Supreme Court of India
SATVIRversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
- Citation
- 2009 INSC 49
- Decided
- 21 January 2009
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Holding
The appellant is constructively liable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and his conviction is upheld.
Summary
Eight persons were tried for the murder of Hari Dutt Singh. The trial court convicted all under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC and sentenced them to life imprisonment. On appeal, the High Court converted the convictions of Satvir (appellant), Ram Saran and Harbir to Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and acquitted the remaining accused. The appellant argued that the evidence against him was identical to that which led to the acquittal of the others and that the eyewitnesses were unreliable. The Supreme Court examined the eye‑witness testimonies of PW‑1, PW‑2 and PW‑4, found them concise, consistent and corroborated by the post‑mortem report, and held that they were credible despite their relationship to the deceased. Consequently, the Court affirmed the constructive liability of the appellant under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and dismissed the appeal.
Issues considered
- Whether the appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubt on the same evidentiary basis that led to the acquittal of other accused.
- Whether the eyewitness testimonies of PW‑1, PW‑2 and PW‑4 are reliable and sufficient to sustain a conviction.
- Whether the appellant is constructively liable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 313
- Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 148, s. 149, s. 302, s. 34
Subjects
murderconstructive liabilitySection 34 IPCeyewitness testimonybenefit of doubtcriminal appealconvictionacquittal
Judgment
[2009] 1 S.C.R. 431
SATVIR A
v.
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
(Criminal Appeal No. 551 of 2005)
JANUARY 21, 2009
B
[LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA AND B. SUDERSHAN
REDDY, JJ.]
PENAL CODE, 1860:
c
s.302134- Eight accused convicted by trial court u/s 3021
149 - Conviction of three of them converted by High Court
to s.302134 - Remaining acquitted - Appeal by one of the
convicts contending that in the circumstances, he was also
entitled to acquittal on benefit of doubt at par with those D
~
acquitted - HELD: Prosecution case against appellant and
two other accused is fully established - They caused fatal
knife injuries to victim - Appellant is constructively liable u/s
302134.
E
The appellant (A-4) alongwith seven others was
prosecuted for commission of offences punishable u/ss
147, 148 and 3021149 IPC. The prosecution case was that
the complainant (PW-1) and accused 2 to 6, were
collaterals. There was enmity between the two sides. PW- F
1 and his father were facing a trial for murder of the son
of A-5. Another criminal case was pending against PW-1
and his father. On the day of incident when they were
returning from the Court of Magistrate, father of PW-1 was
attacked by the accused. A-4 to A-6 inflicted fatal knife G
injuries to him. PW-2, PW-4 and some others, hearing the
)\
shouts of PW-1, reached the scene of occurrence. The
/
trial court convicted all the accused, inter alia, u/s 3021149
IPC and sentenced them to life imprisonment. During
. 431 H
432 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009) 1 S.C.R.
A pendency of the appeal filed by the accused, A-1 died.
The High Court converted conviction of A-4 to A-6 to
s.302/34 IPC, and acquitted the remaining accused of all
the charges.
B In the appeal filed by A-4, it was contended for the
appellant that the accused were falsely implicated by PW-
1 due to enmity and, in any event, the evidence against
the appellant was a verbatim version of the prosecution
case on which the other accused were acquitted and, as
c such, the appellant could not have been treated
differently.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
D HELD: 1.1. The evidence of eye witneses, namely,
PW-1, PW-2 and PW-4 is found to be concise, precise and
satisfactory on the point that they had seen the
appellant(A-4), A-5 and A-6 each causing _grievous knife
injuries to the deceased and due to the fatal injuries, he
E died on the spot. They have been cross-examined at
length but nothing tangible has been extracted from their
evidence to create any shadow of doubt that they are not
truthful witnesses. [Para 22 and 21] [440-B; 439-F-G]
1.2. It is well-settled that if the witness is related to
F the deceased, his evidence has to be accepted if found
to be reliable and believable because he would be
interested in ensuring that real culprits are punished.
