New Delhi  :- JUDGEMENT OVERVIEW

COURT :  Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

JUDGEMENT NAME : :  Omkar Singh Versus Jaiprakash Narain Singh & Anr. Appeal (Crl.), 84 of 2022

JUDGEMENT DATE :  Feb 09, 2022

RELATED SECTIONS : INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860

INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860

Section 302 – Punishment for murder

 

IMPORTANT PARAGRAPH :

M. R. Shah, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned

judgment and order dated 15.03.2019 passed by the High

Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Appeal No.

304 of 1983 by which the High Court has allowed the said

appeal preferred by respondent No.1 herein – original

accused No.2 and has acquitted him for the offences

punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the

IPC, the original informant – son of the deceased has

preferred the present appeal.

2. As per the case of the prosecution, one Omkar Singh son of

Parasnath Singh lodged an FIR at Police Station Karanda,

District Gazipur stating that due to the enmity going on

between his family members with Udaibhan Singh and his

father Jaiprakash Narain Singh @ Lala (original accused

Nos.1 and 2) his father has been killed. As per the

allegation, on 21.04.1982, there was marriage of daughter of

one Kailashu Vishwakarma, who was his neighbour where

he along with his Tau ­ Vikrama Singh and his cousin

brother Indradeo Singh had gone. After taking meal at about

12 in the night, he along with his Tau and cousin had gone

on his pumping set for sleeping where his father Parasnath

was lying from before. He and his cousin Indradeo Singh

had slept on one cot whereas his Tau had slept on another

cot. There was a lantern burning which was hanging on a

stick. In between 2:30­3:00 am in the night, accused

Udaibhan Singh came near his cot and pulled the bed­sheet

on which he and his cousin woke up and his Tau also woke

1. At that moment Jaiprakash Narain Singh @ Lala (A­2)

exhorted and stated that Paras is lying here come quickly

and shoot him on which Udaibhan Singh (A­1) went near

the cot of his father Parasnath and shot him with country

made pistol on his chest from a point­blank range and when

the informant and the witnesses raised alarm then

Udaibhan Singh again reloaded his country made pistol and

threatened them on account of which they kept quiet.

Thereafter both the accused ran away towards North.

During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer

(IO) recorded the statements of the concerned witnesses

including eye witnesses and also collected the relevant

evidences. On conclusion of the investigation, the IO filed

the chargesheet against both the accused for the offences

under Sections 302 read with Section 302/34 of the IPC. As

the case was exclusively triable by the learned Court of

Sessions, the case was committed to the sessions court.

Accused pleaded not guilty and therefore both of them came

to be tried by the learned Sessions Court for the offences

punishable under Sections 302 and 302/34 of the IPC

respectively.

3. In order to bring the guilt of the accused the prosecution

examined PW­1 Omkar Singh – informant and PW­2

Inderdeo Singh and PW­4 Vikram Singh (all eye witnesses)

and PW­3 Dr. P.C. Srivastava who conducted the post

mortem of the deceased and PW­5 SI Kamta Singh. On

closure of the evidence on behalf of the prosecution, further

statements of the accused under Section 313 Cr.PC were

recorded. That thereafter on appreciation of the entire

evidence on record and believing PW­1, PW­2 and PW­4 (eye

witnesses) the learned Trial Court convicted A­1 – Udaibhan

Singh for the offences punishable under Section 302 of the

IPC and A­2 – Jaiprakash Narain Singh @ Lala for the

offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34

of the IPC and sentenced them to undergo life

imprisonment.

4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and

order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Trial

Court convicting the accused for the offences punishable

under Section 302 and Section 302/34 of the IPC

respectively, the accused preferred an appeal before the

High Court. By the impugned judgment and order, the High

Court has though believed the eye witnesses – PW­1, PW­2

and PW­4 so far as the A­1 – Udaibhan is concerned and

has confirmed the judgment and order of conviction passed

by the learned Trial Court convicting the A­1 – Udaibhan,

has acquitted A­2 – Jaiprakash Narain Singh @ Lala mainly

on the ground that the three prosecution witnesses had

given him role of exhortation only and no overt act has been

assigned to him and therefore there might be an

exaggeration of his role and false implication by the

witnesses in order to see that both the accused – father and

son are put behind the bars because of the property dispute

between the parties.

5. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned

judgment and order passed by the High Court acquitting

respondent No.1 herein ­ original accused No.2, the original

informant has preferred the present appeal.

6. Shri D.P. Singh Yadav, learned counsel appearing on behalf

of the appellant has vehemently submitted that in the facts

and circumstances of the case, the High Court has

committed a grave error while acquitting respondent No.1

herein – original accused No.2.

6.1 It is vehemently submitted by learned counsel appearing on

behalf of the appellant that as such respondent No.1 was

named in the FIR. It is submitted that all the three eye

witnesses – PW ­1, PW­2 & PW­4 named respondent No.1 –

accused who went to the pumping set where the deceased

was sleeping and that respondent No.1 with a common

intention to murder the deceased accompanied his son –

accused No.1 and on finding the deceased on a different cot

exhorted his son to kill him and thereafter accused No.1

killed the deceased with fire arm. It is submitted that

therefore the learned Trial Court rightly convicted

respondent No.1 – accused with aid of Section 34 of the IPC.

6.2 It is further submitted that even as per the finding recorded

by the High Court the motive has been established and

proved by the prosecution. It is submitted that

unfortunately the High Court has acquitted respondent No.1

– accused solely on the ground that overt act assigned to

respondent No.1 – accused No.2 is of exhortation only and

therefore, his involvement appears to be doubtful.

 

6.3 It is submitted that the said finding/observation is on

surmises and conjectures and just contrary to the evidence

on record. It is submitted that the presence of the accused

has been established and proved by the prosecution by

examining PW­1, PW­2 and PW­4, who are the eye witnesses

and that their evidence has been believed by the High

Court. It is submitted that therefore there is no reason to

doubt the presence of the accused – respondent No.1 herein

at the place of incident.

Download full judgement :- Click Here 

Read on click :- latest judgement OMKAR SINGH

Read more article : –

Analysis Section 307 Attempt to Murder- 

Click Here 

Watch on YouTube :-  Click Here 

New Delhi :- JUDGEMENT OVERVIEW

COURT :  Supreme Court of India (Full Bench (FB)- Three Judge)

JUDGEMENT NAME : PAPPU VERSUS THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Appeal (Crl.), 1097-1098 of 2018,

JUDGEMENT DATE :  Feb 09, 2022

RELATED SECTIONS : INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860

INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860

Section 302 – Punishment for murder

Section 376 – Punishment for rape

 

IMPORTANT PARAGRAPH :

These appeals by special leave are directed against the judgment

and order dated 06.10.2017 in Reference No. 13 of 2016 and Capital

Case No. 6601 of 2016 whereby, the High Court of Judicature at

Allahabad has affirmed the judgment and order dated 07/08.12.2016 in

Sessions Case No. 414 of 2015, as passed by the Additional Sessions

Judge, Court No. 2, Kushinagar; and, while upholding the conviction of

the appellant of offences punishable under Sections 376, 302, 201 of the

Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 5/6 of the Protection of Children

from Sexual Offences Act, 20122, has confirmed the death sentence

awarded to him for the offence under Section 302 IPC.

 

1.1. In addition to sentence of death for the offence under Section 302

IPC, the appellant has also been punished with fine of Rs. 20,000/- for the

offence under Section 302 IPC. This apart, he has been awarded the

punishments of rigorous imprisonment for a term of 10 years and fine of

Rs. 10,000/- for the offence under Section 376 IPC; rigorous

imprisonment for a term of 7 years and fine of Rs. 5,000/- for the offence

under Section 201 IPC; and rigorous imprisonment for a term of 10 years

1 ‘IPC’, for short.

