The division judge bench of Justice Sanjeev Khanna and Justice Bela M. Trivedi of the Supreme court of India in the case of Sanju and others v state of Uttar Pradesh denies considering the testimony of the eye witness recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on certain grounds.
BRIEF FACTS
The factual matrix of the case is that when the appellant reached the house Bhagwati Singh had a lathi, while the three brothers carried country-made pistols. Bhagwati Singh had inquired as to why deceased Chandrapal Singh had kept bricks on his property. He had also insulted Chandrapal Singh. Chandrapal Singh responded that he would remove the bricks in 2-3 days, but Bhagwati Singh was not satisfied and sounded an alert, calling for other appellants to fire and kill Chandrapal Singh and Chandrapal Singh died on the spot. The present petition is of the result that the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad had upheld the conviction of Bhagwati Singh and his three sons who were convicted for the offense under sections 302 and 307 of the IPC.
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that the empty cartridges were not found on the spot and the same have not been exhibited. And the investigation was handed over to veerpal Singh on the same day, he went to the scene of the occurrence and created a site map of the incident. He had written the seizure record for the blood-stained and plain earth, which bore his signatures. The event occurred approximately 5-6 kilometers from the police station. Veerpal Singh had discovered and delimited the location from which the blood-stained dirt was collected using the site plan. It was a rough concrete surface. Blood had also been spilled on the open ground.
COURT'S OBSERVATION
The hon'ble court observed that there was a time gap between the actual occurrence and the visit of the police to the place of the incident. The disappearance of the empty cartridges can be explained, as a number of villagers had gathered on the spot and had access to the place of occurrence. Further, the place of occurrence cannot be challenged on this ground. There is overwhelming evidence to establish that the place of the incident was outside the residence of the deceased Chandrapal Singh and his brother Rakesh Kumar.
The hon'ble court denies considering the testimony of the eye witness on the ground that statement was recorded nearly after 20 days. The spot map/site plan does not mention the location of the house of Ramphal Singh. We would, therefore, discard and not take into account the testimony of Ramphal Singh as a purported eye-witness. However, for the reasons stated above, we are of the view that we can rely upon the testimony of Rakesh Kumar to affirm the conviction of the appellants, which has been proved and established beyond a reasonable doubt.
At last, the appeal was dismissed and the appellant, Bhoop Singh, who was released on bail will surrender within one month if he fails to that in case he fails to surrender, the authorities shall take steps in accordance with the law to take him into custody for undergoing the sentence. The other appellants are incarcerated and would, therefore, undergo their sentence.
CASE NAME- Sanju and others v state of Uttar Pradesh
CITATION- CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1981 OF 2014
CORUM- Justice Sanjeev Khanna and Justice Bela M. Trivedi
DATED- 29.08.22
The division judge bench of Justice Sanjeev Khanna and Justice Bela M. Trivedi of the Supreme court of India in the case of Sanju and others v state of Uttar Pradesh denies considering the testimony of the eye witness recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on certain grounds.
BRIEF FACTS
The factual matrix of the case is that when the appellant reached the house Bhagwati Singh had a lathi, while the three brothers carried country-made pistols. Bhagwati Singh had inquired as to why deceased Chandrapal Singh had kept bricks on his property. He had also insulted Chandrapal Singh. Chandrapal Singh responded that he would remove the bricks in 2-3 days, but Bhagwati Singh was not satisfied and sounded an alert, calling for other appellants to fire and kill Chandrapal Singh and Chandrapal Singh died on the spot. The present petition is of the result that the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad had upheld the conviction of Bhagwati Singh and his three sons who were convicted for the offense under sections 302 and 307 of the IPC.
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that the empty cartridges were not found on the spot and the same have not been exhibited. And the investigation was handed over to veerpal Singh on the same day, he went to the scene of the occurrence and created a site map of the incident. He had written the seizure record for the blood-stained and plain earth, which bore his signatures. The event occurred approximately 5-6 kilometers from the police station. Veerpal Singh had discovered and delimited the location from which the blood-stained dirt was collected using the site plan. It was a rough concrete surface. Blood had also been spilled on the open ground.
COURT'S OBSERVATION
The hon'ble court observed that there was a time gap between the actual occurrence and the visit of the police to the place of the incident. The disappearance of the empty cartridges can be explained, as a number of villagers had gathered on the spot and had access to the place of occurrence. Further, the place of occurrence cannot be challenged on this ground. There is overwhelming evidence to establish that the place of the incident was outside the residence of the deceased Chandrapal Singh and his brother Rakesh Kumar.
The hon'ble court denies considering the testimony of the eye witness on the ground that statement was recorded nearly after 20 days. The spot map/site plan does not mention the location of the house of Ramphal Singh. We would, therefore, discard and not take into account the testimony of Ramphal Singh as a purported eye-witness. However, for the reasons stated above, we are of the view that we can rely upon the testimony of Rakesh Kumar to affirm the conviction of the appellants, which has been proved and established beyond a reasonable doubt.
At last, the appeal was dismissed and the appellant, Bhoop Singh, who was released on bail will surrender within one month if he fails to that in case he fails to surrender, the authorities shall take steps in accordance with the law to take him into custody for undergoing the sentence. The other appellants are incarcerated and would, therefore, undergo their sentence.
CASE NAME- Sanju and others v state of Uttar Pradesh
CITATION- CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1981 OF 2014
CORUM- Justice Sanjeev Khanna and Justice Bela M. Trivedi
DATED- 29.08.22
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :