Indrapal Singh vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh on 21 September, 2021


Try out our Premium Member services: Virtual Legal Assistant, Query Alert Service and an ad-free experience. Free for one month and pay only if you like it.

Supreme Court of India

Indrapal Singh vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh on 21 September, 2021

Author: Hon’Ble Dr. Chandrachud

Bench: Hon’Ble Dr. Chandrachud, Vikram Nath, B.V. Nagarathna

                                                                               NON-REPORTABLE

                                         IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                                     CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                    CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.313-314/2020



                         INDRAPAL SINGH AND OTHERS                         ……..APPELLANT(S)

                                                             VS.

                         STATE OF U.P.                                    …...RESPONDENT(S)



                                                  J U D G M E N T

NAGARATHNA J.

These appeals have been preferred by the

three appellants-accused being aggrieved by the

impugned judgment and order dated 31.07.2018

passed by the High Court of Judicature at

Allahabad in Criminal Appeal Nos.2095 of 1998 and

Criminal Appeal No.2177 of 1998. The High court

dismissed the aforesaid appeals, and confirmed

the judgment and order dated 28.09.1998 in

Sessions Trial No. 10/96 passed by the Second

Additional Sessions Judge, Jalaun at Orai, by

which, the accused-appellants were convicted for

the offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal

Signature Not Verified Code, 1860 (for short, the’IPC’) against Atar
Digitally signed by
Sanjay Kumar
Date: 2021.09.21
15:43:36 IST
Reason:

Singh, Shivpal Singh and Keshbhan Singh and have

been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. They

1
have also been convicted under Section 302 read

with Section 34 of IPC.

2. The case of the Prosecution is that Exb.

Ka-1 is the written report made by the

complainant Yashwant Singh to the Police Station

Jalaun. According to the complainant on

22.10.1995, at about 11:00 a.m., complainant’s

brothers, viz., Atar Singh and his two nephews

Keshbhan Singh and Shivpal Singh were carrying

water from the drain (Gul) below the Babool tree

to their field known as “7 Bhigas of land”

through a pump set and tractor for irrigation of

the aforesaid land. The incident took place near

the drain (Gul) under the Babool tree adjacent to

complainant’s field when Raj Bahadur Singh, Inder

Pal and Surender Pal Singh and Ram Pal Singh

alias Raja Beta came to the complainant‘s field

from the village. Inder Pal Singh was armed with

his licensed rifle and Ram Pal alias Raja Beta

and Surender Pal Singh were armed with their half

gun (Addhi guns) of 315 bore. As soon as they

came there, Raj Bahadur Singh exhorted his sons,

“there is a good opportunity today, kill them”.

Thereupon, Inder Pal Singh fired gunshots at Atar

Singh and Shivpal Singh, as a result of which,

both died instantly. On hearing the sound of the

gunshots, the complainant’s nephew namely,

Keshbhan Singh came running towards the field and
2
Ram Pal Singh alias Raja Beta fired gunshot

towards him and as a result, he fell down and

died on the spot.

3. According to the complainant, at the time of

the incident, he and his nephews Narendar Pal

Singh and Shiv Sagar Singh and a servant Jawahar

Lal S/o Chhadami and Babu Singh S/o Mukut Singh

were standing near the pump set and tractor and

they all witnessed the incident. The Complainant

and all the witnesses were standing in fear as

the gun shots were fired to threaten them. After

killing the aforesaid three individuals, all the

accused went away towards the village saying,

“they had settled the score of their personal and

electoral enmity”. According to the complainant,

the dead bodies of the three deceased viz., Atar

Singh, Keshbhan Singh and Shivpal Singh, were

lying on the spot. Therefore, the complainant

requested that the report be lodged and

appropriate action be taken on receipt of the

Complainant’s First Information Report (FIR).

