RANBEER SINGH (DEAD) BY LRS. Vs STATE OF U.P..
Bench: PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE,UDAY UMESH LALIT
Case number: Crl.A. No.-000205-000205 / 2009
Diary number: 22644 / 2008
Advocates: MANOJ SWARUP AND CO. Vs
MOHD. IRSHAD HANIF
Page 1
1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 205 OF 2009
Ranbeer Singh (dead) by L.R. ...Appellant
:Versus: State of U.P. and Ors.
...Respondents
J U D G M E N T
Pinaki Chandra Ghose, J.
1. This is an appeal by the Complainant against the
impugned judgment and order dated 30-04-2008 passed by
the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Appeal
No.1674 of 2006. In the impugned judgment the High Court
had allowed the appeal of three accused persons and
acquitted them while maintaining the conviction of the main
accused. The present appeal before us has been filed by the
complainant against the acquittal of the three accused by
the High Court. The Sessions Court after trial had convicted
the main accused Shyamu under S. 302, IPC along with
Section 25 of the Arms Act while it convicted the other three
accused persons, Balbir Singh, Vinod and Karua
Page 2
2
(respondents herein) under S. 302, IPC read with S. 34 IPC.
The appeal of Shyamu against his conviction by the High
Court was filed in this Court but was dismissed, thus, his
conviction has attained finality.
2. The facts of the present case are that Shyamu, Karua and
Vinod are sons of Balbir Singh and Balbir Singh is the elder
brother of the complainant Ranbeer Singh. The deceased
Pooran Singh was the son of the complainant Ranbeer Singh.
Admittedly, there is pending criminal litigation between
Ranbeer Singh and Balbir Singh, the two brothers. The
pending criminal litigation relates to an incident 13 to 14
months prior to the incident in question in present case
wherein Balbir Singh had fired at Ranbeer Singh with
intention of killing him. The pending civil litigation related to
some property between the two brothers. As per the case of
the prosecution, on the date of the incident in the instant
case i.e. 07-02-2002, the complainant was irrigating his field
along with his son Pooran Singh (the deceased) while the 7
year old son of Pooran Singh was sitting on the Mendh
nearby. The four accused persons were irrigating their field,
which was adjoining the field of the complainant, and while
Page 3
3
they were at the tubewell of their field, which is 100-150
yards away from the tubewell of the complainant's field, at
around 4:45 pm, four accused persons came to the
complainant making an exhortation “Aaj mauke par mil gaye
hain. Inhe jaan se maar do aur maan lo ki mukdmein ka
faisla ho gaya aur zameen humain mil gayi.” (Today, they
have met at an opportune time. Kill them and treat the
litigation as decided and we got the land). Thereafter, the
present three respondents Balbir Singh, Karua and Vinod
held Pooran Singh and threw him on the ground and Shyamu
made a shot with his gun from behind at the Pooran Singh.
As this happened, the Complainant along with 7 year old
grandson Ankit, ran away to save their life. On hearing the
shouts of the complainant, the persons working in the
nearby field saw the accused persons fleeing from the place
of occurrence. The FIR was registered on the same day at
6:05 pm by the Complainant. During investigation the
weapon being country made pistol of 315 bore was
recovered from the field of the accused on the disclosure
statement made by Shyamu.
3. The prosecution evidence consisted of PW1 Ranbeer
Page 4
4
Singh (eye witness), PW2 Ankit (eye witness and child
witness), PW3 Dr. S.K. Seth (proved post mortem report),
PW4 Constable Saiyed Mohd. Kasim, PW5 S.I. Roop Chandra
Verma, PW6 Inspector Incharge Narendra Kumar Singh and
PW7 Constable Pradeep Kumar.
4. The PW1 Ranbeer Singh stated that the accused persons
out of enmity in light of pending civil and criminal litigation
and with motive to take revenge, killed his son on the fateful
day. He testified that on 07.02.2002 he was irrigating his
field with tubewell along with his son and grandson Ankit was
sitting nearby. At the same time, the four accused were
irrigating their field from a tubewell which was about 100-
150 yards away from the tubewell of complainant. At around
4:45 pm, they came and exhorted that “today they are
alone, hold them and kill them and so we would get our
farmland also”. Then Balbir, Karua and Vinod held Pooran
Singh and pushed him on the ground in/near the drain and
Shyamu shot at him from behind.
5. The PW2 Ankit was 7 years old when the incident
happened and 9 years old when his statement was recorded.
Page 5
5
He testified that he was sitting 11-12 feet away from where
his grandfather and father were irrigating the field. He saw
that Shyamu shot his father at the back of his head and
before Shyamu shot, Balbir, Karua and Vinod pushed his
father in the drain. Thereafter his grandfather carrying him in
his lap, ran away from there.
6. PW-3 Dr. S.K. Seth had conducted the autopsy of the
deceased and found two wounds on head. The bullet entry
wound on the front head near the nose while exit wound on
the back side of the head. The parietal and occipital bone of
both sides of the head were fractured. He told the cause of
death was coma resulting from ante mortem injuries.