There is no reason as to why PW-1, PW-2 and PW-4 would
G falsely depose against the appellant. [Para 21 and 22]
[439-G-H; 440-A-C]
1.3. The trial court as well as the High Court have
rightly held that there was a motive for the accused to
commit the murder; they were nursing a grudge against
H
SATVIR v. STATE OF UTIAR PRADESH 433
the deceased because of his involvement in the murder A
of the son of A-5. The report of the incident has been
promptly lodged by PW-1 in which names of iifl the
accused persons as also of PW-2 and PW-4 as
eyewitnesses were mentioned. The ocular version of the
eyewitnesses finds corroboration from the medical B
. evidence. The occurrence, as spoken by the
eyewitnesses, is fully established. The appellant
alongwith A-5 and A-6 is constructively liable u/s 302 read
with s.34 IPC for commission of the crime. [Para 22 and
24] [440-C-D-F; 441-B-C] C
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 551 of 2005.
From the Judgment and Order dated 25.2.2003 of the High D
Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Appeal No. 3232
of 1979. ·
Shakil Ahmed Syed for the Appellant.
E
T.N. Singh, Rajeev Dubey and Kamlendra Mishra for the
Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, J. 1. Eight accused, F
namely, (1) Fateh Singh, (2) Ram Chander, (3) Brahma, (4)
Satvir, (5) Ram Saran, (6) Harbir, (7) Pratap and (8) Genda
were tried by learned VI Additional District & Sessions Judge,
Meerut, in Sessions Trial No. 70 of 1978 for committing the
murder of Hari Dutt Singh. G
2. By judgment and order dated 05.12.1979, the learned
trial judge convicted all the accused under Section 302 read
with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (for short "IPC") and
sentenced each to imprisonment for life. The accused - Ram H
434 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 1 $.C.R.
A Saran, Satvir and Harbir have been further convicted under •
Section 148 IPC and each sentenced to two years rigorous
imprisonment, whereas Fateh Singh, Genda, Pratap, Brahma
and Ram Chander have been convicted under Section 147 IPC
and sentenced to one year rigorous imprisonment. All the
B sentences were, however, ordered to run concurrently.
3. The accused persons filed joint appeal in the High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad. The High Court by final judgment
and order dated 25.02.2003 modified the judgment of the trial
c court. It converted the conviction of accused Satvir, Ram Saran
and Harbir to Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and
sentenced them to undergo life imprisonment. It, however,
acquitted Ram Chander, Brahma, Pratap and Genda. Fateh
Singh accused, during the pendency of the appeal before the
D High Court, had died; therefore his appeal stood abated.
4. Satvir appellant herein, has now approached this Court
in this appeal. The learned counsel for the parties stated before
us that no appeal appears to have been filed by other convicts,
E namely, Ram Saran and Harbir against the judgment and order
of the High Court.
5. The incident leading to the prosecution of the appellant
occurred on 31.10.1977 at about 4 P.M. in the jungle of village
Ahmadpuri, Police Station Parikshatgarh, District Meerut (U.P.).
F
The report of the incident was lodged by Mahendra Singh (PW-
1) an eyewitness, son of the deceased Hari Dutt Singh at about
5.30 P.M. in the Police Station in which the names of all the
accused persons were mentioned.
G 6. The following pedigree relevant for the purpose of
noticing the relationships between the parties involved in the
case is as under:-
H
SATVIR v. STATE OF UTIAR PRADESH 435
[LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, J.]
Hari Dutt Singh --------- Kaley ---------------- Shiv Saran A
(Deceased) (brother of . (brother of
deceased) deceased)
I I I
· Mahendra Singh Ram Saran Ram Chander Brahma B
PW-1 (son of Accused (son Accused (son of Accused
deceased)
of Kaley) Shiv Saran) (son of
Shiv Saran)
c
I I
Harbir Satvir - Appellant
Accused (son of Accused (son of
Ram Saran) Ram Chander)
D
Pratap accused is the brother-in-law of Ram Chander accused;
whereas Genda is 'Samdhi' of accused Ram Saran and
accused Fateh Singh (deceased) was uncle of Mahendra Singh
(PW-1).
