Karan Singh vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh on 2 March, 2022
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
Karan Singh vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh on 2 March, 2022
Author: Hon’Ble Ms. Banerjee
Bench: Hon’Ble Ms. Banerjee, J.K. Maheshwari
1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. ………….. OF 2022
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.717 of 2020)
KARAN SINGH …Appellant(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. ...Respondent(s)
JUDGMENT
Indira Banerjee, J.
Leave granted.
2. This Appeal is against a judgment and order dated 30 th July
2018 passed by a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court,
dismissing Criminal Appeal No. 1813 of 1983 filed by the
Appellant along with other accused persons, against a judgment
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Chetan Kumar
and order of conviction dated 1 st August 1983 passed by the VI
Date: 2022.03.02
17:00:31 IST
Reason:
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Shahjahanpur in Sessions
2
Trial No. 268 of 1981, inter alia, convicting the Appellant of the
offences under Section 302 read with Section 149, Section 307
read with Section 149 and Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code
(hereinafter referred to as “the IPC”) and sentencing him, inter
alia, to life imprisonment for offence punishable under Section
302 read with Section 149 of the IPC.
3. It appears that the Appellant had been granted bail by the
Trial Court by an order dated 13th June 1980. The High Court
also granted bail to the Appellant during the entire period of the
appeal. The Appellant was taken into custody on 9 th September
2019 after dismissal of his appeal by the High Court.
4. It is the case of the Prosecution that on 8th April 1980, at
about 12:15 P.M., one Rati Pal arrived at Kaanth Police Station
and filed a complaint alleging that eight days before Holi, one
Rajkumar Singh had purchased a buffalo from his elder brother
Brahmapal Singh at the price of Rs. 1,900/-.
5. The said Rajkumar had promised to pay the price of the
buffalo to the complainant’s elder brother, Brahmapal Singh,
eight days after Holi.
6. Rajkumar Singh, however, did not pay the price of the
buffalo to the complainant’s elder brother, Brahmapal Singh as
3
promised. Brahmapal Singh did not permit Rajkumar Singh to
harvest his crops.
7. On 7th April 1980, Rajkumar Singh asked Brahmapal Singh
to come to Simra Khera the next day, that is, 8 th April 1980, to
collect his money.
8. On 8th April 1980, the complainant’s cousin brother,
Mahendra Singh came to the complainant’s house and asked
Brahmapal Singh to go to Simra Khera with him to collect his
money from Rajkumar Singh after settling accounts with him.
Thereafter, the complainant’s brother-in-law (Shreepal Singh),
Brahmapal Singh, the complainant, a villager Badshah Singh
and Mahendra Singh went to Simra Khera. They went to the
house of Sher Singh Thakur and sat on a cot in the sitting area.
9. Mahendra Singh called Rajkumar Singh, who came with a
rifle in his hand along with the Appellant, Karan Singh, who was
also armed with a rifle, Sukhlal armed with a single barrel gun,
Jagdish Singh armed with a single barrel gun, Harpal Singh
armed with a single barrel gun and Nankoo Singh armed with a
double barrel gun.
10. At about 9:00 A.M., Brahmapal Singh asked for his money.
Harpal Singh asked Rajkumar Singh to discharge his debt to
4
Brahmapal Singh as soon as possible. At this, Rajkumar Singh
opened fire with his rifle and shot Brahmapal Singh. The bullet
hit his head. Brahmapal Singh fell down unconscious.
11. Thereafter, the associates of Rajkumar Singh, that is,
Harpal Singh, Karan Singh, Jagdish Singh, Sukhpal Singh and
Nankoo Singh opened fire from their respective weapons. After
the associates of Rajkumar Singh opened fire, the complainant,
Badshah Singh, Shreepal Singh and Mahendra Singh ran away
from the spot. Out of the shots fired from the side of the
accused, one shot hit Mahendra Singh. The complainant and
other eyewitnesses ran into Sher Singh Thakur’s house. When
they returned to the place of occurrence, they found Brahmapal
Singh dead.
12. After the FIR was lodged, the Investigating Officer
investigated the case and after completion of investigation
submitted chargesheet against the accused persons Rajkumar
Singh, Harpal Singh, Jagdish Singh, Karan Singh, Sukhlal Singh
and Nankoo Singh under Sections 148, 302/149 and 307/149 of
the IPC.
13. The Fifth Prosecution Witness (PW5) Dr. P. K. Gupta who
had conducted the post mortem examination of the dead body
of the deceased found several gunshot injuries on the body.
