe jaan se maar  do aur  maan lo  ki  mukdmein ka   

faisla ho gaya aur zameen humain mil  gayi.” (Today, they  

have  met  at  an  opportune  time.  Kill  them  and  treat  the  

litigation as decided and we got the land).  Thereafter, the  

present  three  respondents  Balbir  Singh,  Karua  and  Vinod  

held Pooran Singh and threw him on the ground and Shyamu  

made a shot with his gun from behind at the Pooran Singh.  

As  this  happened,  the  Complainant  along with  7  year  old  

grandson Ankit, ran away to save their life. On hearing the  

shouts  of  the  complainant,  the  persons  working  in  the  

nearby field saw the accused persons fleeing from the place  

of occurrence. The FIR was registered on the same day at  

6:05  pm  by  the  Complainant.  During  investigation  the  

weapon  being  country  made  pistol  of  315  bore  was  

recovered from the field  of  the accused on the disclosure  

statement made by Shyamu.

3. The  prosecution  evidence  consisted  of  PW1  Ranbeer

Page 4

4

Singh  (eye  witness),   PW2  Ankit  (eye  witness  and  child  

witness),   PW3 Dr.  S.K. Seth (proved post mortem report),  

PW4 Constable Saiyed Mohd. Kasim, PW5 S.I. Roop Chandra  

Verma, PW6 Inspector Incharge Narendra Kumar Singh and  

PW7 Constable Pradeep Kumar.

4. The PW1 Ranbeer Singh stated that the accused persons  

out of enmity in light of pending civil and criminal litigation  

and with motive to take revenge, killed his son on the fateful  

day.  He testified that  on 07.02.2002 he was  irrigating his  

field with tubewell along with his son and grandson Ankit was  

sitting  nearby.  At  the  same  time,  the  four  accused  were  

irrigating their field from a tubewell  which was about 100-

150 yards away from the tubewell of complainant. At around  

4:45  pm,  they  came  and  exhorted  that  “today  they  are  

alone,  hold  them and kill  them and so  we would get  our  

farmland also”.  Then Balbir,  Karua and Vinod held  Pooran  

Singh and pushed him on the ground in/near the drain and  

Shyamu shot at him from behind.  

5. The  PW2  Ankit   was  7  years  old  when  the  incident  

happened and 9 years old when his statement was recorded.

Page 5

5

He testified that he was sitting 11-12 feet away from where  

his grandfather and father were irrigating the field. He saw  

that  Shyamu shot  his  father  at  the back of  his  head and  

before  Shyamu  shot,  Balbir,  Karua  and  Vinod  pushed  his  

father in the drain. Thereafter his grandfather carrying him in  

his lap, ran away from there.

6. PW-3  Dr.  S.K.  Seth  had  conducted  the  autopsy  of  the  

deceased and found two wounds on head. The bullet entry  

wound on the front head near the nose while exit wound on  

the back side of the head. The parietal and occipital bone of  

both sides of the head were fractured. He told the cause of  

death was coma resulting from ante mortem injuries.

7. The  Session  Court  after  going  through  the  evidence  

concluded the guilt of all the accused and convicted Balbir,  

Karua and Vinod under Section 302/34 of IPC and Shyamu  

under  Section  302  of  IPC,  and  sentenced  all  of  them  to  

imprisonment for life, along with a fine of Rs.3000/- and in  

default of payment of fine, they shall have to undergo simple  

imprisonment  for  a  period  of  seven months.  Shyamu was  

further sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years

Page 6

6

under Section 25 of Arms Act.

8. The  High  Court  in  appeal  dealt  extensively  with  the  

question of interested witness and child witness. After a long  

discussion on both the points, the High Court found that the  

testimony of the PW1 Complainant as well as PW 2 Ankit is  

reliable.  The  High  court  found  that  there  were  questions  

asked to PW2 to test his understanding and only thereafter  

examination  pertaining  to  the  case  were  asked.  The  

statement of PW2 completely corroborated the case of the  

prosecution.  However,  after  accepting the evidence of  the  

prosecution,  the High Court found that  there was no case  

made out as against the present three respondent accused  

persons under S. 34 as there was no common intention. The  

High Court found that there was no prior meeting of minds or  

premeditation to commit the offence and that the incident  

was a sudden scuffle. These three accused persons did not  

share the intention to kill the deceased. Therefore, the High  

Court acquitted the three accused-respondents.

9. The  learned  counsel  for  the  complainant-Appellant  has  

sought  conviction  of  the  present  respondents.  The  main

Page 7

7

contention is  that  when the case of prosecution has been  

believed and relied upon by the High Court and on that basis  

the main accused Shyamu is  convicted,  the present three  

respondents cannot be acquitted.  

