NON­REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 863 OF 2012

RAJENDRA SINGH    …..Appellant(s)

VERSUS

STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH     ….Respondent(s)

                 J U D G M E N T

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.  

1. This appeal is filed by the accused against the

final judgment and order  dated 3.11.2003 passed

by the High Court of Allahabad in Government

Criminal Appeal No. 377 of 1999 whereby the High

Court reversed the judgment of the Sessions Judge

1

and convicted the appellant for the commission of

offence of murder of Satyapal Singh under Section

302 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as

“the IPC’) read with Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act.

2. Few facts need  mention for disposal of the

appeal infra.

3. The appellant was prosecuted for commission

of the offence of  murder of one Satyapal Singh

Chauhan by firing a bullet from  his revolver on

01.12.1994. Due to gunshot injury caused to

Satyapal Singh from the short distance, he died

while he was being taken to the hospital after the

incident.

4. By order dt 13.11.1998, the learned Sessions

Judge, Farrukhabad acquitted the appellant under

Section 302 of IPC read with Section 25/27 of the

Arms Act. However, in an appeal filed by the State

2

against his acquittal, the High Court by impugned

order reversed the judgment of the Sessions Judge

and convicted the appellant for commission of

offence of murder of Satyapal Singh under Section

302 of IPC read with 25/27 of the Arms Act giving

rise to filing of this appeal by the accused.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the

parties and have also perused the evidence,

impugned order and the order of the Sessions

Judge.  

6. Having scanned the evidence and keeping  in

view the fact that it is a case of the reversal of the

acquittal order, we are inclined to concur with the

reasoning and the conclusion arrived at by the High

Court rather than to concur with the reasoning and

the conclusion arrived at by the Sessions Judge.  

3

7. In other words, having gone through the entire

evidence on record, we are of the considered view

that the High Court was right in concluding that the

prosecution was able to prove the case against the

appellant beyond reasonable doubt.   The High

Court, therefore, rightly held that it was the

appellant and no one else who fired a bullet from

his revolver within a short range to Satypal Singh,

which caused his death immediately after the

incident. This finding of the High Court is based on

appreciation of evidence which was well within its

jurisdiction to do  in  its first  appellate jurisdiction

and which it did rightly.

8. It was, however, brought to our notice that the

appellant has so far undergone more than 14 years

of jail sentence and he still remains in Jail

undergoing his sentence.

4

9. In our opinion, if that were the case then the

State can  be directed to consider the appellant's

case for his remission in terms of the relevant

provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code

(hereinafter referred to as the “Cr.P.C.”)  read with

Rules.   In other words, the appellant is eligible for

his  release by  the State in  terms of the Rules  in

accordance with law depending upon a case made

out by him. The State can always pass appropriate

orders on appellant's release provided a case to that

effect as provided in the Rules is made out.

10. We, therefore, grant liberty to the appellant to

apply to the State Government for consideration of

his case for release as provided in Cr.P.C. read with

the  Rules  provided  the  appellant is  able to  prove

that he has completed the mandatory period of his

sentence as prescribed in the  Cr.P.C./Rules and

5

satisfy all necessary conditions to the satisfaction of

the State.

11. The Jail Authorities would do the needful on

behalf of the appellant and will accordingly forward

his application along with necessary details to the

Competent Authority of the State.  

12. The Jail Authorities will complete the

formalities and send the appellant's application as

directed above to the concerned Competent

authority of the State within three months from the

date of this order.  

13. On receipt  of the  application, the  competent

authority  of the  State  will  pass  appropriate  order

within 3 months strictly in accordance with law.

6

14. The Registry to send a copy of this order to the

appellant and the concerned Jail Authorities where

the appellant is presently undergoing jail sentence

within a week as an outer limit to enable them to

process the application as directed above.

15. With the aforesaid discussion and the

direction, the appeal fails and is accordingly

dismissed.   

………...................................J.          [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]

                                     …...……..................................J.

        [INDU MALHOTRA] New Delhi; October 23, 2018  

7