SANJEEV KUMAR GUPTA Vs STATE OF U.P.(NOW UTTARAKHAND)
Bench: PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE,R.K. AGRAWAL
Case number: Crl.A. No.-000507-000507 / 2013
Diary number: 18432 / 2011
Advocates: Y. PRABHAKARA RAO Vs
JATINDER KUMAR BHATIA
Page 1
Page 2
Page 3
Page 4
Page 5
Page 6
Page 7
Page 8
Page 9
Page 10
Page 11
Page 12
Page 13
Page 14
Page 15
Page 16
Page 17
Page 18
Page 19
Page 20
Page 21
Page 22
Page 23
Page 24
Page 25
Page 1
1
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 507 OF 2013 Sanjeev Kumar Gupta … Appellant
:Versus: State of U.P. (Now State of Uttarakhand) … Respondent
WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 508 OF 2013
Saurabh … Appellant :Versus:
State of U.P. (Now State of Uttarakhand) … Respondent AND
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 509 OF 2013 Nitin @ Vippu … Appellant
:Versus: State of U.P. (Now State of Uttarakhand) … Respondent
AND CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 510 OF 2013
Dheeraj Kalra … Appellant :Versus:
State of U.P. (Now State of Uttarakhand) … Respondent AND
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 511 OF 2013 Bhagat Singh … Appellant
:Versus: State of U.P. (Now State of Uttarakhand) … Respondent
AND CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 512 OF 2013
Som Prakash … Appellant :Versus:
State of U.P. (Now State of Uttarakhand) … Respondent AND
Page 2
2
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 513 OF 2013 Rishi Kumar … Appellant
:Versus: State of U.P. (Now State of Uttarakhand) … Respondent
J U D G M E N T Pinaki Chandra Ghose, J.
1. In these appeals, by special leave, the appellants have
challenged the judgment and order dated 8th April, 2011 passed
by the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital, in Criminal Appeal
No.675 of 2001, whereby the High Court has dismissed the
appeals preferred by the appellants herein and confirmed the
judgment and order of the Additional Sessions Judge/Special
Judge, Anti Corruption, U.P. (East), Dehradun, convicting the
appellants under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “I.P.C.”) and sentencing them
to life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each.
2. The facts pertinent to the case, as unfolded by the
prosecution, are that on 24.9.96 at about 10:30 A.M., Vipin
Singh Negi, Alok Chandana, Suyesh Kukreti and Rajneesh
Chhatwal were standing near the cycle stand, situated within
the campus of D.A.V. (P.G.) College, Dehradun and at the same
time, accused Dheeraj Kalra along with Rish Kumar, Som
Page 3
3
Prakash, Saurabh, Nitin @ Vippu, Bhagat and Sanjeev Kumar @
Happy armed with Lathis, Knives and Khukries reached there
and asked Vipin Singh Singh Negi and Alok Chandana to
withdraw their names from the election of Commerce Faculty of
the College. When they refused to withdraw their names from
the election, they were assaulted by the accused persons with
the help of their respective arms. As a result this assault, Alok
Chndana and Vipin Singh Negi received serious injuries. Alok
Chandana was immediately taken to Coronation Hospital by
some College students but he succumbed to his injuries on the
succeeding day. Vipin Singh Negi lodged a written complaint of
the incident at the Police Station, Dalanwala. On the strength of
his written complaint, a case was registered on the same day at
11:00 A.M. as Case Crime No.275/96 under Sections 147,
148,149, 307, 323 I.P.C., which was later converted under
Section 302 I.P.C.
3. Charges were framed against all the accused persons under
Section 148 and Section 302 read with Section 149 of I.P.C. An
additional charge was framed against accused Rishi Kumar,
Saurabh and Dheeraj under Sections 147 and 323 read with
Section 149 of I.P.C. Likewise additional charge was framed
Page 4
4
against accused Sanjeev @ Happy, Som Prakash, Nitin @ Vippu
and Bhagat under Section 302 read with Section 149 of I.P.C.