5
14. The Appellant and other accused persons were tried by the
Sessions Court. The prosecution examined six witnesses,
namely, the first Prosecution Witness, Dr. R.N. Rastogi (PW1),
Rati Pal Singh (PW2), Shreepal Singh (PW3), Mahendra Singh
(PW4), Dr. P.K. Gupta (PW5) and the Investigating Officer (IO)
Jagdish Singh (PW6).
15. By a judgment and order dated 1 st August 1983, the Trial
Court convicted the accused persons, inter alia, for murder and
sentenced them, inter alia, to undergo life imprisonment.
16. The Trial Court found the testimonies of the eye-witnesses
were reliable. The Trial Court further found there was motive to
kill the deceased and this was proved by the witnesses
produced by the Prosecution. All accused persons had come to
the spot with deadly weapons with intention to kill the
deceased. All the accused had fired on the deceased with their
firearms, as a result of which the deceased had sustained 16
bullet injuries.
17. As observed above, the Appellant along with other
convicted persons filed Criminal Appeal No. 1813 of 1983 which
has been dismissed by the High Court by the judgment and
order under appeal. While the appeal was pending before the
6
High Court, five out of six accused persons died. Only the
Appellant is alive.
18. The High Court did not find any major contradiction either
in the evidence of the witnesses or any conflict in medical or
ocular evidence, which could tilt the balance in favour of the
Appellant. The High Court observed that minor discrepancies
and/or improvements and/or embellishments were insignificant
and ought to be ignored in view of the overwhelming
corroborative evidence of the other witnesses.
19. Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, learned Senior Counsel appearing on
behalf of the Appellant submitted that the police recovered two
articles which were produced in evidence. They produced
blood-stained clothes of the injured witness Mahender Singh
marked as Exhibit Ka-13 and the blood-stained mud and normal
mud recovered from the alleged site of the incident which is
marked as Exhibit Ka-12. Mr. Sinha argued that there was no
recovery of the weapon of crime.
20. The 11 exhibits tendered in evidence were (i) Medical
Report of injuries sustained by the injured witness Mahender
Singh, (ii) The complaint made by the complainant to the
Investigating Officer, (iii) Post Mortem Report of the deceased,
(iv) Pallets recovered from the body of the deceased, (v)
7
Incident Report entered by the constable on the basis of the FIR,
(vi) Case diary submitted by the I.O., (vii) Panchnama etc., (viii)
Site plan of the place of occurrence, (ix) Sample of blood-stained
mud and normal mud collected from the site by the I.O., (x)
Blood-stained clothes of the injured witness Mahender Singh and
(xi) Chargesheet drawn by the police upon conclusion of
investigation, as is evident from the records.
21. The Prosecution, as observed, had examined six
Prosecution Witnesses namely, Dr. R.N. Rastogi (PW1), Ratipal
Singh (PW2), Shreepal Singh (PW3), Mahendra Singh (PW4), Dr.
P.K. Gupta (PW5) and Jagdish Singh (Investigating Officer).
22. Mr. Sinha submitted that it was the case of the Prosecution
that there was dispute between the prime accused Rajkumar
Singh and the deceased Brahmapal Singh over the price of
buffalo for which Brahmapal Singh stopped Rajkumar Singh from
harvesting his crops. There was no dispute or enmity between
the Appellant and the deceased.
23. Mr. Sinha further argued that it has been alleged that of
the six accused persons, Rajkumar Singh and Karan Singh were
carrying rifles with them, the others carried single/double guns.
However, the witnesses did not see any of the other accused
8
persons except Rajkumar Singh firing at the deceased. There
is, therefore, no eye-witness against Karan Singh.
24. Mr. Sinha argued that no weapon alleged to have been
used by the Appellant was either recovered or produced by the
police in course of trial. Mr. Sinha argued that the main injured
witness Mahendra Singh had testified that he had not seen the
Appellant at the spot when the incident took place. The
Prosecution has not declared this witness hostile but relied upon
on his evidence.
25. Mr. Sinha further argued that it is alleged that injured
witness Mahender Singh is a relative of the Appellant Karan
Singh. This is contrary to the admission of the complainant as
contained in the FIR itself. Mr. Sinha argued that Mahender
Singh is not a relative of Karan Singh but a close relative of Rati
Pal and Brahmapal Singh.
26. Mr. Sinha further argued that medical examination of the
injured witness Mahender Singh and the post mortem report of
the deceased Brahmapal Singh revealed that all the injuries
inflicted on both the persons were gunshot injuries. No injury
has been caused from the rifle. The body of the deceased
contained pellets fired from the gun. There is no injury caused
by bullets fired from rifle.
