caselaws.org
Supreme Court of India
Rakesh vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh on 6 July, 2021Author: Hon’Ble Dr. Chandrachud
Bench: Hon’Ble Dr. Chandrachud, M.R. Shah
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 556 OF 2021
Rakesh and another …Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. and another …Respondents
JUDGMENT
M.R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
and order dated 10.09.2018 passed by the High Court of Judicature at
Allahabad in Criminal Appeal No. 2811 of 2008, by which the High
Court has dismissed the said appeal preferred by the appellants –
original accused challenging their conviction for the offence
punishable under Section 302 r/w 34 of the IPC, passed by the
Signature Not Verified
learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.2,
Digitally signed by
Chetan Kumar
Date: 2021.07.06
18:53:19 IST
Reason:
1
Hathras (hereinafter referred to as the learned “trial Court”), the
original accused nos. 1 & 3 have preferred the present appeal.
2. That both the appellants herein along with one another accused –
Suresh were tried by the learned trial Court for the offences
punishable under Section 302 r/w 34 of the IPC for having killed one
Bhishampal Singh in an incident which happened on 28.01.2006. The
role attributed to A1 – Rakesh was that he used countrymade pistol
and caused injuries on the deceased. It was alleged that so far as
Suresh and Anish – A2 & A3 are concerned, they assaulted the
deceased with their respective knives. That after the full-fledged trial,
the learned trial Court held all the accused guilty for the offence
punishable under Section 302 r/w 34 of the IPC and sentenced all of
them to undergo life imprisonment. The accused were also convicted
for the offences punishable under Sections 4/25 of the Arms Act for
which a separate sentence was also imposed by the learned trial
Court. While convicting the accused, the learned trial Court heavily
relied upon the depositions of PW1 and PW2 – eye witnesses and
also the medical evidence and the deposition of Dr. Santosh Kumar –
PW5 who conducted the post-mortem on the body of the deceased.
3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of
conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Court convicting
the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w 34 of
2
the IPC and imposing the sentence of life imprisonment and also for
the offences under the Arms Act, all the accused preferred appeal
before the High Court being Criminal Appeal No. 2811 of 2008. By the
impugned judgment and order, the High Court has dismissed the said
appeal and has confirmed the conviction of the accused for the
offences under Section 302 r/w 34 of the IPC and the sentence
imposed of life imprisonment.
4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
and order of the High Court, original accused no.1 -Rakesh and
accused no.3 – Anish have preferred the present appeal. It appears
that original accused no.2 – Suresh has not preferred any appeal.
5. Shri Rishi Malhotra, learned Amicus Curiae has appeared on
behalf of the appellants and Shri Vinod Diwakar, learned Additional
Advocate General has appeared on behalf of the State of Uttar
Pradesh and Shri Arjun Dewan, learned Advocate has appeared on
behalf of the original complainant.
5.1 Shri Rishi Malhotra, learned Amicus has vehemently
submitted that both, the learned trial Court as well as the High Court
have committed a grave error in convicting the accused, relying upon
the depositions of PW1 and PW2.
5.2 It is vehemently submitted that so far as PW2 is concerned,
his presence on the spot at the time of the incident is absolutely
3
doubtful. It is submitted that even according to him he came
subsequent to the occurrence of the incident. It is submitted that as
such he has specifically admitted in the cross-examination that when
they had reached the court at 10:30 a.m., the next date of hearing was
given as the Presiding Officer was not there. It is submitted that he
was also confronted about the fact that he had come to the spot only
after receiving the information about the incident. It is submitted that
PW2 has specifically admitted that he reached the court before the
deceased and PW1 at 10:00 a.m. and had moved an application for
exemption from appearance of the accused in that case. According to
the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, he also
admitted that on 29.01.2006 he alone came to the court and did not
have a word with the deceased on the morning of 28.01.2006. It is
submitted therefore no reliance could have been placed upon the
deposition of PW2.
5.3 It is further submitted by the learned Amicus that as such and
it is an admitted position that there was an enmity and prior disputes
between the accused and the deceased and even PW1. It is
submitted that the deceased was facing criminal trial under Section
307 of the IPC on the allegation of murder attempt on A1 – Rakesh. It
is submitted therefore there are all possibility of falsely implicating the
A1 – Rakesh.
4
5.4 It is further submitted that so far as the other accused – A2 &
A3, namely, Suresh and Anish are concerned, from the ocular
evidence as well as medical evidence, it is clear that they caused
injuries on the deceased after the deceased died, i.e., on the dead
body. It is submitted therefore that when they inflicted injuries on the
dead body, i.e., after the deceased died by gun shot, they cannot be
convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 as by the time
the accused A2 & A3 have alleged to have caused injuries, the
deceased had died. It is submitted that even PW1 in his cross-
examination has admitted that the moment deceased received gun
shot injury he fell down and died.