4. Report of the incident (FIR) (Exb. Ka-1) was

lodged at Police Station Kotwali at Orai,

District Jalaun, as Case Crime No. 817/95 under

Sections 302 and 302/34 IPC against the four

accused on the same day.

3

5. Sri C.B. Singh, Station House Officer (PW-

8) was entrusted with the investigation and he

proceeded to the spot and prepared Punchnama of

the three dead bodies i.e. exhibits Ka-37, Ka-

38 and Ka-39. On completion of the requisite

formalities including sealing of blood stained

soil, empty cartridges, preparing the Inventory

etc., Investigating Officer (IO) sent all the

three dead bodies to the District Hospital for

post-mortem. Autopsy on the dead bodies of the

deceased was conducted by PW4 Dr. M.C. Mittal,

on 23.10.1995 and he submitted the post-mortem

report. Thereafter, statements of the witnesses

were recorded by the IO (PW8). On receipt of the

post-mortem report, forensic report and recording

of statements of witnesses and collecting

evidence, the IO submitted charge-sheet against

the accused-appellants under Section 302 read

with Section 34 of the IPC before the Court of

the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalaun, Orai. The

concerned Magistrate committed the case to the

Court of Sessions.

6. The accused appeared before the Sessions

Court and they were charged under Section 302

read with Section 34 of the IPC for committing

murder of Atar Singh, Shivpal Singh and Keshbhan

Singh. Accused-appellant Ram Pal Singh alias Raja

4
Beta was charged under Section 302/34 of IPC for

committing the offence against Keshbhan Singh. He

was further charged under Section 302 read with

Section 34 IPC for committing the offence against

Atar Singh and Shivpal Singh. The other accused-

appellant Inder Pal Singh was charged under

Section 302 IPC for committing the offence

against Atar Singh and Shiv Pal Singh. Further,

in relation to Keshbhan Singh, he was charged

under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the

IPC. All the accused-appellants pleaded ‘not

guilty’ and claimed to be tried.

7. The prosecution examined eight witnesses as

PW1 to PW8. PW1 Yashwant Singh and PW2 Narendra

Pal Singh were eye-witnesses of the incident.

Thereafter statement under Section 313 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, the

‘Cr.P.C’) was recorded. Accused-appellant Raj

Bahadur claimed the prosecution story was false

and he had been falsely implicated due to enmity

since the father of the complainant-Yashwant

Singh had deprived his son (Yashwant Singh) of

property by making a ‘Will’ in favour of deceased

Atar Singh. Also, the accused Raj Bahadur Singh

was a witness against Yashwant Singh in a case

filed by him. Similarly, Surender Pal Singh,

Chander Pal Singh and Ram Pal Singh alias Raja

5
Beta also stated that the prosecution story was

only to implicate them on account of the ‘Will’

executed by the father of the complainant.

8. The Trial Court, on the basis of oral

evidence and upon perusal of the material on

record, convicted and sentenced the accused-

appellants as stated above. The trial court found

that date, time and place of the incident, the

manner in which the incident had taken place and

implication of the accused persons in respect of

charges leveled against them had been duly proved

by the prosecution. Accordingly, they were found

guilty and sentenced.

9. Being aggrieved by their conviction and

sentence the appellants accused filed their

appeals before the High Court. Criminal Appeal

No. 2095/1998 was preferred by the accused-

appellants viz., Inder Pal Singh and Ram Pal

Singh alias Raja Beta. Criminal Appeal No. 2177

of 1998 was preferred by the accused Raj Bahadur

Singh and Surender Pal Singh. The High Court of

Allahabad on considering the arguments of the

respective counsel and the material on record,

dismissed the appeals. Being aggrieved, the

accused-appellants except the accused Raj Bahadur

Singh, have approached this Court.

6

10. We have heard Sri Divyesh Pratap Singh,

learned counsel appearing for the appellants and

Sri Dhirendra Singh Parmar, learned counsel

appearing for the respondent-State. We have

perused the material on record as well as the

Original Record.