Charges were denied by all the accused persons and claimed to
be tried. Prosecution, in support of charges, have examined
Vipin Singh Negi (PW-1), Dheeraj Negi (PW-2), Suyesh Kukreti
(PW-3), Rajneesh Chatwal (PW-4), Dr. Ajay Sharma (PW-5), Dr.
C.M. Tyagi (PW-6), A.S.I. Rajendra Pal (PW- 7), Dr. Bharat
Kishore (PW-8), Mahendra Pal Sharma (PW-9), Const. 493 Anil
Kumar (PW-10), Virendra Kumar Sharma (PW-11) and Sub
Inspector Prem Pal Singh (PW-12).
4. Shri Vipin Singh Negi (P.W.-1) is an eye witness and he also
received injuries in the incident. In addition to substantiating
the prosecution version, he disclosed the specific role played by
the accused persons at the spot. He disclosed that accused
Bhagat had caused injury with his knife on the back of Alok
Chandana, accused Som Prakash caused injury on his neck
with Khukhri, accused Nitin @ Vippu caused injury below his
left eye with his Khukhri. P.W.-1 also stated that when he
strived to rescue Alok Chandna, he was caught hold by accused
Saurabh and Rishi, whereas accused Dheeraj Kalra instantly
caused head injury with a Danda. After receiving injuries, Alok
Page 5
5
Chanda ran towards canteen but fell down near the I.G.N.O.U.
building as he got tangled with the wire-fencing. Accused
Dheeraj Kalra, Saurabh and Rishi chased him and attacked
again with Dandas. About 300 students had assembled at the
place of occurrence and Alok Chandana was instantaneously
taken to the Coronation Hospital on a Motorcycle. Two students
of the College also brought Vipin Singh Negi (PW-1) to the
Coronation Hospital. Vipin Singh Negi along with Suyesh
Kukreti went to the Police Station, Dalanwala and appraised of
the incident to the Police Officer on duty and lodged a written
complaint, which was written and signed by this witness. After
registration of the case, this witness was brought to the
Coronation Hospital for medical examination. The shirt of
witness, which he was wearing at the time of incident, was taken
by the Police in their possession and a memo was prepared in
this regard and the shirt was sealed in presence of this witness.
A charge-sheet was filed by the Inspector (Police) Vikas Sharma,
against the accused persons, namely, Dheeraj Kalra, Rishi
Kumar, Saurabh, Som Prakash, Sanjeev Kumar @Happy, Nitin
@ Vippu and Bhagat Singh under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323,
307, 302 I.P.C.
Page 6
6
5. In the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Special
Judge, Anti Corruption, U.P. (East), after hearing the counsel for
the parties at length, the Court opined that there was no delay
in filing of the FIR, and the nature of FIR is that of a substantive
piece of evidence which could be used for corroboration or
contradiction. It does not require containing neither the
exhaustive details of occurrence nor a catalogue of the
particulars. The FIR was lodged within half an hour of the
occurrence and such an early reporting of the occurrence, with
all its vivid details, gives assurance regarding truth of its
version.
6. During cross-examination, the complainant has also stated
the fact that he was nervous and due to that he omitted some
details. The complainant has lodged the FIR within half an hour
on the same day. The eye witness Vipin Singh Negi (PW-1) was
also cross-examined at length, on the issue of the identity of the
accused persons. He clearly disclosed that he knew accused
Som Prakash and Rishi about one year prior to this occurrence
and also knew of the location of their residence. The statement
of P.W.1 Vipin Singh Negi has been corroborated by Suyesh
Kukreti (P.W.3). There was no contradiction in the testimonies of
Page 7
7
the abovementioned prosecution witnesses and the Sessions
Judge relied on them. The prosecution case was further
supported by the testimony of Rajeev Negi (P.W.2). The medical
examination also fully supported the case of the prosecution.