9
27. Mr. Sinha argued that the Investigating Officer had stated
that there was no recovery of any empty cartridge or bullet from
the site. No scattered gun pellets were recovered from the site.
There was no witness from the village even though the village
had a population of 700-800 people. The villagers had only
stated that they had heard of the incident.
28. Mr. Sinha argued that the Trial Court had in its judgment
recorded that “since Raj Kumar fired a shot from rifle & his
companions were armed with guns, therefore the witnesses got
panicked & they never tried to know the truth that whether in
reality the bullet of rifle ever hit Brahmapal or not. The best
witness to state this reality could have been deceased
Brahmapal himself that whether the bullet fired by Rajkumar
ever hit him or not, or did he fell on the takht just because he
got panicked since the bullet merely travelled from near his
head. Since Brahmapal is dead therefore in this situation there
is no witness left to prove this fact that whether the bullet fired
by Rajkumar ever hit Brahmapal or not. Therefore, even in this
situation where there is no injury mark of bullet rifle on the head
of deceased Brahmapal, no effect is caused on the case of the
prosecution because under panic nobody is in this situation
where he can assess the reality.”
10
29. According to Mr. Sinha, this establishes that the conviction
made by the Trial Court was only based on
assumption/presumption. Mr. Sinha argued that all the
prosecution witnesses namely, PW2, PW3 and PW4 had stated
that, as soon as the first shot was fired by Rajkumar Singh from
his rifle towards Brahmapal Singh, they all ran away with their
back towards the accused and they did not see who had fired
but had nevertheless heard gun shots. Hence, none of the
witnesses had deposed as to which of the accused was involved
in firing apart from Rajkumar Singh.
30. Mr. Sinha argued that the Trial Court erred in holding that
the aforesaid material factors were minor contradictions and
minor lapses on the part of the Prosecution and proceeded to
convict all the accused persons guilty beyond doubt. Mr. Sinha
argued that the Trial Court had completely ignored the chain of
evidence to wrongly conclude that the accused persons were
guilty, particularly the Appellant Karan Singh.
31. Mr. Sinha further argued that as per settled law, the
doctrine of severability does not apply in the case of a
statement of a witness in a criminal trial. Either the whole
statement has to be discarded by declaring the witness hostile
or else the entire statement has to be relied upon. In this
11
context Mr. Sinha cited Palvinder Kaur v. State of Punjab 1,
and Hanumant Govind Nargundkar v. State of Madhya
Pradesh2. In Palvinder Kaur (supra) this court held that a
statement that contains self-exculpatory matter cannot amount
to a confession, if the exculpatory statement is of some fact,
which if true, would negative the offence alleged to be
confessed. In Hanumant (supra) this Court held:-
“…It is settled law that an admission made by a person
whether amounting to a confession or not cannot be split
up and part of it used against him. An admission must be
used either as a whole or not at all. If the statement of
the accused is used as a whole, it completely demolishes
the prosecution case and, if it is not used at all, then
there remains no material on the record from which any
inference could be drawn that the letter was not written
on the date it bears.”
32. The judgments of this Court in Palvinder Kaur (supra)
and in Hamunant (supra), which pertain to confession and/or
admission are distinguishable on facts. On the other hand, in
Mrinal Das and Others v. State of Tripura 3, this Court held
that it is well settled that in a criminal trial, credible evidence of
even hostile witnesses can form the basis of conviction.
1 AIR 1952 SC 354
2 AIR 1952 SC 343
3 AIR 2011 SC 3753
12
33. Mr. Sinha also referred to Navaneethakrishnan v. State
By Inspector of Police4, where this Court re-affirmed: –
“…every incriminating circumstance must be clearly
established by reliable and clinching evidence and the
circumstances so proved must form a chain of events
from which the only irresistible conclusion about the
guilt of the accused can be safely drawn and no other
hypothesis against the guilt is possible.”
34. Mr. Sinha concluded by submitting that the Prosecution has
failed to prove Appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
There were clear discrepancies in evidence visible on the face of
the record. The appeal therefore ought to be allowed.
35. On the other hand, on behalf of the State, Mr. Sanjay
Kumar Tyagi, Advocate on Record, submitted that this Court
should not interfere with a concurrent finding of the Trial Court
and the High Court.
36. On post mortem, the dead body of the deceased was
found to have a large number of gun shots, multiple shot
wounds. Some bullets penetrated and exited the body. The
injured Mahender Singh had medically been examined by Dr. R.