11. Learned counsel for the appellants at the

outset contended that the post mortem reports at

Exbs. Ka-2, Ka12 and Ka-22 do not have the FIR

number on them. In fact, there was no FIR

registered until the post mortem was conducted on

the dead bodies. Initially, the case was

registered only against Jaswant Singh who is not

the accused at all. It was next contended that

there is inconsistency in the testimony of PW1

and PW2 who are examined as the eye witnesses by

the prosecution. Also, the complainant (PW1) has

tried to make improvements in the case of

prosecution. It was contended that the impugned

judgment of the High Court and that of the

Sessions Court may be set aside and the accused

may be acquitted of all the charges against them.

12. Learned Counsel for the appellant placed

reliance on three judgments of this Court in the

case of Parvat Singh Vs. the State of Madhya

Pradesh – (2020) 4 SCC 33 (Parvat Singh); Chet

7
Ram Vs. the State of Uttarakhand – (2014) 13 SCC

105 (Chet Ram); and Suresh & Anr. Vs. the State

of UP – (2001) 3 SCC 673 (Suresh).

13. This Court in Parvat Singh held that there

cannot be a conviction when the evidence and the

deposition of the sole eye-witness was found full

of material contradictions, omissions and

improvements and therefore the accused were

given the benefit of doubt. Relying on the

aforesaid decision, it was contended that the

evidence of PW1 and PW2 stated to be the eye-

witnesses is not consistent and that there are

attempts made for improvement in the case of the

prosecution when compared to the material on

record in the form of complainant’s statement,

etc., recorded prior to the commencement of the

trial, under Section 161 Cr.P.C.

14. It was contended that in the aforesaid case

it was found that there were material

contradictions and improvement in the statement

of the informant as well as the depositions

before the court below qua the accused therein

and that there was a prior enmity and no other

independent witness has supported the case of the

prosecution. Therefore, the accused were entitled

to be given the benefit of doubt. The same

approach may be adopted in the instant case also.
8

15. It was further urged that in the case of

Chetram Section 302 read with Section 34 of the

IPC were invoked, against the appellant therein

viz. Chetram. This court found that in the

complaint, no role was assigned to the Accused

No.2 Chetram in the attack made on Udairaj during

the occurrence. In the said case, PW1 Dharam

Singh was examined by the Investigation Officer

and in the statement also PW1 Dharam Singh had

not stated that Accused No.2 Chetram had caught

hold of his brother Udairaj. In fact, during the

cross-examination PW1 Dharam Singh had admitted

the same. In the said case, this Court found that

the solitary eye-witness to the occurrence of the

incident, PW1 therein in his testimony to the

occurrence was an improvement given by him in the

FIR which attributed an overt act to the accused-

Chetram in the incident. Further no role was

assigned to Chetram in the statement by PW1 under

Section 161 of Cr.P.C before the Investigating

Officer. But for the first time, in his

deposition before the court, he had stated that

Chetram also had a role in the incident. In the

circumstances, this court had a suspicion about

the overt act of Chetram in the said case.

Therefore, reliance was not placed on the

testimony of PW1 Dharam Singh as regards the

9
involvement of Chetram in the incident in the

said case. Even though the same was a case of

homicidal death, the involvement of appellant

Chetram in the said case being doubtful, the

benefit of doubt was given to him. It was

contended that the aforesaid judgment would

squarely apply in the case of accused Surendra

Pal Singh.