5.5 It is further submitted that even according to PW1 and even
PW2 the matter was already adjourned and even the ‘Sick Note’ was
given on behalf of the deceased. It is submitted therefore when the
‘Sick Note’ was given and the matter was already adjourned, there
was no reason for the deceased and PW1 to come to court. It is
submitted that it is very much doubtful that the deceased and PW1
reached the court and/or went to the court room.
5.6 It is further submitted by the learned Amicus appearing on
behalf of the appellants that even there are material contradictions
insofar as use of weapon by A2 & A3 are concerned. It is submitted
5
that what was recovered was ‘knife’ and PW2 has categorically stated
that the deceased was assaulted by ‘dagger’ and not by ‘knife’.
5.7 It is submitted that there is a difference between ‘dagger’ and
‘knife’. It is submitted that even Dr. Santosh Kumar – PW5 has
specifically admitted that injuries nos. 2 to 8 (incised injuries) cannot
be caused stabbing by knife. It is submitted that the doctor has
specifically admitted in the cross-examination that incised injuries nos.
2 to 8 are not mentioned clean-cut and it was difficult to state that the
alleged weapon was not sharp on both the sides.
5.8 It is further submitted that it has also come in evidence that
as per the ballistic report bullet did not match with the alleged pistol
used by the accused – Rakesh.
5.9 It is submitted that the appellants are in custody since
January, 2006 and have already undergone more than 15 years of
sentence.
5.10 Making the above submissions, it is prayed to allow the
present appeal and quash and set aside the conviction and sentence
imposed by the learned trial Court, confirmed by the High Court.
6. Shri Vinod Diwakar, learned Additional Advocate General
appearing on behalf of the State of Uttar Pradesh has vehemently
submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, no error has
6
been committed by the learned trial Court convicting the accused,
relying upon the depositions of PW1 & PW2.
6.1 It is submitted that both, PW1 & PW2 are trustworthy and
reliable witnesses. It is submitted that their presence at the time of
incident has been established and proved by the prosecution by
examining PW1 & PW2. It is submitted that both, PW1 & PW2 have
been fully and thoroughly cross-examined and considering the entire
evidence/deposition of PW1 & PW2, their presence at the time of
incident has been established and proved. It is submitted that on
each and every aspect on which the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the accused – defence has made submissions, PW1 and
PW2 were cross-examined. It is submitted that thereafter on
appreciation of entire evidence on record, the learned trial Court has
convicted the accused and the same has been rightly confirmed by
the High Court.
6.2 It is submitted that in the present case the motive has been
established and proved. It is submitted that the defence has failed to
establish and prove that they were falsely implicated in the case.
6.3 It is further submitted by the learned Additional Advocate
General appearing on behalf of the State of Uttar Pradesh that as
such nothing is on record and/or there is no evidence on record to
even suggest that A2 & A3 caused injuries on the deceased by the
7
time he died. It is submitted that the aforesaid defence is not borne
out at all either from the deposition of PW1, PW2 or even PW5.
6.4 It is submitted that as such the prosecution has fully
established and proved that on 28.01.2006 the deceased, PW1 &
PW2 attended the court. It is submitted that, however, the court was
not available on that date as the learned Presiding Officer was on
inspection and therefore before they reached, the matter was
adjourned. It is submitted that ‘Sick Note’ on behalf of the deceased
has already been explained by PW1 in his deposition.
6.5 It is further submitted that in the present case even recovery
of weapon/weapons used by the accused has been established and
proved.
6.6 It is further submitted that even the accused did not lead any
evidence to prove that they were not present on the spot at the time of
incident and that they were present elsewhere.
7. Shri Arjun Dewan, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of
the original complainant has adopted the submissions made by the
learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State
of Uttar Pradesh. In addition, it is vehemently submitted by the
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant that the
evidence of PW1 & PW2 is credible. It is submitted that their
presence at the time of incident has been established and proved. It
8
is submitted that PW2 has consistently stated that he saw the accused
herein on a motorcycle going towards the deceased victim and he
witnessed the accused no.1 – Rakesh shooting the deceased victim
and accused no.2 – Suresh assaulting the deceased with a knife. It is
submitted that there might be some minor contradictions but as held
by this Court in the case of Yogesh Singh v. Mahabeer Singh, (2017)
11 SCC 195 and Prabhu Dayal v. State of Rajasthan, (2018) 8 SCC
127, that minor discrepancies should not be given undue importance
that don’t go to the root of the matter.