7. The Session Court after going through the evidence
concluded the guilt of all the accused and convicted Balbir,
Karua and Vinod under Section 302/34 of IPC and Shyamu
under Section 302 of IPC, and sentenced all of them to
imprisonment for life, along with a fine of Rs.3000/- and in
default of payment of fine, they shall have to undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of seven months. Shyamu was
further sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years
Page 6
6
under Section 25 of Arms Act.
8. The High Court in appeal dealt extensively with the
question of interested witness and child witness. After a long
discussion on both the points, the High Court found that the
testimony of the PW1 Complainant as well as PW 2 Ankit is
reliable. The High court found that there were questions
asked to PW2 to test his understanding and only thereafter
examination pertaining to the case were asked. The
statement of PW2 completely corroborated the case of the
prosecution. However, after accepting the evidence of the
prosecution, the High Court found that there was no case
made out as against the present three respondent accused
persons under S. 34 as there was no common intention. The
High Court found that there was no prior meeting of minds or
premeditation to commit the offence and that the incident
was a sudden scuffle. These three accused persons did not
share the intention to kill the deceased. Therefore, the High
Court acquitted the three accused-respondents.
9. The learned counsel for the complainant-Appellant has
sought conviction of the present respondents. The main
Page 7
7
contention is that when the case of prosecution has been
believed and relied upon by the High Court and on that basis
the main accused Shyamu is convicted, the present three
respondents cannot be acquitted.
10. The learned counsel for the Respondents has tried to
point out certain contradictions in the facts of the
prosecution. However, in view of the dismissal of appeal of
Shyamu by this Court, the facts in this case have become
final and cannot be challenged anymore. If we accept any
contention with respect to those facts, it would upset the
finding of conviction in Shyamu's appeal to this Court.
Therefore, the only question before us is whether, in the
given facts and circumstances the case, the role attributed
to the present three Accused-respondents lead to their
implication under Section 34 of IPC.
11. Limiting ourselves to the above question, we find
that there is indeed enough material to infer the common
and shared intention of the present accused-respondents
with that of Shyamu. Although, the learned counsel for the
respondents has argued that they had not thrown the
Page 8
8
deceased down to the drain with intention of killing him but
merely assaulting him. According to him, the shooting by
Shyamu was an independent act. However, we find that
firstly, there was no justifiable reason for the 4 accused
persons to go 100-150 yards inside the field of the
complainant. Second, the fact that they carried a weapon
being 315 bore country-made pistol with them clearly shows
that they had all the wrong intentions. Nowhere in the case
of defence has this come out that the present three accused-
respondents were not aware of the fact that Shyamu carried
the weapon. Also, the exhortation made by the accused
persons against the complainant and the deceased
mentioned about killing them. Having made such an
exhortation, they threw the deceased on the ground. It goes
on to show that they all shared a common intention and
worked in tandem. Balbir Singh is the father of other three
accused persons; he could have asked Shyamu to stop short
of shooting, but he did not do so. We find, in the light of
these circumstances, that the High Court erred in acquitting
the present accused-respondents. We are satisfied that the
view taken by the High Court is not even a possible view and
Page 9
9
therefore calls for interference in this appeal.
12. On the basis of above discussion, we allow the
present appeal. The impugned judgment of the High Court is
set aside and the judgment and order passed by the
Sessions Court is restored.
13.Learned counsel for the accused persons – respondents
herein has submitted that there is a marriage in the house of
the accused persons on 22nd April, 2015 and prayed that the
accused may not be arrested till the marriage is solemnized.
In view of this submission, we grant six weeks' time to the
three accused-respondents to surrender, failing which the
Court concerned shall take appropriate steps to take them
into custody.
….....................................J (Pinaki Chandra
Ghose)
.................................... ....J
(Uday Umesh Lalit) New Delhi; March 27, 2015.
Page 10
10
ITEM NO.1B COURT NO.12 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). 205/2009 RANBEER SINGH (DEAD) BY LRS. Appellant(s) VERSUS STATE OF U.P.& ORS. Respondent(s) Date : 27/03/2015 This appeal was called on for pronouncement of
judgment today. For Appellant(s) Mr. Manoj Swarup, Adv.
Ms. Lalita Kohli, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Swarup, Adv. For M/s Manoj Swarup & Co., Advs.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Ajay Veer Singh Jain, Adv.
Mr. U.R. Bokadia, Adv. Ms. Divya Garg, Adv.
For Mr. Mohd. Irshad Hanif, AOR Mr. Ashutosh Sharma, Adv. Mr. Rajeev Dubey, Adv.
For Mr. Ravi Prakash Mehrotra, Adv.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pinaki Chandra Ghose pronounced the reportable judgment of the Bench comprising His Lordship and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Uday Umesh Lalit.
The appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside and the judgment and order passed by the Sessions Court is restored.
Learned counsel for the accused persons – respondents herein has submitted that there is a marriage in the house of the accused persons on 22nd April, 2015 and prayed that the accused may not be arrested till the marriage is solemnized. In view of this submission, we grant six weeks' time to the three accused- respondents to surrender, failing which the Court concerned shall take appropriate steps to take them into custody in terms of the signed reportable judgment.
(R.NATARAJAN) (SNEH LATA SHARMA)
Page 11
11
Court Master Court Master (Signed reportable judgment is placed on the file)