16. Suresh, is also a case under Section 302

read with Section 34 of the IPC. This court

relied upon the judgments of the Privy Council in

Barendra Kumar Ghose AIR 1925 PC1 and Mahbub Shah

vs. Emperor AIR 1945 PC118 and also a three Judge

Bench decision of this Court in the case of

Pandurang vs. State of Hyderabad (AIR 1955 SCC

216) in the said case. This Court opined that to

attract the applicability of section 34 of the

IPC the prosecution is under an obligation to

establish that there existed a common intention

which requires a prearranged plan. That before a

man can be vicariously convicted for the criminal

act of another, the act must have been done in

furtherance of the common intention of all. In

the absence of a prearranged plan and thus a

common intention, even if several persons

simultaneously attack the man each one of them

would be individually liable for whatever injury

10
he caused and none could be vicariously convicted

for the act of any or the other. Thus, it is

necessary either to have direct proof of prior

concert or proof of circumstances which

necessarily lead to that inference and

incriminating facts must be incompatible with

the innocence of the accused and incapable of

explanation or any other reasonable hypothesis.

17. Learned counsel for the appellants towards

the end of his argument restricted his

submissions to the case of the appellant Surender

Pal Singh by contending that if this Court comes

to the conclusion that there was no common

intention between the accused even then the

appeal may be considered favorably in so far as

the accused Surender Pal is concerned as no overt

act has been attributed to him in the complaint.

18. Per contra, Sri Dhirendra Singh Parmar,

learned counsel appearing for the respondent-

State, supported the case of the prosecution as

well as the judgment impugned in these appeals

and contended that the complaint has been filed

not only on the basis of Section 302 but also on

the basis of Section 34 of the IPC. Hence, the

case of the accused Surender Pal Singh cannot be

segregated and considered separately for

acquittal.

11

19. He further emphasised the fact that the

accused were carrying weapons and there is no

other reason which has been brought out by the

accused so as to explain that they were not

carrying the weapons for any other purpose except

with a common intention to commit the offences

for which they were rightly charged. It was,

further, submitted that the evidence of PW1 and

PW2 the eye-witnesses, is consistent and

therefore it cannot be said that PW1 has tried to

improve the case of the prosecution than what was

stated in the complaint by him. It was also

pointed out from the original record that the FIR

No.817/1995 was found on the post mortem reports.

20. Learned counsel for the respondent-State

contended that the case of the prosecution was

found trustworthy and reliable and there are no

material contradictions and no improvement in the

case of the prosecution.

21. Learned counsel for the respondent-State

drew our attention to the relevant portions of

the judgment of the High Court to contend that

there has been no error in confirming the

judgment of conviction and order of punishment

awarded by the Sessions Court in the instant

case.

12

22. We have given our anxious consideration to

the arguments of the respective counsel and

perused the material on record as well as the

original record.

23. It is in light of aforesaid decisions relied

upon, the case of the appellants-accused shall be

considered as per the contentions raised at the

Bar. We have re-appreciated the evidence on

record vis-a-vis the issue regarding the common

intention.

24. Prior to deliberating on contentions

advanced at the Bar, it will be useful to note

that Dr. M.C. Mittal (PW4), who conducted the

autopsy on the three dead-bodies, had noted

gunshot injuries on various parts of the bodies

of the deceased, namely, Atar Singh, Shiv Pal

Singh and Keshbhan Singh. The details of the ante

mortem injuries as reflected in Exbs. Ka-2, Ka12

and Ka-22 have been noted by the High Court

during the course of its judgment. It is only

after the receipt of the post mortem reports of

the three deceased that the IO (PW8) submitted

the charge-sheet against the appellants accused

under Section 302 read with section 302/34 of the

IPC.

13

25. The High Court has narrated in detail the

relationship between the parties and found that

the deceased Atar Singh was the brother of

Yashwant Singh (PW1) and two other deceased

namely, Keshbhan Singh and Shiv Pal Singh were

nephews of PW1. PW2 is the brother of deceased

Keshbhan Singh and Shiv Pal Singh. Further, Shiv

Pal Singh is the son of deceased Atar Singh. In

other words, Keshbhan Singh and Shiv Pal Singh

were the children of Atar Singh, all three of

whom died in the incident. Yashwant Singh (PW1)

is the complainant while Narender Pal Singh (PW2)

is the another son of Atar Singh. That the

complainant and the deceased had a common

ancestor named Raghubir Singh. Raj Bahadur Singh

(Accused No. 1) was the father of Inder Pal Singh

(Accused no. 2) and Surender pal Singh (Accused

no.3) and grand uncle of Ram Pal Singh (Accused

no.4).