E
7. It was the prosecution case that Mahabir son of Ram
Saran was murdered in the year 1976 and for the said incident;
Hari Dutt Singh [deceased] and his son PW-1 were facing trial
before the Court. One more criminal case filed by Smt. Sammo
is pending against the deceased and PW-1 in the Court of a F
Magistrate at Meerut. On the day of incident, i.e. 31.10.1977,
both PW-1 and Hari Dutt Singh had gone to the Court of
Magistrate at Meerut to attend the proceedings in the said case
but the same was adjourned at about 12 O'Clock in the noon.
PW-1 and his father had returned to their village by bus. After
getting down at Parikshatgarh, they started going to their village G
Ahmadpuri on foot. At about 4 P.M., they reached on the road
dividing the fields of Balley and Muley where PW-1 was going
about 20 paces ahead of his father. The accused persons
hiding themselves in the sugarcane fields of Balley, suddenly
appeared and laid down Hari Dutt Singh on the ground. H
436 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 1 S.C.R.
A Appellant Satvir, accused Ram Saran and accused Harbir each
were armed with knives with which they inflicted fatal injuries
on Hari Dutt Singh at the instigation of accused Ram Saran,
who proclaimed that the life of Hari Dutt Singh should be cut
short as he was responsible for the murder of his son Mahabir.
B PW-1 shouted and raised alarm which attracted Bakhtawar
Singh (PW-2), Ganga Saran (PW-4), Gajraj and few more
persons to the place of occurrence. All the accused persons
had fled from the place of incident after committing the murder
of Hari Dutt Singh. One Jasbir Singh recorded the report (Ex.
c Ka-1) of the incident at the instance of PW-1 on the basis of
which First Information Report came to be lodged at Police
Station at about 5.30 P.M.
8. Head Constable Satya Pal Singh (PW-6), who at the
relevant time, was discharging the duties of AS.I., Police
D Station Parikshatgarh visited the scene of incident and
prepared Panchnama (Ex. Ka-6), Khaka-lash (Ex.-Ka-7) and
Site Plan (Ex.-Ka-9) of the dead body and collected blood-
stained sample of earth from the place of occurrence .
.Constable Sukhpal (PW-5) alongwith Constable Babu ram took
E the dead body of Hari Dutt Singh to Hospital for post mortem.
9. Dr. O.P. Sharma (PW-3) conducted autopsy on the dead
body of the deceased on 01.11.1977 at about 5 P.M. The
following ante-mortem injuries were found on the dead body:
F 1. Stab wound 13 cm x 5 cm x abdominal cavity deep
on the front of abdomen right side upper part just
below the coastal margin transversely; inner end of
the wound was a little above and outer to the
umbilicus.
G
2. Stab wound 11 cm x 5 cm x abdominal cavity deep
on the left side of abdomen 2 cm below the coastal
margin transversely.
3. Sub wound 5 cm 1 cm x abdominal cavity deep on
H
SATVIR v. STATE OF UTIAR PRADESH 437
[LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, J.]
the front of abdomen just below the umbilicus A
transversely.
4. Incised wound 1-1 /2 cm x 5 cm x muscle on the front
of abdomen right side just below the anterior
superior iliac spine. B
5. Incised wound 9 cm x 5 cm trachea cut on the front
of neck middle extending on both sides
transversely.
6. Abrasion 1 cm 1 cm on the back of left elbow. c
10. On internal examination, small intestine was found
stabbed at two places and large intestine stabbed at one place.
Left lobe of liver was also stabbed. According to the opinion
of the Doctor, the deceased died due to shock and
haemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem injuries.
