KUNWARPAL @ SURAJPAL Vs STATE OF UTTARKHAND
Bench: V. GOPALA GOWDA,C. NAGAPPAN
Case number: Crl.A. No.-000820-000820 / 2010
Diary number: 30139 / 2009
Advocates: S. S. NEHRA Vs
RAJIV RANJAN DWIVEDI
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)