26. We have re-examined the matter in the

backdrop of the contentions urged and material on

record in the context of inconsistencies and

improvements said to have been made by the

prosecution during the course of evidence. Exb.

Ka 1 is the complaint given by Yashwant Singh

(PW1) stating that on 22.10.1995 at about 11 AM,

he and his brother Atar Singh and two nephews
14
Keshbhan Singh and Shiv Pal Singh were taking

water from the drain (Gul) to their field

comprising of seven bighas of land by way of pump

set for irrigation. At that time Rajbahadur Singh

(A-1), Inder Pal Singh (A-2), Surender Pal Singh

(A-3) and Ram Pal Singh alias Raja Beta (A-4)

reached complainant’s field and Inder Pal was

armed with licensed rifle and Rampal Singh alias

Raja Beta and Surender Pal Singh were armed with

their Addhi guns of 315 bore. Raj Bahadur Singh

(A-1) exhorted his sons Inder Pal Singh (A-2) and

Surender Pal Singh (A-3) that there was a good

opportunity on that day to kill them. Thereupon,

Inder Pal Singh fired gunshots at Atar Singh and

Shiv Pal Singh as a result of which they died

instantly. On hearing the gunshots, complainant’s

nephew Keshbhan Singh came running towards the

field. Ram Pal Singh alias Raja Beta (A-4) fired

gunshots at him too and as a result, he fell down

and died on the spot itself. It is further stated

that at the time of the incident, the complainant

and his nephews Narender Pal Singh and Shiv Sagar

Singh were standing near the pump set and tractor

and they witnessed the incident; that they were

in fear on account of firing of gunshots to

threaten them. The complainant further states

that after killing the three individuals, the

four accused went away towards the village
15
saying, “they had settled the scores of the

personal and electoral enmity against deceased

Atar Singh, Keshbhan Singh and Shiv Pal Singh”.

27. The complainant Yashwant Singh (PW1) has

stated in his deposition that on the relevant

date, he was sitting on the trolley of the

tractor and Raj Bahadur Singh was armed with the

Danda (Stick), Inder Pal Singh was armed with 315

rifle of bore, Surender Pal Singh was armed with

Addhi rifle 315 bore, Ram Pal Singh alias Raja

Beta was armed with Addhi rifle 315 bore and when

they were coming towards him and on being

accosted, they fired shots with a weapon and

killed Atar Singh and Shiv Pal Singh. On hearing

the sound of gunshot, Keshbhan Singh came to the

spot and at the distance of 8 to 10 steps, Ram

Pal Singh alias Raja Beta fired from his weapon

at him and killed him. The accused then fled

towards their village; that there was an ensuing

election of Pradhanship and there was a rivalry

between Birender Singh and Inder Pal Singh that

the deceased had fielded Birender Singh in the

elections and when Inder Pal Singh had told them

to withdraw Birender Singh from contesting the

elections, they denied to do so. In the

elections, Inder Pal Singh and Birender Singh

lost and Niranjan had won and thus there was

16
animosity between the deceased and the accused.

There was also a property dispute with regard to

a house and a field as well as a rivalry in the

transport business between them. We do not find

anything contradictory in the case of the

prosecution elicited in the cross-examination of

PW1.