N. Rastogi, who had found gunshot wounds, pellet injuries etc.
4 (2018) 16 SCC 161
13
37. Mr. Tyagi argued and rightly that the Prosecution case was
proved from the statements of three eye witnesses namely, Rati
Pal (PW2), Shivpal (PW3) and Mahender Singh (PW4), apart
from PW1 being the Doctor who had examined injured witnesses
and PW5 being the Doctor who had conducted the post mortem.
38. As argued by Mr. Tyagi, there may have been some minor
discrepancies in the evidence of the PW’s. However, all material
particulars have been corroborated. PW2 and PW3 more or less
corroborated the prosecution story. They both said that the
Appellant Karan Singh was there at the place of occurrence with
a rifle. They said the accused Raj Kumar Singh opened fire first,
after which all the others started firing. PW2 said he did not
actually see the others firing, but he heard the sound of firing
from which he knew that the others were firing bullets.
However, PW2 categorically stated that all the others had
opened fire. When the accused opened fire all these three PWs
ran away. They went inside the house of Sher Singh. When
they came out after a few minutes they found Brahmapal dead.
PW4, Mahender Singh, the injured witness has not, however,
named Karan Singh. No question was put to him as to whether
he had seen Karan Singh.
14
39. PW1, Dr. R.N. Rastogi who had examined Mahender Singh
said that he had been hit on the back. This tallies with the
version of the PWs that he was hit by bullet while they were all
running away. PW5, being the Doctor who conducted the post
mortem on the body of the deceased said he found gunshot
injury on the center of the forehead, 3 centimetre above the
nose. Many bones of the head were fractured. He described
various other gunshot wounds. There were multiple gunshot
wounds. There were also gunshot wounds of exit of bullets
apart from gunshot wounds of entry. The thigh bone was
fractured. Upon internal examination, brain was ruptured, right
and left membrane were ruptured, lungs were ruptured. 45
pellets, small and large were recovered. The Doctor opined that
the cause of death was bleeding and shock caused by the
injuries. He opined that all the injuries were sufficient to cause
death.
40. The tenor of the evidence of the Doctor who conducted the
post mortem tends to support the case of the prosecution
witnesses that all the accused persons, who were present,
carrying arms had fired. The injured witness Mahender Singh
may not have specifically named the Appellant Karan Singh.
However, two of the other eye-witnesses, that is, PW2 and PW3
15
confirmed that he was present at the place of occurrence and
was carrying rifle. PW3 had seen the Appellant Karan Singh fire.
41. From the evidence of Mahender Singh, PW-4, it appears
that no specific question was put to him as to whether the
Appellant was present at the place of occurrence or not. This
Court, in Rohtash Kumar v. State of Haryana5 held:-
“24. … The court has to examine whether evidence read as a
whole appears to have a ring of truth. Once that impression is
formed, it is undoubtedly necessary for the court to scrutinise the
evidence more particularly keeping in view the deficiencies,
drawbacks and infirmities pointed out in the evidence as a whole
and evaluate them to find out whether it is against the general tenor
of the evidence given by the witnesses and whether the earlier
evaluation of the evidence is shaken, as to render it unworthy of
belief. Thus, the court is not supposed to give undue importance to
omissions, contradictions and discrepancies which do not go to the
heart of the matter, and shake the basic version of the prosecution
witness…”
42. Referring to Narayan Chetanram Chaudhary and
Another v. State of Maharashtra6, Mr. Tyagi argued that
minor discrepancies caused by lapses in memory were
acceptable, contradictions were not. In this case, there was no
contradiction, only minor discrepancies.
43. In Kuriya and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan7, this Court
held:
5 (2013) 14 SCC 434
6 AIR 2000 SC 3352
7 (2012) 10 SCC 433
16
“30. This Court has repeatedly taken the view that the
discrepancies or improvements which do not materially affect the
case of the prosecution and are insignificant cannot be made the
basis for doubting the case of the prosecution. The courts may not
concentrate too much on such discrepancies or improvements. The
purpose is to primarily and clearly sift the chaff from the grain and
find out the truth from the testimony of the witnesses. Where it does
not affect the core of the prosecution case, such discrepancy should
not be attached undue significance. The normal course of human
conduct would be that while narrating a particular incident, there
may occur minor discrepancies. Such discrepancies may even in law
render credential to the depositions. The improvements or variations
must essentially relate to the material particulars of the prosecution
case. The alleged improvements and variations must be shown with
respect to material particulars of the case and the occurrence. Every
such improvement, not directly related to the occurrence, is not a
ground to doubt the testimony of a witness. The credibility of a
definite circumstance of the prosecution case cannot be weakened
with reference to such minor or insignificant improvements.