10. The learned counsel for the Respondents has tried to  

point  out  certain  contradictions  in  the  facts  of  the  

prosecution. However, in view of the dismissal of appeal of  

Shyamu by this Court, the facts in this case have become  

final and cannot be challenged anymore. If  we accept any  

contention with  respect  to  those facts,  it  would upset  the  

finding  of  conviction  in  Shyamu's  appeal  to  this  Court.  

Therefore,  the  only  question  before  us  is  whether,  in  the  

given facts and circumstances the case, the role attributed  

to  the  present  three  Accused-respondents  lead  to  their  

implication under Section 34 of IPC.

11. Limiting  ourselves  to  the  above  question,  we  find  

that there is indeed enough material  to infer the common  

and  shared  intention  of  the  present  accused-respondents  

with that of Shyamu. Although, the learned counsel for the  

respondents  has  argued  that  they  had  not  thrown  the

Page 8

8

deceased down to the drain with intention of killing him but  

merely  assaulting  him.  According  to  him,  the  shooting  by  

Shyamu  was  an  independent  act.  However,  we  find  that  

firstly,  there  was  no  justifiable  reason  for  the  4  accused  

persons  to  go  100-150  yards  inside  the  field  of  the  

complainant.  Second,  the fact  that  they carried a weapon  

being 315 bore country-made pistol with them clearly shows  

that they had all the wrong intentions. Nowhere in the case  

of defence has this come out that the present three accused-

respondents were not aware of the fact that Shyamu carried  

the  weapon.  Also,  the  exhortation  made  by  the  accused  

persons  against  the  complainant  and  the  deceased  

mentioned  about  killing  them.  Having  made  such  an  

exhortation, they threw the deceased on the ground. It goes  

on  to  show that  they  all  shared a  common intention  and  

worked in tandem. Balbir Singh is the father of other three  

accused persons; he could have asked Shyamu to stop short  

of shooting, but he did not do so.  We find, in the light of  

these circumstances, that the High Court erred in acquitting  

the present accused-respondents. We are satisfied that the  

view taken by the High Court is not even a possible view and

Page 9

9

therefore calls for interference in this appeal.  

12. On  the  basis  of  above  discussion,   we  allow  the  

present appeal. The impugned judgment of the High Court is  

set  aside  and  the  judgment  and  order  passed  by  the  

Sessions Court is restored.  

13.Learned counsel for the accused persons – respondents  

herein has submitted that there is a marriage in the house of  

the accused persons on 22nd April, 2015 and prayed that the  

accused may not be arrested till the marriage is solemnized.  

In view of this submission, we grant six weeks'  time to the  

three  accused-respondents  to  surrender,  failing  which  the  

Court concerned shall  take appropriate steps to take them  

into custody.

….....................................J (Pinaki Chandra  

Ghose)

.................................... ....J

 (Uday Umesh Lalit) New Delhi; March  27,  2015.

Page 10

10

ITEM NO.1B              COURT NO.12               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).  205/2009 RANBEER SINGH (DEAD) BY LRS.                       Appellant(s)                                 VERSUS STATE OF U.P.& ORS.                                Respondent(s) Date : 27/03/2015 This appeal was called on for pronouncement of  

judgment today. For Appellant(s) Mr. Manoj Swarup, Adv.

Ms. Lalita Kohli, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Swarup, Adv. For M/s Manoj Swarup & Co., Advs.

                     For Respondent(s) Mr. Ajay Veer Singh Jain, Adv.

Mr. U.R. Bokadia, Adv. Ms. Divya Garg, Adv.

                 For Mr. Mohd. Irshad Hanif, AOR Mr. Ashutosh Sharma, Adv. Mr. Rajeev Dubey, Adv.

                 For Mr. Ravi Prakash Mehrotra, Adv.

Hon'ble  Mr.  Justice  Pinaki  Chandra  Ghose  pronounced  the  reportable  judgment  of  the  Bench  comprising  His  Lordship  and  Hon'ble Mr. Justice Uday Umesh Lalit.  

The appeal is allowed.  The impugned judgment of the High  Court  is  set  aside  and  the  judgment  and  order  passed  by  the  Sessions Court is restored.  

Learned counsel for the accused persons – respondents herein  has submitted that there is a marriage in the house of the accused  persons on 22nd April, 2015 and prayed that the accused may not be  arrested  till  the  marriage  is  solemnized.   In  view  of  this  submission,  we  grant  six  weeks'  time  to  the  three  accused- respondents to surrender, failing which the Court concerned shall  take appropriate steps to take them into custody in terms of the  signed reportable judgment.

(R.NATARAJAN)        (SNEH LATA SHARMA)

Page 11

11

Court Master       Court Master (Signed reportable judgment is placed on the file)