28. Similarly, PW2 Narender Pal Singh has stated

that on the relevant day at around 11 AM he was

getting “Seven Bigha field” irrigated and at that

time, apart from him his father Atar Singh,

brothers Shiv Pal Singh, Keshbhan Singh, Shiv

Sagar Singh, and his uncles Yashwant Singh and

Babu Singh were sitting beneath the Babool tree

and watching. Keshbhan Singh had gone to Bambi

(Small Channel). Narender Pal Singh has stated

that he was monitoring the irrigation process

standing near the tractor trolley. Just at that

time, Rajbahadur singh armed with danda, Inder

Pal Singh armed with 315 bore licensed rifle and

Surender Pal Singh armed with 315 bore Addhi

rifle came from the village. Ram Pal Singh alias

Raja beta was also armed with 315 bore semi

barrel gun. When they reached near Rameshwar’s

field, Raj Bahadur Singh stated what they were

waiting for, enemy was there and to kill them. On

this, Inder Pal Singh and Surender Pal Singh

17
began to fire at Atar Singh and Shiv Pal Singh

with their rifle, namely, 315 bore rifle semi

barrel gun. They fell down on being fired at

them. At that time brother Keshbhan Singh came

running from the Bambi on hearing the sound of

firing and Ram Pal Singh alias Rajabeta shot 315

bore semi barrel gun on Keshbhan Singh and he

also fell down in Rameshwar’s field and died. It

is further stated that when they challenged the

accused, Inder Pal Singh fired one gunshot at

them and warned that if they came towards them

they would also be killed. Accused Inder Pal

Singh also stated that “we have realized our

enmity”. Atar Singh, Shiv Pal Singh and Keshbhan

Singh had died after a few minutes and Yashwant

Singh (PW1) headed to the police station.

29. The deposition of PW1 and PW2 in our view is

consistent and coherent. They have withstood the

cross-examination of the defence and we do not

find anything contrary or incriminating which has

been elicited against the case of the

prosecution.

30. Learned Counsel for the appellants attempted

to point out that there were some discrepancies

with regard to the recording of the statement of

PW1, in that he had not written that Surender Pal

Singh had opened fire and therefore there was an
18
improvement sought to be made in the case of the

prosecution, through the evidence of PW1 inasmuch

as he has stated that Surender Pal also fired

gunshots along with Inder Pal Singh which was not

so. However, PW1 has stated in his cross-

examination that he had mentioned the said fact

to the police who recorded the complaint. Hence,

we do not find any substance in the contention of

the learned counsel for the appellants-accused

that there was an attempt to improve the case of

the prosecution than what had been actually

mentioned in the complaint Exb.ka1 and the FIR

Exb. Ka-34.

31. In fact, a cumulative reading of the

evidence of PW1 and PW2 along with other material

evidence on record would clearly point to the

fact that Section 34 of the IPC was rightly

invoked along with Section 302 vis-a-vis the

accused. This is particularly so on account of

there being no contra evidence on behalf of the

defence to explain as to why they all went

together to the spot with fire-arms and shot at

the deceased. On the other hand, the antecedent

enmity between the accused and the victims as

narrated in detail by PW-1 clearly brings out the

fact that there existed a common intention on the

part of the accused inasmuch as they went

19
together armed with guns in broad day light to

the land where the victims were engaged in

irrigation. Also the manner in which the crime

was executed clearly establishes a concerted

action on part of the accused. Hence, we find

that the contention raised by the learned counsel

for the accused-appellants is without substance

and in fact, it is contrary to the evidence on

record.

32. As far as the submission of learned counsel

for the accused-appellant vis-a-vis Surender Pal

Singh is concerned, we do not think that though

in the complaint no overt act has been expressly

attributed to Surender Pal Singh as such, it

cannot be ignored that PW1 as well as PW2 have

categorically stated in their evidence that Inder

Pal Singh and Surender Pal Singh fired shots with

their weapons and killed Atar Singh and Shiv Pal

Singh. PW2, another eye-witness, has also stated

that Inder Pal Singh and Surender Pal Singh began

firing at Atar Singh and Shiv Pal Singh with bore

315 rifle and semi barrel gun respectively. It is

also established that Surendra Pal Singh was also

carrying a half gun (Addhi gun). This consistent

testimony of PW1 and PW2 demolishes the case

sought to be made out against Surender Pal Singh.