Thus, the Trial Court convicted Dheeraj Kalra, Surabh, Rishi
Kumar, Nitin @ Vippu, Som Prakash, Bhagat and Sanjeev @
Happy under Section 302 read with Section 149 of I.P.C. and
sentenced them to imprisonment for life and a fine of
Rs.10,000/- was imposed on each of them. All the accused
persons were also convicted under Section 148 of I.P.C. and
sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years. However, the
sentences were directed to run concurrently.
7. The finding of the High Court was concurrent with that of
the Court of Sessions and it cancelled the bail of the appellants
affirming the conviction and sentence of the accused persons
under Section 302 read with Section 149 and under Section 148
of I.P.C.
8. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the
appellants as also the counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. For
a proper analysis of the evidence on record, we need to examine
Page 8
8
the statements given by the prosecution and defense witnesses
in detail.
9. The injured eyewitness and complainant in the present
case is P.W.1 Vipin Singh Negi, who disclosed the specific roles
played by the accused persons in the occurrence. He disclosed
the weapons which the accused persons possessed and the
injuries sustained by the deceased and by himself. Accused
Bhagat Singh caused the injury with knife on the back of Alok
Chandana, Som Prakash caused injury on the neck with knife,
Vippu caused injury with Khukri below the left eye of Alok. In an
attempt to save Alok Chandana, P.W.1 was caught hold by
accused Saurabh and accused Dheeraj Kalra instantly caused
head injury with Danda. After receiving injuries the deceased
Alok Chandana ran towards the canteen but fell down near the
I.G.N.O.U. building as he got trapped in wire fencing. He further
stated that during the incident, about 300 students had
assembled. Thereafter, Alok Chandana was instantaneously
brought to the Coronation Hospital and P.W.1 was also taken to
the same hospital. Thereafter, P.W.1 along with Suyash Kukreti
reached the police station and a written complaint was lodged. It
was signed by P.W.1. and thereafter P.W.1 was also brought to
Page 9
9
Coronation Hospital by a constable. The shirt which P.W.1 was
wearing during the incident was seized and a memo was
prepared and the shirt was sealed. The shirt and vest of Alok
Chandana was also taken by the Police in possession for which a
memo was prepared.
10. P.W.2 Shri Rajeev Negi, is also an eye witness, who has
supported the prosecution version. He has stated in his
deposition that the incident took place on 24.9.96 at about
10:00 A.M. He was taking tea at the Canteen and saw Alok
Chandana coming towards the I.G.N.O.U building from the
Cycle Stand and after trapping into wire fencing fell down. He
was being chased by accused Saurabh, Rishi, Dheeraj Kalra and
they attacked him after he fell down. This prosecution witness
has also supported the fact of Alok Chandana being taken to the
Coronation hospital and the filing of the FIR.
11. Prosecution witness Shri Suyesh Kukreti (P.W.3) is also an
eye witness, and he has corroborated and confirmed the
statements of P.W.1.
12. Eye witness and prosecution witness Shri Rajneesh
Chatwal (P.W.4) confirmed his presence along with Alok
Page 10
10
Chandana, Vipin Singh Negi, Suyesh Kukreti near the cycle
stand on 24.9.1996 at about 10:30 A.M. however this witness
has turned hostile.
13. Medical examination was conducted by Dr. Bharat Kishore
(P.W.8) and it corroborates the prosecution story and confirmed
that the injuries of Vipin Singh Negi and Alok Chandana could
have been received on 24.9.1996 at about 10:30 A.M. He has
further stated that the injuries to Vipin Singh Negi could have
been caused by Danda and injuries to Alok Chandana could
have been caused by knife and one of his injury could have been
sustained by friction. The statement of P.W.8 gets strengthened
further by the statement of Dr. C.M. Tyagi, who conducted the
internal examination of the deceased and found the frontal bone
fractured and right lung ruptured. On external examination, Dr.
Tyagi found all the injuries as were found by Dr. Bharat Kishore
(P.W.8).
