Page 1

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2202 of 2011

Bijendra Bhagat      …. Appellant

Versus

State of Uttarakhand    …. Respondent

        O R D E R  

1. The appellant and his two sons named Raman @ Babloo and

Randhawa @ Billoo  were tried for having caused the deaths of one

Rakesh and Attar Kali  and thereby committed the offences punishable

under Sections 302/34, 324/34 and 452 IPC.

2. According to the prosecution, on 21.10.1999 at about 6.30 pm

there was a quarrel between the children of PW2 Surat Singh and the

appellant.  Thereafter in the intervening night of 21st and 22nd October,

1999, the appellant armed with a lathi, accused Raman @ Babloo and

Randhawa  @  Billoo  both  armed  with  Tabals  (heavy  sharp  edged

weapon) and country made pistols came to the house of PW2 Surat

Page 2

Singh  and  dragged  his  son  Rakesh  from  the  house  and  started

assaulting.  The inmates of the house, namely, PW1 Sanjay Kumar,

his father PW2 Surat Singh and mother Attar Kali came forward to

save said Rakesh.  Rakesh suffered eight injuries out of which seven

were incised wounds and the eighth injury was caused by a fire arm.

Attar Kali received four injuries, all of them being incised wounds.

PW1  Sanjay  Kumar  received  three  injuries,  two  of  them  being

lacerated wounds and the third was an abrasion.   

3. Accepting the case of the prosecution, the trial court convicted

all the accused under Section 302/34 IPC and sentenced them to suffer

imprisonment  for  life and to pay fine of  Rs.5,000/-,  under  Section

324/34 IPC to suffer RI for one year and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- and

under Section 452 IPC to suffer RI for one year and to pay fine of

Rs.1,000/-.  The conviction and sentence so recorded by the trial court

was affirmed by the High Court in appeal.  The appellant and his sons

Raman @ Babloo and Randhawa @ Billoo preferred special  leave

petitions in this Court challenging their conviction and sentence.  This

Court found no merit insofar as the petitions preferred by Raman @

Babloo  and Randhawa @ Billoo  are  concerned  and  their  petitions

were dismissed on 16.08.2011.  However, insofar as the appellant is

2

Page 3

concerned, special leave to appeal was granted.  By subsequent order,

considering the age of the appellant and the fact that he had remained

in jail for about three years, this Court released him on bail.  In this

appeal arising thus, we have heard learned counsel and gone through

the record.

4. The prosecution witnesses are consistent  in their version that

Raman @ Babloo and Randhawa @ Billoo were armed with Tabals

with which the injuries were inflicted upon Rakesh and Attar Kali.

According to the witnesses these two accused were also armed with

country  made  pistols.   The  injuries  suffered  by  the  deceased  are

incised wounds and one fire arm injury.  However, none of the injuries

on the person of the deceased could be attributed to the  lathi which

was supposedly  in  the hands  of  the appellant.   Undoubtedly, three

injuries on the person of Sanjay Kumar could be caused by a hard and

blunt object.  But having gone through the testimony of the witnesses

and the other material on record, the presence of the appellant and his

involvement  in  the  incident  clearly  appears  to  be  doubtful.    We,

therefore, deem it appropriate to give the appellant benefit of doubt.

We, therefore, acquit him of all the charges and set aside the judgment

and order under appeal  insofar as the appellant  is  concerned.  The

3

Page 4

appellant  is  already on bail.   His bail  bonds are discharged.    The

appeal is allowed in above terms.

                                                             ………………………..J. (A.K. Sikri)

………………………..J. (Uday Umesh Lalit)

New Delhi, May 29, 2015

4