Page 1

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL  APPEAL NO.   11   OF  2016 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No.3896 of 2013)

SANJAY         ..Appellant

Versus

STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH      ..Respondent

WITH

CRIMINAL  APPEAL NO.   12    OF  2016 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No.3897 of 2013)

NARENDRA          ..Appellant

Versus

STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH      ..Respondent

J U D G M E N T

R. BANUMATHI, J.

Leave granted in both the special leave petitions.

2. These  criminal  appeals  have  been  filed  assailing  the  

impugned judgment dated 30.08.2012 passed by the High Court of  

Judicature  at  Allahabad  dismissing  the  criminal  appeals  

No.2188/2007  and  2561/2007  upholding  the  conviction  of  the  

1

Page 2

appellant Narendra for offences under Sections 302, 307 read with  

Section 34 IPC and Section 452 IPC and also the sentence of life  

imprisonment, ten years imprisonment with fine of Rs.5,000/- and  

three years imprisonment  with fine of Rs.1,000/- respectively.  The  

High Court also confirmed the conviction of the appellant Sanjay  

under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, Section 307 read with  

Section  34  IPC  and  Section  452  IPC  and  sentence  of  life  

imprisonment, ten years imprisonment with a fine of  Rs.5,000/-  

and  three  years  imprisonment  with  a  fine  of  Rs.1,000/-  

respectively.

3. Case of the prosecution is that appellant-Sanjay is the  

brother of deceased Roop Singh.  According to PW-2 Sheela wife of  

Roop Singh, after selling his land to Narendra, Sanjay was insisting  

his brother Roop Singh to sell his land to Narendra for which Roop  

Singh  refused,  due  to  which  appellant-Sanjay  is  said  to  have  

developed enmity towards Roop Singh.  On the intervening night of  

10/11.08.1998 at 3.00 a.m., Roop Singh and his wife Sheela were  

sleeping  in  their  chowk  and  a  lantern  was  lit  in  the  house.  

Appellants–Narendra and Sanjay along with another person armed  

with  tamancha  (pistol)  came  to  the  house  of  Roop  Singh.  

Appellant-Narendra fired multiple bullets at Roop Singh and Roop  

2

Page 3

Singh sustained bullet injury in his head.  Sanjay fired at PW-2  

Sheela and she sustained bullet injuries at neck, abdomen and her  

right leg.  Hearing sounds of bullets, the complainant-Partap Singh  

and one Ompal and several other persons rushed to the spot and  

on  seeing  them,  the  appellants  Narendra,  Sanjay  and  the  third  

assailant fled away from the scene.  On the basis of the complaint  

lodged by Partap Singh at Police Station Sardhana, Meerut, case  

was registered in Crime No. 387/1998 for offences under Sections  

307 and 452 IPC.   Injured victims were  sent to  Primary Health  

Centre,  Sardhana,  Meerut  for  treatment.  Roop  Singh  (deceased)  

was admitted at  Safdarjung Hospital,  Delhi  and after treatment,  

Roop  Singh  was  discharged  from  the  hospital  on  25.09.1998.  

Subsequently,  Roop  Singh  developed  complications,  Roop  Singh  

was  taken  for  check  up  to  Delhi  and  Roop  Singh  died  on  

13.10.1998.  Ram Pal gave written information about the death of  

injured Roop Singh to the police and Section 302 IPC was added to  

the FIR.  After completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed  

against the appellants for offences under Sections 302, 307 and  

452 IPC.   

4. To  substantiate  the  charges  against  the  appellants,  

prosecution  examined  nine  witnesses  and  exhibited  twenty  five  

3

Page 4

documents and material objects.  Upon appreciation of evidence,  

the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Meerut vide judgment dated  

17.03.2007 found the appellants guilty for offences under Section  

302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and Section 307 IPC read with  

Section 34 IPC and Section 452 IPC and they were sentenced to  

suffer  life  imprisonment,  ten  years  imprisonment  with  a  fine  of  

Rs.5,000/- and three years imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1,000/-  

respectively.  The trial court ordered that half of the fine amount be  

paid to PW-2 Sheela as compensation.  Aggrieved by the verdict of  

conviction,  the appellants  filed  criminal  appeals  before  the High  

Court  of  Judicature  at  Allahabad  which  were  dismissed  vide  

common  impugned  judgment  dated  30.08.2012  upholding  the  

conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellants as aforesaid.  

