Crl.A. No. 1299 of 2006 1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1299 OF 2006

SUNIL ..... APPELLANT

VERSUS

STATE OF HARYANA ..... RESPONDENT

O R D E R

1. This appeal arises out of the following facts:

1.1 Suraj  Bhan  accused,  Satbir  P.W.  And  Ramphal  

deceased  were  three  of  several  brothers  all  living  

jointly  in  one  home.   About  15  days  prior  to  the  

occurrence Azad, wife of Suraj Bhan, and Satbir Singh's  

wife Jantar quarrelled over the taking of water from the  

tap.  At about 5:00p.m. on the 22nd February, 1993 ,  

Suraj Bhan accused who was in the Army but was on leave  

that day, accompanied by his son Sunil and Azad Azad  

aforesaid   came  to  Satbir's  side  of  the  family  home  

where he along with his brother Ram Phal, Ram Phal's  

wife Saroj and Zile Singh, another brother, were sitting

Crl.A. No. 1299 of 2006 2

together.  Suraj Bhan was armed with a shot gun whereas  

Sunil  was  carrying  a  bandolier  containing  cartridges.  

Azad exhorted her husband and son to teach the others a  

lesson whereupon Suraj Bhan aimed his gun towards them.  

Ram Phal, however, ran towards the roof whereupon Suraj  

Bhan fired two shots at him.  Sunil thereafter took the  

gun from his father and fired two shots towards them but  

as Satbir Singh and the others had taken shelter behind  

a parapet no injury was suffered by them.   The accused  

thereafter ran away from the spot.   

1.2 Ram  Phal,  who  was  seriously  injured,  was  

thereafter taken towards the Civil Hospital, Dadri for  

treatment but he died on the way due to his injuries.  

On the basis of the statement made by Satbir to  Sub  

Inspector Amrik Singh,  S.H.O., Police Station Dadri, at  

8:40p.m.  Near  village  Chiriya,  a  formal  First  

Information Report was recorded at Police Station Dadri  

at  9:05p.m.  and  the  Special  Report  delivered  to  the  

Judicial Magistrate First Class, Charkhi Dadri at about  

10:40p.m., the same night.  On the completion of the  

investigation Suraj Bhan, his wife Azad and their son  

Sunil  were  brought  to  trial.   The  prosecution  relied  

primarily on the eye witness account of Satbir P.W. 4  

and his brother Zile Singh, P.W. 5 as also  SI Amrik

Crl.A. No. 1299 of 2006 3

Singh – P.W. 6 as well as the medical evidence of P.W. 2  

- Dr. S.N. Sharma and P.W. 3 - Dr. S.C. Gupta, who had  

performed the post mortem on the dead body.  The trial  

court, relying on the aforesaid evidence as well as the  

recoveries  of  the  spent  cartridges  and  wads  from  the  

place  of  incident  and  finding  that  the  eye  witness  

account was supported by the medical evidence convicted  

Suraj Bhan and Sunil under Section 302/34, 307/34 and  

450   of  the  Indian  Penal  Code  and  Suraj  Bhan  under  

Section 27 of the Arms Act as well and sentenced them to  

life  imprisonment  for  the  primary  offence.   Azad  was  

given the benefit of doubt and acquitted.  The matter  

was  thereafter  taken  in  appeal  before  the  High  Court  

which  has  confirmed  the  judgment  of  the  trial  court.  

The present appeal has been filed by Sunil only after  

the grant of special leave.   

2. We notice from the judgment of the High Court that  

it had relied on the significant fact that the FIR had  

come into existence within four or five hours of the  

incident  as  the  incident  had  taken  place  at  about  

5:00p.m.  and  that  the  special  report  had  also  been  

received by the Judicial Magistrate First Class,  Dadri  

at  10:40p.m..   The  High  Court  had  also  relied  

extensively on the statements of P.Ws. 4 and 5 who are

Crl.A. No. 1299 of 2006 4

the real brothers of the victim as also of Suraj Bhan  

and therefore the uncles of the appellant Sunil.  We  

have  also  seen  the  site  plan  which  reveals  that  the  

incident happened in the house of the parties concerned,  

who happened to be the real brothers.   

3. Mr.  Sanjay  Jain,  the  learned  counsel  for  the  

appellant   has,  however,  argued  that  as  the  spent  

cartridge cases had been picked up not from one place  

but  from  different  places  it  appeared  that  the  story  

that Sunil had taken the gun from his father and fired  

two shots, was not borne out.  We have perused the site  

plan and find that the distance between the two places  

from where the spent cartridges had been picked up was  

so minimal that it would have no effect on the merits of  

the case.  In any event, the eye witness account of  

P.Ws. 4 and 5 who are the brothers of the deceased and  

the accused Suraj Bhan cannot be faulted in any manner.  

It is also the admitted position that both the parties  

were  living  jointly  in  the  same  house  although  in  

different portions thereof.

4. On the last date of hearing that is, on the 12th  

January, 2011, Mr. Jain had raised an argument that the  

appellant was less than 18 years of age on the date of

Crl.A. No. 1299 of 2006 5

the incident and in this view of the matter he could not  

have been brought to trial along with his co-accused.  

We  had,  accordingly,  adjourned  the  matter  seeking  a  

report  from  Bhiwani.   Mr.  Satish  Ahlawat,  Additional  

District and Sessions Judge, Bhiwani has sent a report  

dated 28th February, 2011  and we have perused the same.  

It reveals that on the date of the incident  i.e. 2nd  

February, 1993 the appellant was 18 years 9 months and  

26  days  of  age.   He  was,  therefore,  clearly  not  a  

juvenile.  We, accordingly, find no merit in the appeal  

which is, accordingly, dismissed.  

           .........................J      [HARJIT SINGH BEDI]

    .........................J      [GYAN SUDHA MISRA]

NEW DELHI JULY 13, 2011.