Reference in this regard can be made to the judgments of this Court
in Kathi Bharat Vajsur v. State of Gujarat 8, Narayan Chetanram
Chaudhary v. State of Maharashtra 9, Gura Singh v. State of
Rajasthan10 and Sukhchain Singh v. State of Haryana 11.
31. What is to be seen next is whether the version presented in the
Court was substantially similar to what was said during the
investigation. It is only when exaggeration fundamentally changes the
nature of the case, the Court has to consider whether the witness was
stating the truth or not. [(Ref. Sunil Kumar v. State (Govt. of NCT of
Delhi)]12.
32. These are variations which would not amount to any serious
consequences. The Court has to accept the normal conduct of a
person. The witness who is watching the murder of a person being
brutally beaten by 15 persons can hardly be expected to a state a
minute by minute description of the event. Everybody, and more
particularly a person who is known to or is related to the deceased,
would give all his attention to take steps to prevent the assault on the
victim and then to make every effort to provide him with the medical
aid and inform the police. The statements which are recorded
immediately upon the incident would have to be given a little leeway
with regard to the statements being made and recorded with utmost
exactitude. It is a settled principle of law that every improvement or
variation cannot be treated as an attempt to falsely implicate the
accused by the witness. The approach of the court has to be
reasonable and practicable. Reference in this regard can be made to
8 (2012) 5 SCC 724
9 (2000) 8 SCC 457
10 (2001) 2 SCC 205
11 (2002) 5 SCC 100
12 (2003) 11 SCC 367
17
Ashok Kumar v. State of Haryana13 and Shivlal v. State of
Chhattisgarh14.”
44. In Shyamlal Ghosh v. State of West Bengal 15, this
Court held:
“46. Then, it was argued that there are certain discrepancies and
contradictions in the statement of the prosecution witnesses
inasmuch as these witnesses have given different timing as to when
they had seen the scuffling and strangulation of the deceased by the
accused. ………… Undoubtedly, some minor discrepancies or
variations are traceable in the statements of these witnesses. But
what the Court has to see is whether these variations are material
and affect the case of the prosecution substantially. Every variation
may not be enough to adversely affect the case of the prosecution.
49. It is a settled principle of law that the court should examine the
statement of a witness in its entirety and read the said statement
along with the statement of other witnesses in order to arrive at a
rational conclusion. No statement of a witness can be read in part
and/or in isolation. We are unable to see any material or serious
contradiction in the statement of these witnesses which may give
any advantage to the accused.”
45. In Rohtash Kumar v. State of Haryana16, this Court
held:-
“24. … The court has to examine whether evidence read as a
whole appears to have a ring of truth. Once that impression is
formed, it is undoubtedly necessary for the court to scrutinise the
evidence more particularly keeping in view the deficiencies,
drawbacks and infirmities pointed out in the evidence as a whole
and evaluate them to find out whether it is against the general tenor
of the evidence given by the witnesses and whether the earlier
evaluation of the evidence is shaken, as to render it unworthy of
belief. Thus, the court is not supposed to give undue importance to
omissions, contradictions and discrepancies which do not go to the
heart of the matter, and shake the basic version of the prosecution
witness…”
46. As argued by Mr. Tyagi, appearing for the State both PW2
and PW3 had clearly mentioned that the Appellant and PW4
13 (2010) 12 SCC 350
14 (2011) 9 SCC 561
15 (2012) 7 SCC 646
16 (2013) 14 SCC 434
18
Mahender Singh were both present at the place of occurrence.
The Appellant’s presence has been proved by two eye
witnesses. It has been proved by the eye witnesses, that the
Appellant carried a rifle. But PW2 and PW3 deposed that all the
accused had opened fire. The prosecution was required to
prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, which it has done, and
not beyond all iota of doubt. The fact that one of the injured
witnesses may not have mentioned the name of Appellant Karan
Singh does not demolish the evidence of the other witnesses.
47. We find no grounds to interfere with the concurrent
findings of the Trial Court and the High Court. The fact that the
trial/appeal should have taken years and that other accused
should have died during the appeal cannot be a ground for
acquittal of the Appellant. The appeal is thus dismissed.
.………………………………….J.
[ INDIRA BANERJEE ]
…………………………………..J.
[ V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN ]
NEW DELHI;
MARCH 02, 2022