7.1 Now so far as the submission on behalf of the accused that
as per the ballistic report the bullet found did not match with the gun
recovered, it is submitted that as held by this Court in the case of
Himanshu Mohan Rai v. State of U.P., (2017) 4 SCC 161, in a case
where the ballistic report is contrary to the evidence of the witnesses,
but the statements of the witnesses have inspired the confidence of
the Court and have been held to be credible and reliable, then such a
contradiction between the ballistic report and the credible evidence of
a witness cannot be the basis of rejecting the evidence of a witness. It
is submitted that at the most the recovery of the weapon/gun may not
be believed, but when PW1 & PW2 have specifically stated that it was
the A1 who fired and caused injury on the deceased which is fully
supported by the medical evidence – injury no.1 and in fact there was
9
a gun shot injury on the deceased and therefore on the aforesaid
aspect, PW1 & PW2 are fully supported by the medical evidence, the
aforesaid cannot be a ground to acquit the accused.
7.2 It is submitted that there is a recovery of knife at the instance
of A1, which was used by A2 for commission of the offence. It is
submitted that as such no question with respect to knife recovered can
cause injury nos. 2 to 8 was put to Dr. Santosh Kumar – PW5.
7.3 It is further submitted that even in the recovery memo which
was immediately taken during the course of investigation had the
signatures of PW1. It is submitted therefore the presence of PW1 has
already been established and proved.
7.4 It is further submitted that as such there are concurrent
findings of fact recorded by the learned trial Court as well as the High
Court, which are on appreciation of evidence on record. It is
submitted that therefore no case is made out to interfere with the
impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence imposed by
the learned trial Court, confirmed by the High Court.
8. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties
at length. We have carefully gone through the judgment and order of
conviction and sentenced passed by the learned trial Court as well as
the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court. We
have also re-appreciated the entire evidence on record, more
10
particularly the depositions of PW1, PW2 and PW5. We have also
considered the injuries found on the dead body of the deceased.
9. From the judgment and order passed by the learned trial
Court, it appears that while convicting the accused, the court has
heavily relied upon the depositions of PW1, PW2 and PW5. PW1 and
PW2 are stated to be the eye-witnesses to the incident. Having gone
through the entire depositions of PW1 & PW2 and even the cross-
examination of the aforesaid two witnesses, we are of the firm opinion
that both, PW1 & PW2 are trustworthy and reliable witnesses. Their
presence at the time of incident with the deceased has been
established and proved by the prosecution. The presence of PW1 and
even PW2 at the time of incident is natural. PW1 is the son of the
deceased who accompanied the deceased to attend the court.
Similarly, PW2 also was required to attend the court and therefore he
reached the court and thereafter he saw the incident. Both the
witnesses have been fully and thoroughly cross-examined. There may
be some minor contradictions, however, as held by this Court in
catena of decisions, minor contradictions which do not go to the root
of the matter and/or such contradictions are not material
contradictions, the evidence of such witnesses cannot be brushed
aside and/or disbelieved.
11
In the present case, both the aforesaid witnesses are
thoroughly cross-examined on each and every aspect pointed out by
the defence. However, they have fully supported the case of the
prosecution. PW1 has also explained the giving of the ‘Sick Note’ on
behalf of the deceased when such a question was asked in the cross-
examination. PW1 has categorically stated that when they reached,
the matter was already adjourned as the learned Presiding Officer was
on inspection and was not available in the court. By the time they
reached, the matter was already adjourned. As at the time when the
matter was adjourned the deceased and PW1 could not reach the
court, the learned advocate gave the sick note and prayed for
exemption. The matter came to be adjourned and thereafter PW1 and
the deceased reached the court. From the entire evidence on record,
it is established and proved that the deceased and PW1 went to the
court, thereafter the matter was adjourned and thereafter while
returning just 15 to 20 minutes away from the court, the incident had
taken place. The place of incident has been established and proved
by the prosecution.
10. Now so far as the submission on behalf of the defence that
PW2 stated that he reached the spot subsequently after he received
the message is concerned, what is required to appreciate and
consider the evidence as a whole. When a specific question was
12
asked to him that in the statement before the police, he stated that he
reached subsequently, PW2 has specifically denied the same and he
has categorically stated that no such statement was given by him to
the police and he does not know how such a statement was recorded
in his statement. No question has been asked by the defence to the
person/IO who recorded the statement of PW2. Considering the
entire deposition as a whole, we are of the opinion that the
prosecution has been successful in proving the presence of PW1 &
PW2 at the time and place of incident. They are found to be
trustworthy and reliable.