Aggrieved, the appellants have preferred these appeals assailing the  

conviction and sentence imposed on them.    

5.      Learned counsel for the appellants contended that as the  

deceased Roop Singh had already transferred his land to Partap  

Singh (PW-1) about one and a half years prior to the occurrence  

and therefore it is improbable that Sanjay would have insisted his  

brother Roop Singh to sell his land also to appellant-Narendra and  

as such the motive suggested by the prosecution is not a probable  

4

Page 5

one.  It was further submitted that death of Roop Singh as seen  

from the evidence of Dr. Laxman Das (PW-9) when Roop Singh was  

discharged  from  the  hospital  his  condition  was  stable  and  two  

months  thereafter  Roop  Singh  died  due  to  septicaemia  and  

therefore conviction of the appellants under Section 302 IPC is not  

sustainable.   

6. Per contra, Mr. Ratnakar Dash, learned Senior Counsel  

for the respondent contended that death of  Roop Singh was the  

direct result of the multiple bullet injury inflicted by the appellants  

and the head injury caused by the appellants was sufficient in the  

ordinary  course  of  nature  to  cause  death  and  the  courts  below  

rightly  convicted  the  appellants  under  Section 302  IPC and  the  

same cannot be interfered.  Learned Senior Counsel submitted that  

as the deceased Roop Singh sustained bullet injuries on his head,  

intention to cause death can be inferred from the situs and nature  

of the injury and the weapon used.   

7. Case of  the prosecution as seen from the evidence is  

that  appellants-Sanjay  and  Narendra  and  one  unidentified  

assailant  armed  with  countrymade  pistols  entered  the  house  of  

deceased Roop Singh at the wee hours-3.00 a.m. on 11.08.1998.  It  

is alleged that the appellant-Sanjay fired four times at his sister-in-

5

Page 6

law-Sheela (PW-2) wife of the deceased and Narendra fired one gun  

shot  on  the  deceased-Roop  Singh.  Roop  Singh  was  operated  at  

Safdarjung Hospital, Delhi and was discharged on 25.09.1998 and  

he was taken back to his home at village Sardhana.   When injured  

Roop Singh was taken to Delhi for check up, he died on the way to  

hospital  on  13.10.1998,  PWs 1  and  2  have  consistently  spoken  

about the overt act of the appellants.  PW-2-Sheela is an injured  

witness and her version stands on a higher footing.  The testimony  

of the injured witness coupled with the fact that the complaint was  

promptly lodged by the complainant-Partap Singh within one and  

half hours of the incident lends assurance to the prosecution case.  

As  the  prosecution  version  is  unassailable,  by  order  dated  

18.04.2013,  this  Court  issued  notice  limited  to  the  question  of  

nature of the offence committed by the appellants.   

8. In the light of the specific contention advanced by the  

appellants that after the attack the deceased survived for sixty two  

days after his surgery discharged in stable condition, the only issue  

which needs to be examined is whether conviction of the appellants  

under Section 302 IPC is sustainable.   

9. Dr. Laxman Das (PW-9), Neuro Surgeon at Safdarjung  

Hospital, Delhi who examined injured Roop Singh on 12.08.1998  

6

Page 7

found one  wound of  insertion of  bullet  in  the  head mid  frontal  

region  of  Roop  Singh  which  measured  2  cm  x  2  cm.  PW-9  

conducted the operation on 15.09.1998 and bullet was extracted  

from the supra cellar part of the head of Roop Singh.  PW-9 stated  

at  the  time  of  admission  of  Roop  Singh  in  the  hospital  on  

12.08.1998, general condition of the patient was serious and that  

the  injuries  received  in  the  head  was  dangerous  to  his  life.  

Dr. Laxman Das (PW-9) opined that condition of the deceased at  

the  time of  discharge  from the  hospital  on 25.09.1998  was  not  

critical  and  his  condition  was  stable.   In  the  instant  case,  

admittedly, deceased Roop Singh died after sixty two days of the  

fateful incident.  PW-3-Dr. M.C. Gulecha, who conducted the post-

mortem examination on the body of deceased-Roop Singh opined  

that  the  cause  of  death was  septicaemia which was  due  to  the  

wounds sustained by him prior to his death.    

10. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that since  

Roop  Singh  died  more  than  two  months  after  the  date  of  the  

occurrence and that he was discharged from the hospital in good  

condition and septicaemia might have set in due to lack of proper  

care after he was discharged from the hospital and therefore the  

7

Page 8

appellants cannot be said to have caused the death of  deceased  

and the conviction under Section 302 IPC is not sustainable.   

11. Learned Senior Counsel for the respondent contended  

that  second  appellant-Narendra  inflicted  serious  injuries  on  the  

forehead of the deceased and fire shots with  intention to kill the  

deceased and the  intention to cause death can be inferred from the  

situs of the injury and that the act was sufficient in the ordinary  

course  of  nature  to  cause death.  Reliance  was  placed  upon the  

judgment of this Court in Jagtar Singh And Anr. vs. State of Punjab,  

(1999) 2 SCC 174 and Dhupa Chamar And Ors. vs. State of Bihar,  

(2002) 6 SCC 506.  

12. In  Jagtar  Singh’s  case  (supra),  Harbans  Singh  gave  

gandasa blow on the left side of the head of deceased-Naib Singh,  

Jagtar Singh inflicted  khapra blow to the deceased.  The incident  

happened on 23.09.1991 and the injured succumbed to his injuries  

even  while  he  was  undergoing  treatment  at  PGI  Hospital  

Chandigarh on 09.10.1991.  In the said case, it was brought out  

from evidence that the deceased succumbed to injuries even while  

he was undergoing treatment and in such facts and circumstances,  

court  drew  inference  that  the  injuries  were  sufficient  in  the  

ordinary course of nature to cause the death.   In Dhupa Chamar’s  

8

Page 9

case (supra), Dhupa Chamar gave a bhala blow on the left side of  

neck  of  Ram  Patia  Devi  and  she  fell  down  and  died  

instantaneously.  Accused  No.2-Tokha  Ram  assaulted  Dharam  

Chamar  in  the  abdomen with  bhala and he  was  rushed to  the  

hospital whereupon he was declared brought dead.  On the basis of  

nature of injuries inflicted which resulted in the instant death of  

the deceased persons and other circumstances, court held that the  

intended injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to  

cause  death  and  convicted  the  accused  for  the  offences  under  

Section 302 IPC.  

13. However,  in  the  instant  case,  it  is  apparent  that  the  

death  occurred  sixty  two  days  after  the  occurrence  due  to  

septicaemia and it was indirectly due to the injuries sustained by  

the deceased.  The proximate cause of death on 13.10.1998 was  

septicaemia which of course was due to the injuries caused in the  

incident on 11.08.1998.  As noted earlier, as per the evidence of  

Dr.  Laxman  Das  (PW-9),  Roop  Singh  was  discharged  from  the  

hospital in good condition and he survived for sixty two days.  In  

such  facts  and  circumstances,  prosecution  should  have  elicited  

from Dr. Laxman Das (PW-9) that the head injury sustained by the  

deceased was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause  

9

Page 10

death.  No such opinion was elicited either from Dr. Laxman Das  

(PW-9) or from Dr. Gulecha (PW-3).  Having regard to the fact that  

Roop Singh survived for sixty two days and that his condition was  

stable when he was discharged from the hospital, the court cannot  

draw an inference that the intended injury caused was sufficient in  

the ordinary course of nature to cause death so as to attract clause  

(3) of Section 300 IPC.   