It is also noted that the FIR clearly mentioned

20
that Rajbahadur Singh accompanied by the three

appellants who were carrying fire arms, came to

the field of Informant-PW1 and on the exhortation

of Rajbahadur Singh (Accused no. 1), the other

accused fired from the respective fire arms

(Rifles). In the circumstances, we are not

persuaded to take a different view of the matter

vis-a-vis Surender Pal Singh than what has been

taken by the High Court. Hence, it cannot be said

that no overt act could have been attributed vis-

a-vis Surender Pal Singh.

33. It is further observed that the accused have

not taken any plea of alibi under Section 313

Cr.P.C. Statement except denying every question

put to them. They only explained that there was

an enmity on account of a succession dispute in

respect of property of Raghubir Singh, father of

PW1 who, through a “Will”, had given the entire

property to deceased Atar Singh and therefore,

Yashwant Singh (PW1) had falsely implicated the

accused, as per the statement given by Rajbahadur

Singh.

34. The evidence on record, particularly, the

ocular testimony of PW1 and PW2 made it clear

that the three victims sustained injuries on

account of the use of the fire arms against them

which was on the exhortation of the fourth
21
accused Rajbahadur Singh. The High Court has also

found that Surender Pal Singh did not have any

separate defence so as to make a dent in the case

of the prosecution as far as he was concerned.

35. There is no explanation by the defence as to

why all the four assailants came together and

three of them were with fire-arms and Rajbahadur

Singh had a Danda (Stick) with him. The incident

occurred in broad-day light and the complaint

given by PW1 within two hours of the incident

could not be an exact narration of the incident

with minute details, but the FIR contained

ingredients so as to register an FIR under

section 302 and Section 302 read with Section 34

against all the accused. The fact that PW1 and

PW2 were related would not in any way discredit

their evidence as the same is consistent.

36. The High Court also found that as per “GD”,

the IO along with police personnel had visited

the site of the incident at about 12.40 PM and

had collected blood-stained cloth, empty

cartridges and prepared the Punchnama as per Exb.

Ka-37, Ka-38 and Ka-39 that there is no

discrepancy with regard to the date, time and

place of the incident which occurred on

22.10.1995 and all the accused were arrested on

22.10.1995 and that a licensed rifle with five
22
live cartridges were also recovered from the

possession of the accused Inder Pal Singh.

37. We also do not find any substance in the

contentions raised by learned counsel for the

appellants-accused vis-a-vis the evidence of IO

(PW8).

38. We do not think that the aforesaid judgments

are applicable to the case at hand for the

reasons we have assigned above.

39. In the result, we do not find any merit in

these appeals and we uphold the conviction of the

appellants. These appeals are dismissed

accordingly.

40. However, Inder Pal Singh (A-1) was granted

remission by the Governor of Uttar Pradesh vide

order dated 19.11.2013. Vide order dated

07.01.2019 passed by this Court, he was also

granted exemption from surrendering.

41. By Order dated 16.03.2020, the appellant Ram

Pal Singh was granted bail.

42. Application from exemption from surrendering

on behalf of Surender Pal Singh (A-3) was

rejected by this Court on 07.01.2019.

23

43. We direct the appellant Ram Pal Singh to

surrender before the concerned jail authority

forthwith to serve the remainder of the sentence.

The bail bond stands cancelled.

44. Since, the appellant, Inder Pal Singh (A-1)

was granted remission, he need not surrender

before the concerned jail authority and his

sentence is reduced to the period already

undergone.

45. In view of the dismissal of the above

appeals, all pending interlocutory applications,

if any, stand disposed.

……………………………………J
[L. NAGESWARA RAO]

..……………………………………….J
[B.R. GAVAI]

…………………………………………J
[B.V. NAGARATHNA]

NEW DELHI;

SEPTEMBER 21, 2021.

24



Source link