0
11. On completion of the investigation, chargesheet was
filed against the accused persons by Station House Officer
Bijendra Singh Chahar (PW-7).
E
12. All the accused pleaded not guilty to the charges and
claimed to be tried. ·
13. The prosecution, in order to substantiate its case,
examined as many as 7 witnesses, out of whom Mahendra
Singh (PW-1), Bakhtawar Singh (PW-2) and Ganga Saran F
(PW-4) are the eyewitnesses.
14. The accused in the statements recorded under Section
313 of the Criminal Procedure Code denied the incriminating
evidence appearing against them. Their defence was denial G
simpliciter and pleaded false implication due to enmity. No
defence witness has been examined by them.
15. The trial court on appraisal of the entire evidence on
record held all the accused guilty of the charges and convicted H
438 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009) 1 S.C.R.
A them as aforesaid.
16. Being aggrieved, the accused had filed appeal before
the High Court. The High Court, as stated above, allowed the
appeal of accused Ram Chander, Brahma, Pratap and Genda
B and, accordingly, set aside their conviction and sentences,
whereas the conviction of the appellant-Satvir, Ram Saran and
Harbir is converted from Section 302 read with Section 149
and Section 148 IPC to Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC.
They were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life.
C 17. Feeling aggrieved thereby and dissatisfied with the
judgment of the High Court, this appeal has been filed by
appellant Satvir in this Court.
18. Mr. Shakil Ahmed Syed, learned counsel appearing on
0 behalf of the appellant, contended that the evidence appearing
on record against the appellant is verbatim version to that which
was taken into consideration with regard to the acquittal of four
accused and, therefore, the case of the appellant cannot be
decided on any other scale and should have been treated at
E par with the evidence appearing against the acquitted persons.
The appellant and other accused persons have been implicated
by PW-1 in a false case due to previous enmity as he alongwith
deceased was an accused in the murder of Mahabir, son of
Ram Saran. According to the learned counsel, the High Court
has committed grave error in convicting the appellant on the
F same set of evidence, on the basis of which four accused,
namely, Ram Chander, Brahma, Pratap and Genda have been
acquitted and, therefore, the judgment of the High Court suffers
from factual and legal infirmity and perversity. The learned
counsel then contended that the conduct of the alleged
G eyewitnesses, namely, PW-1, PW-2 and PW-4 is so unnatural
and casual that they witnessed the entire incident as silent • )·
spectators and did not make any attempt to save the life of Hari
Dutt Singh at the hands of the accused. Therefore, no implicit
reliance can be placed on the evidence of these witnesses, who
H are not trustworthy.
i
SATVIR v. STATE OF UTIAR PRADESH 439
[LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, J.]
,\ 19. Mr. T.N.Singh, Advocate appearing on behalf of the A
State, has canvassed correctness of the views taken by the trial
judge which were confirmed by the High Court.
20. In order to appreciate the aforesaid rival contentions
of the learned counsel for the parties, we have independently
B
scrutinized the oral and documentary evidence appearing on
.-ecord.
21. Mahendra Singh (PW-1) has clearly stated that at the
time and on the day of incident he was with his father when the
appellant and other accused suddenly attacked the deceased. c
He categorically stated that the appellant and his two
companions Ram Chander and Harbir had inflicted knife
injuries on the person of his father. He has given the names of
all the accused persons in the report on the basis of which FIR
• came to be registered in the Police Station. PW-2 Bakhtawar D
Singh who is an independent witness deposed that on the.~ay
of incident when he was going to his village Bhadauli from
village Kaili, on the way he heard an alarm raised by PW-1 and
saw the appellant, Ram Saran and Harbir inflicting knife injuries
to Hari Dutt Singh. Suggestion of the accused that he was not E
present at the place of incident or he had not seen the incident
or that he is deposing falsely due to relationship, has been
denied by him. PW-4 Ganga Saran Singh deposed that on the
day of incident he witnessed the accused giving beatings to
"' Hari Dutt Singh in between the fields of Balley and Muley. The F
appellant alongwith Ram Saran and Harbir had inflicted knife
injuries on the person of Hari Dutt Singh. The eyewitnesses
have been cross-examined at length by the learned counsel,
but nothing tangible has been extracted from their evidence to
create any shadow of doubt that they are not truthfulness
G
witnesses. They have given reliable, consistent and creditable
1 version of the crime and their evidence inspires confidence. It
is well-settled that if the witness is related to the deceased, his
evidence has to be accepted if found to be reliable and
believable because he would inter alia be interested in ensuring
H
440 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 1 S.C.R.