14. The accused persons have adduced evidences in their
defense. Shri P.S. Bisht (D.W.1), Office Superintendent of D.A.V.
College produced the record of the College pertaining to the year
1996-1997 and stated that accused Som Prakash and Rishi
Page 11
11
were not the students in the Commerce Faculty of D.A.V College
during 1996-1997 session.
15. Shri Jaswant Singh (D.W.2) is the Contractor in-charge of
the cycle stand from 1989 till date. He has brought to light the
timings of the classes in the College, starting at 7.55 A.M. and
continuing till 1:30 P.M. and thereafter evening classes to start
at 6:00 P.M. and continue till 8:00 P.M. He stated that he
remained present at the stand during that time and he was
present at the cycle stand during the said timings on 24.9.1996.
16. Shri Tejendra Pal Singh (D.W.3) resides just opposite the
residence of accused Saurabh. He deposed that on 24.9.1996, at
about 10:30 A.M. he saw Saurabh with his father outside his
residence and they were ready to go to their shop.
17. Shri Pravesh Kumar Nagpal (D.W.4) is the neighbour of the
accused Saurabh in the commercial premises. The shop of this
witness is situated just opposite to the shop of Saurabh’s father.
He stated that on 24.9.1996 at about 10:30 A.M., he saw
accused Saurabh with his father going to their shop. He further
stated that at 10:30 A.M. to 10:45 A.M. when he was having a
conversation with the father of the accused Saurabh, Saurabh
Page 12
12
told his father that some incident had occurred in the College
and he was going to the hospital.
18. Learned counsel for appellant Sanjeev Kumar Gupta
submitted that the Trial Court as also the High Court overlooked
the fact that the name of appellant Sanjeev Kumar Gupta was
not mentioned in the F.I.R.. P.W.1 neither mentioned his name
in the examination-in-chief nor in the F.I.R. It is only in the
cross-examination that P.W.1 has made allegation of
participation by the appellant Sanjeev Kumar Gupta. Learned
counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant has been
falsely implicated, which is evident from the fact that details of
all the accused were mentioned in the F.I.R. except accused
Sanjeev. The Trial Court and the High Court ought to have
appreciated that the prosecution story stands disproved by the
evidence of P.W.4 Rajnish Chatwal, because while the
prosecution alleges that P.W.4 had taken the deceased Alok
Chandana to the Coronation Hospital immediately after the
incident and that he had given a statement under Section 161
Cr.P.C., the said P.W.4 clearly denied the prosecution story
stating that neither he had given statement under Section 161
Cr.P.C. nor did he know any of accused persons. Furthermore,
Page 13
13
the counsel submitted that even the main witnesses (P.W.1 and
P.W.3) have stated that only four or five of the accused persons
attacked the deceased, but the Trial Court and the High Court
maintained the conviction of all seven of them. The High Court
and Trial Court should have appreciated that the evidence of
P.W.1 and P.W.3 was not trustworthy and reliable. P.W.3 himself
is named as an accused in another murder case. Regarding the
place of occurrence, the learned counsel submitted that the
prosecution story is unbelievable as, according to the
prosecution, the incident took place at two places, first near the
cycle stand and next near the I.G.N.O.U building. However, the
F.I.R. only states that the incident took place at the cycle stand.
The counsel argued that P.W.1 also stated that he was at the
cycle stand and had not gone to I.G.N.O.U building where the
deceased was stated to have fallen down. The prosecution story
that the deceased had fallen down near the I.G.N.O.U building
and was again attacked there, is untrue. In addition to that, no
witness has stated that they had seen the accused attacking the
deceased after having fallen down at the I.G.N.O.U building.
Therefore, the Trial Court erred in not considering that the
deceased could have died due to falling on the ground. The
Page 14
14
counsel submitted further that the Trial Court erred in holding
that the fact that the dying declaration of the deceased was not
recorded, was not significant. The Trial Court should have
appreciated that conviction under Sections 148/149/302 I.P.C.
was not sustainable in view of the fact that the objective of the
assembly was to threaten the deceased and the motive of
murdering Alok Chandana did not and could not arise.