11. Now so far as the submission on behalf of the accused that
as per the ballistic report the bullet found does not match with the fire
arm/gun recovered and therefore the use of gun as alleged is doubtful
and therefore benefit of doubt must be given to the accused is
concerned, the aforesaid cannot be accepted. At the most, it can be
said that the gun recovered by the police from the accused may not
have been used for killing and therefore the recovery of the actual
weapon used for killing can be ignored and it is to be treated as if
there is no recovery at all. For convicting an accused recovery of the
weapon used in commission of offence is not a sine qua non. PW1 &
PW2, as observed hereinabove, are reliable and trustworthy eye-
witnesses to the incident and they have specifically stated that A1-
13
Rakesh fired from the gun and the deceased sustained injury. The
injury by the gun has been established and proved from the medical
evidence and the deposition of Dr. Santosh Kumar, PW5. Injury no.1
is by gun shot. Therefore, it is not possible to reject the credible
ocular evidence of PW1 & PW2 – eye witnesses who witnessed the
shooting. It has no bearing on credibility of deposition of PW1 & PW2
that A1 shot deceased with a gun, particularly as it is corroborated by
bullet in the body and also stands corroborated by the testimony of
PW2 & PW5. Therefore, merely because the ballistic report shows
that the bullet recovered does not match with the gun recovered, it is
not possible to reject the credible and reliable deposition of PW1 &
PW2.
12. Now so far as the submission on behalf of the defence that
at the most it can be said that A2 & A3 caused injuries on the dead
body as according to them they caused injuries after the gun shot fired
on the deceased and the deceased fell down and died. Therefore, it is
the case on behalf of A2 & A3 that having been caused the injuries on
the dead body, they could not have been convicted for the offence
punishable under Section 302 IPC. However, it is required to be noted
that A2 & A3 are convicted with the aid of Section 34 of the IPC. Apart
from that, there is no evidence at all on record to suggest that when
the deceased sustained injuries by knives by A2 & A3 and the
14
deceased sustained injuries nos. 2 to 8, by the time he was dead.
Much reliance has been placed on the deposition of PW1 by the
defence that he admitted that after the gun shot injury, the deceased
fell down and died. However, he does not say that when A2 & A3
caused injuries by knives at that time the deceased was dead.
Therefore, the defence has failed to establish and prove that at the
time when the deceased sustained injuries nos. 2 to 8 by the knives
used by A2 & A3, he was dead.
13. It is also the case on behalf of the defence that according to
the witnesses/eye-witnesses the weapon used was ‘dagger’ and not
‘knife’ and what is recovered is ‘knife’ and PW2 has subsequently
improved his deposition that the other accused caused injuries by
knives. It is the case on behalf of the defence that even the doctor in
his cross-examination has stated that it is very doubtful to say that the
injuries were by sharp cutting weapon on both sides. However, it is to
be noted that the doctor answered the question which was put to him.
One is required to consider the entire evidence as a whole with the
other evidence on record. Mere one sentence here or there and that
too to the question asked by the defence in the cross-examination
cannot be considered stand alone. Even otherwise it is to be noted
that what is stated by the Doctor/Medical officer can at the most be
said to be his opinion. He is not the eye-witness to the incident. PW1
15
& PW2 have categorically stated that the other accused inflicted the
blows by knives. The same is supported by the medical evidence and
the deposition of PW2. Injuries nos. 2 to 8 are sufficient by the sharp
cutting weapon. Injuries nos. 2 to 8 are on different parts of the body
which show the intention and conduct on the part of the other accused
A2 & A3. Therefore, they are rightly convicted for the offence
punishable under Section 302 IPC with the aid of Section 34 IPC.
Their presence and participation have been established and proved by
the prosecution by examining PW1 & PW2 who are found to be
reliable and trustworthy witnesses.
14. In the present case, the prosecution has been successful in
proving the motive. There was a prior long-time enmity between the
deceased and the accused – A1. Even the deceased was also facing
trial for the offence under Section 307 IPC at the instance of A1. The
defence has failed to prove any circumstances by which it can be said
that they are falsely implicated in the case.
15. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, no
interference of this Court is called for. The learned trial Court and the
High Court have rightly convicted the accused for the offence
punishable under Section 302 r/w 34 of the IPC.
So far as A1 is concerned, there is a direct evidence against
him using the gun and shooting the deceased. Therefore, even he
16
can be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC,
without the aid of Section 34 IPC. As observed hereinabove, both the
courts below have rightly convicted A1 for the offence punishable
under Section 302 IPC and other accused – A2 & A3 for the offence
punishable under Section 302 IPC, with the aid of Section 34 IPC.
Under the circumstances, the appeal fails and deserves to be
dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.
…..………………………………..J. [Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud]
New Delhi; …………………………………….J.
July 06, 2021. [M.R. Shah]
17
Comments