A that real culprits are punished.
22. On a careful and ca1,,1tious scrutiny of the evidence of
PW-1, PW-2 and PW-4, we firid their evidence concise, precise
and satisfactory on the point that they had seen the appellant,
Ram Saran and Harbir causing· grievous injuries to Hari Dutt
B
Singh with knife which each was carrying with him and due to
the fatal injuries, he died on the spot. The evidence of these
three eyewitnesses is neither embellished nor embroidered. We
find no particular reason as to why PW-1, PW-2 and PW-4 have
falsely deposed against the appellant. The trial court as well as
c the High Court have rightly held that there was a motive for the
accused to commit murder of Hari Dutt Singh because as per
the prosecution evidence, they were nursing a grudge against
the deceased because of his involvement in the commission
of murder of Mahabir son of Ram Saran. The report of the
D incident has been promptly lodged by PW-1 in the Police
•
Station in which the name of all the accused persons and PW-
2 and PW-4 being eyewitne!sses were mentioned. Simply
because the eyewitnesses did not make any attempt to save
the life of the deceased from the clutches of the accused
E persons, their abnormal conduct by itself cannot be taken as a
ground to disbelieve and discard their testimony in regard to
the genesis of the ·occurrence and the part played by the
appellant and the other convicted persons in the commission
of the offence. ...
.
F
23. The ocular version of the eyewitnesses finds
corroboration from the evidence of Dr. O.P. Sharma who has
found abovesaid six injuries on the body of Hari Dutt Singh. As
per the post mortem report placed on record by Dr.O.P.
Sharma, the deceased received three stab wounds and two
G incised wounds and in his opinion death of the deceased had
occurred due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante- ~
mortem injuries.
24. On our independent examination of the judgment given
H by the trial court and confirmed by the High Court, we find that
SATVIR v. STATE OF UTIAR PRADESH 441
[LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, J.]
both the courts have properly and rightly re-assessed and A
reappraised the entire evidence on record and we find no
infirmity or perversity in the findings recorded by the courts
below warranting interference. The High Court has not found
any reliable and clinching evidence led by the prosecution to
prove the guilt of the acquitted-accused. Therefore, the B
contention that the appellant shall be held entitled to benefit of
doubt in the same manner as other acquitted-accused have
been given, cannot be accepted. The occurrence, as spoken
by the eyewitnesses, is fully established and the appellant
alongwith Ram Saran and Harbir will be constructively liable c
under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC for the
commission of the crime as fatal injuries were inflicted by them
with knives which they were carrying in their hands at the time
of commission of offence. The fatal injuries were caused with
dangerous weapons on vital parts of the body of deceased 0
which resultantly caused his death.
25. Learned counsel for the appellant lastly argued that the
-appellant had no intention to murder the deceased, therefore,
no offence under Section 302 IPC was made out against him
and at the most it could be a case under Section 304 Part-II E
IPC, cannot be accepted in view of the nature of injuries, the
manner in which they were inflicted, the weapons of offence
used and the vital parts of the body of the deceased selected
by the appellant and other two convicted accused for causing
the fatal injuries. F
26. We, thus, find no merit and substance in any of the
submissions made on behalf of the appellant.
27. In the result, for the afore-stated reasons, there is no
merit in this appeal and it is, accordingly, dismissed. G
R.P. Appeal dismissed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "murder"Sign in to search