19. The arguments put forward by learned counsel appearing
for appellant Dheeraj Kalra were as follows: Dr. Bharat Kishore
prepared the report of the injuries and as per the report only one
injury was found on the body of the informant. Further, the
learned counsel also questioned the absence of a dying
declaration, and the inconsistent views of the eye witnesses. The
mere refusal by the deceased and P.W.1 to withdraw their names
from the election of Commerce Faculty of College cannot be a
motive of the accused persons to commit the alleged crime under
Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC. The evidences of the
alleged crime do not connect the accused with the crime as no
weapon was recovered by the Police and the blood on the shirt of
the deceased could not be ascertained during chemical
examination, and thus, it could not be ascertained that it
Page 15
15
belonged to the deceased. The high Court and Trial Court had
wrongly disbelieved the plea of alibi, according to the counsel.
20. Learned counsel appearing for appellant Rishi Kumar,
submitted that the appellant was not armed and was not a
member of the unlawful assembly and, therefore, could not have
been convicted under Section 149 I.P.C. The F.I.R. was ante
timed. Further, P.W.1 neither stated in the F.I.R. nor in Section
161 Cr.P.C. statement that Alok Chandana, after being beaten
near the cycle stand, ran towards I.G.N.O.U. building and got
entangled in barbed wire fencing and fell down where he got
Lathi blows. This shows that there was clear improvement. He
further submitted that the Courts below failed to appreciate that
the medical evidence does not support the ocular evidence and
also failed to note the improvements made.
21. Learned counsel appearing for appellant Saurabh took the
following defenses: That the common object was missing in
respect of the present appellant; there was contradiction in the
version stated by P.W.1 in the F.I.R. and in his deposition in
Court; the credibility of P.W.1 as an eye witness is weakened by
the medical version. Further there was no test Identification
Page 16
16
Parade conducted which was imperative as there were some
members who were stated to be outsiders. P.W.1 and P.W.3 are
not consistent in their deposition. In addition to the above, the
evidences of the alleged crime do not connect with the accused
appellant as no weapon of offence was recovered by the Police
and the blood on the shirt of the deceased could not be
ascertained.
22. Learned counsel appearing for Nitin@ Vippu submitted that
the name of this appellant is mentioned in the F.I.R. without
parentage. There is no specific allegation against him of having
weapon and only a general allegation of assault is made against
him. The allegation of causing a Khukhri blow by him below the
left eye of the deceased is not supported by medical evidence.
23. The injury attributed to appellant Bhagat Singh is the knife
blow on the back of the deceased. Learned counsel appearing for
the appellant has taken similar grounds, of absence of common
object and not being part of unlawful assembly. In addition to
this, there is contradiction in the statement of P.W.1 in the F.I.R.
and his deposition in Court. Along with this the counsel has
taken the plea of contradictions in the ocular version and the
Page 17
17
medical version and the absence of a Test Identification Parade.
24. Learned counsel appearing for appellant Som Prakash took
similar grounds of defense as in the cases of abovementioned
appellants. The role attributed to Som Prakash was that he
attacked the deceased with Khukri on the neck of Alok
Chandana from behind. The additional defense taken was of no
common object being present.
25. We believe that the following issues have emerged from the
arguments put forward by the defense and from the testimonies
of the prosecution witnesses. Firstly, the place of occurrence of
the incident; Secondly, the inconsistencies in the statements
given by the prosecution witnesses in the F.I.R and their
statements in Court; Thirdly, the question of unlawful assembly
and common object being present.
26. The appellants in the present case have raised the common
defense that there has been an improvement by the prosecution
witnesses with respect to the place of occurrence of the incident.