14. In Ganga Dass alias Godha vs.  State of Haryana, 1994  

Supp (1) SCC 534, the accused gave iron pipe single blow on the  

head of the deceased and the deceased died eighteen days after the  

occurrence  due  to  septicaemia  and  other  complications,  the  

conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC was altered by  

this  Court  to  Section 304 Part  II  IPC.   This  Court  observed  as  

under:-

“6.  We find  considerable  force  in this submission.  As stated  above the occurrence took place on November 18, 1988 and the  deceased  died  18  days  later  on  December  5,  1988  due  to  septicaemia and other complications.  The Doctor   found only one  injury on the head and that was due to single blow inflicted with  an iron pipe not with any sharp-edged weapon.  Having regard to  the  circumstances  of  the  case,  it  is  difficult  to  hold  that  the  appellant  intended  to  cause  death  nor  it  can  be  said  that  he  intended to cause that particular injury.  In any event the medical  evidence  shows  that  the  injured  deceased  was  operated  but  unfortunately some complications set in and ultimately he died  because of cardiac failure etc.  Under these circumstances, we set  aside the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC and  the  sentence  of  imprisonment  for  life  awarded  thereunder.  Instead  we  convict  him  under  Section  304  Part  II  IPC  and  sentence him to undergo six years’  RI.  The sentence of fine of  

10

Page 11

Rs.2000 along with default clause is confirmed.  Accordingly the  appeal is partly allowed.”   

 15. In  the  instant  case,  the  appellants  used  firearms  

countrymade pistol and fired at Roop Singh at his head and the  

accused had the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely  

to cause death.  As the bullet injury was on the head, vital organ,  

second  appellant  intended  of  causing  such  bodily  injury  and  

therefore conviction of the appellant is altered from Section 302 IPC  

to Section 304 Part I IPC.  The learned counsel for the appellant-

Sanjay  submitted  that  it  was  only  Narendra  who  fired  at  Roop  

Singh at his head, appellant-Sanjay fired on Sheela (PW-2) on her  

neck, stomach and leg.  Learned counsel for the appellant-Sanjay  

contended that as Sanjay fired only at Sheela, he could not have  

been convicted for causing death of Roop Singh under Section 302  

IPC  read  with  Section  34  IPC.  There  is  no  force  in  the  above  

contention.  The  common  intention  of  the  appellants  is  to  be  

gathered from the manner in which the crime has been committed.  

Both the appellants came together armed with firearms in the wee  

hours of  11.08.1998.   Both the appellants indiscriminately  fired  

from their countrymade pistols at Roop Singh-deceased and Sheela  

(PW-2) respectively.  The conduct of the appellants and the manner  

in  which  the  crime  has  been  committed  is  sufficient  to  attract  

11

Page 12

Section  34  IPC  as  both  the  appellants  acted  in  furtherance  of  

common intention.  The conviction of the appellant-Sanjay under  

Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC is modified to conviction  

under Section 304 Part I  IPC.

16. Conviction  of  the  appellants-Narendra  and  Sanjay  

under Section 302 IPC and Section 302 IPC read with Section 34  

IPC respectively is modified to Section 304 Part I IPC and Section  

304 Part I IPC read with Section 34 IPC respectively and each of  

them are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years  

and  the  same  shall  run  concurrently  alongwith  sentence  of  

imprisonment  imposed  on  the  appellants.   Conviction  of  the  

appellants  for  other  offences  and  the  respective  sentence  of  

imprisonment imposed on the appellants and fine is affirmed.   The  

appeals are partly allowed to the above extent.

……………………CJI.    (T.S. THAKUR)

.………………………J.               (R. BANUMATHI)

New Delhi; January 06, 2016

12