However, from a perusal of the site map it becomes clear that
the incident originally took place near the cycle stand and on
receiving the injuries Alok Chandana (deceased) ran away from
Page 18
18
the place and fell down after 10-20 steps. Out of the seven
accused, he was chased by four accused and injuries were
caused to him by them near I.G.N.O.U building, which was
hardly 10-20 steps from the place where he fell down after
getting trapped with the wire. The veracity of the
above-mentioned distance has come forth in the
cross-examination of the witnesses. We believe a person may
presume them to be one place or two separate places. Therefore,
in our opinion, the discrepancy with respect to the place of
occurrence has no bearing on the prosecution case.
27. We believe that the testimonies of the prosecution
witnesses are consistent, on the whole, and minor discrepancies
are such that those will not weaken the prosecution case. The
prosecution witnesses have established the presence and
participation of all the accused in the offence. The medical
examination has gone further to strengthen their testimonies.
The statement of P.W.1 Vipin Singh Negi gets corroborated by
the injury report prepared by Dr. Bharat Kishore (P.W.8) of
Coronation Hospital who recorded the injuries on the person of
Vipin Singh Negi (P.W.1). Dr. Bharat Kishore found a lacerated
wound on the head of P.W.1, which supported the version of the
Page 19
19
prosecution witness. Another eyewitness P.W.3 Suyash Kukreti
has supported the version given by P.W.1. He has named all the
seven accused with respect to their presence at the cycle stand.
He has also supported P.W.1 with respect to their individual
roles played in assaulting the deceased and P.W.1. With respect
to the question of presence of the seven accused persons and the
individual role played by them, we find that there is no
inconsistency in the statements of the prosecution witnesses.
28. Coming to the question of inconsistency with the statement
given by P.W.1 in the F.I.R and the statement given in the Court,
we do not find this to be fatal to the prosecution case. We cannot
rule out the possibility of post incident trauma and shock which
might have been caused to the injured eye witness. In such a
situation one cannot expect the witness to depose about every
detail with accuracy. Further, this Court has held in a number
of cases that the testimony of an injured eye witness has to be
given much credence. Apart from this, this Court has also laid
down in Dharmendrasinh alias Mansing Ratansinh Vs.
State of Gujarat, (2002) 4 SCC 679, that when other evidence,
such as medical evidence, supports the prosecution’s case, the
difference in what is stated in the F.I.R. and in Court as regards
Page 20
20
the weapon of offence is a very insignificant contradiction. This
Court in paragraph 10 of the above-mentioned judgment
observed:
“…In this connection, the other related argument which has been raised is that in the F.I.R. P.W.3 had mentioned that the appellant had assaulted the children with an axe but later on changed her statement in the Court saying that it was by mistake she had mentioned ‘axe’ in the F.I.R. but in fact it was dharia. In our view it is a very insignificant contradiction which may not lead to any worthwhile conclusion in view of the fact that it was immaterial whether the weapon was an axe or a dharia as both are sharp-edged weapons and according to the statement of the doctor the injuries as received by the two children were caused by a sharp-edged weapon. There was thus no design or purpose in changing the statement or deliberately giving out something wrong in the first information report about the weapon used by the appellant to cause the injuries upon the deceased persons. The medical evidence supports the prosecution case in all respects. We therefore find no force in this submission as well.”
In the present case also, the testimonies of the prosecution
witnesses have been fully corroborated by the medical reports of
the doctors who examined the deceased and the injured witness.
Therefore, we hold that the testimonies of the prosecution
witnesses are fully reliable and there has been no improvement
made.
29. We do note that the investigation suffers from certain flaws
Page 21
21
such as non-recovery of the weapon used by the accused
appellants and recovery of the blood stained shirt after six days
of the date of the incident. However, merely on the basis of
these circumstances the entire case of the prosecution cannot be
brushed aside when it has been proved by medical evidence
corroborated by testimonies of the prosecution witnesses that
the deceased died a homicidal death. This Court has held in
Manjit Singh and Anr. Vs. State of Punjab and Anr., (2013)
12 SCC 746, that when there is ample unimpeachable ocular
evidence and the same has received corroboration from medical
evidence, non-recovery of blood stained clothes or even the
murder weapon does not affect the prosecution case.
30. Now, we come to the question as to whether the accused
persons formed an unlawful assembly. It is not disputed that the
accused persons were present at the site of the incident and
were armed with deadly weapons. They had shared the common
intention of stopping the deceased from contesting for the
elections. These circumstances are indicative of the fact that all
the accused persons, at that time, were the members of unlawful
assembly because their common object was to threaten and
prevent the deceased and other persons from contesting the
Page 22
22
College elections. As far as the argument regarding the absence
of a common intention to kill the deceased or the prior concert
is concerned, we are of the view that it can arise at the spur of
the moment. This Court in the case of Ramachandran and
Ors. Vs. State of Kerala, (2011) 9 SCC 257, has observed:
“17. Section 149 IPC has essentially two ingredients viz. (i) offence committed by any member of an unlawful assembly consisting of five or more members, and (ii) such offence must be committed in prosecution of the common object under Section 141 IPC) of the assembly or members of that assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of the common object. 18. For ‘common object’, it is not necessary that there should be prior concert in the sense of a meeting of the members of the unlawful assembly, the common object may form on the spur of the moment; it is enough if it is adopted by all the members and is shared by all of them.”
(Emphasis supplied)
31. We are of the view that in the present case, even if it is
assumed that there was no common object of killing, but only of
stopping the deceased and others from contesting the elections,
it cannot be ruled out that the common intention to kill might
have arisen on the spur of the moment. The actions of the
appellants and the injuries inflicted on the body of the deceased
also go to substantiate the same. We, therefore, uphold the
judgment and order passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand at
Nainital, confirming the judgment and order of the Additional
Page 23
23
Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Anti Corruption, U.P. (East),
Dehradun. Accordingly, these appeals are dismissed.
….....….……………………J (Pinaki Chandra Ghose)
….....…..…………………..J (R.K. Agrawal)
New Delhi; May 08, 2015.
Page 24
24
ITEM NO.1A COURT NO.12 SECTION II (for Judgment) 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). 507/2013 SANJEEV KUMAR GUPTA Appellant(s) VERSUS STATE OF U.P.(NOW UTTARAKHAND) Respondent(s) WITH Crl.A. No. 508/2013 Crl.A. No. 509/2013 Crl.A. No. 510/2013 Crl.A. No. 511/2013 Crl.A. No. 512/2013 Crl.A. No. 513/2013 Date : 08/05/2015 These appeals were called on for pronouncement
of judgment today. For Appellant(s) Mr. Y. Prabhakara Rao, Adv.
Mr. K.T.S. Tulsi, Sr. Adv. Mr. R.S. Suri, Sr. Adv. Mr. A. Sharan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Nagendra Rai, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rahul Malhotra, Adv. Mr. Avinash Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Chanchal Kumar Ganguli, Adv. Ms. Aprajita Mukherjee, Adv.
Mr. Umang Shankar, Adv. Mr. M. C. Dhingra, Adv.
Mr. Rajesh Sachdeva, Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Aditya Singh, Adv. Mr. Jatinder Kumar Bhatia, Adv.
Mr. Jatinder Kumar Sethi, Adv. Mr. Umesh Arora, Adv.
Mr. Prem Prakash, Adv. Dr. Abhishek Atrey, Adv.
Mr. Ashutosh Kr. Sharma, Adv. Mr. Sumit Rajora, Adv.
Page 25
25
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pinaki Chandra Ghose pronounced the reportable judgment of the Bench comprising His Lordship and Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.K. Agrawal.
The appeals are dismissed in terms of the signed reportable judgment.
(R.NATARAJAN) (SNEH LATA SHARMA) Court Master Court Master
(Signed reportable judgment is placed on the file)