2 ‘POCSO’, for short.

 

and fine of Rs. 10,000/- for the offence under Section 5/6 POCSO. While

providing for further imprisonment in case of non-payment of fine amount,

it has also been directed that half of the fine amount shall be given to the

mother of deceased girl as compensation.

2. In these appeals, the conviction of the appellant as also the

punishment awarded to him, particularly the capital punishment, are

under challenge. Before dealing with the matter in necessary details, we

may draw a brief sketch to indicate the contours of the forthcoming

discussion.

2.1. The appellant has been accused of enticing a seven-year-old girl

to accompany him on the pretext of picking lychee fruits; having thereafter

committed rape upon the child; having caused her death; and having

dumped the dead body near a bridge on the riverbank, after having

dragged the dead body over a distance of one and one-quarter

kilometres.

2.2. The prosecution case rested on circumstantial evidence to the

effect that the victim was lastly seen in the company of the appellant; that

her dead body was recovered at the instance of the appellant; that the

appellant had failed to satisfactorily explain his whereabouts and his

knowledge of the location of dead body; and that the medical and other

scientific evidence was consistent with the accusation. Per contra, the

appellant alleged that he was falsely implicated due to enmity with the

families of the deceased and other witnesses because of a land dispute.

 

2.3. The Trial Court, after analysing the material placed on record,

came to the conclusion that the prosecution had been able to substantiate

the charges by proving beyond doubt that the appellant had taken the

deceased with himself by enticing her to pluck and eat lychee fruits,

committed rape and then murdered her, and concealed the dead body in

bushes near the riverbank. Thus, the appellant was convicted by the

judgment dated 07.12.2016. Next day, the learned Additional Sessions

Judge heard the accused and the prosecution on the question of

sentence; and looking to the heinous crime committed by the appellant,

found it unjustified to show any mercy in punishment and thus, awarded

varying punishments, including that of death sentence for the offence

under Section 302 IPC.

2.4. The sentence of death was submitted for confirmation to the High

Court in terms of Section 366 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19733

.

On the other hand, the accused-appellant preferred an appeal against the

judgment and order of the Trial Court. Both, the reference case for

confirmation of death sentence and the appeal preferred by the appellant,

were considered together, where the High Court found no reason to

disbelieve the evidence led by the prosecution; and while rejecting the

defence story of wrongful prosecution for enmity due to land dispute,

affirmed the findings on conviction of the appellant. The High Court further

dealt with the question of sentence and with reference to the nature of

offence, in brutal rape and murder of a seven-year-old girl child, found the

3 ‘CrPC’, for short.

 

present one to be ‘rarest of rare case’, where the sentence of death was

considered ‘eminently desirable’. The High Court, accordingly, dismissed

the appeal filed by the appellant and confirmed the punishment awarded

to him, including the sentence of death.

2.5. In the present appeals, conviction of the appellant has been

questioned essentially with the contentions that the relevant factors are

indicative of ante-dating of the FIR; that the prosecution has not been

able to prove that the deceased was last seen with the appellant; that the

story of discovery of dead body at the instance of the appellant was also

not established; and that the medical and forensic evidence was not

conclusive to connect the appellant with the crime. The sentence

awarded to the appellant has also been put to question, essentially with

the submissions that the Trial Court as also the High Court have not

examined the mitigating circumstances existing in this matter, including

that it is a case of weak chain of circumstances; and that the appellant is

having no criminal antecedent and comes from a poor socio-economic

background with family members, including wife and children, being

dependent on him. Per contra, it is contended on behalf of the respondent

that concurrent findings on the guilt of the appellant, based on proper

appreciation of facts, call for no interference. It is also submitted that the

abhorrent nature of the crime justifies the death sentence in the present

case where the appellant, a grown-up person of about 35 years of age,

enticed a seven-year-old girl child and committed brutal rape and murder.

 

2.6. Thus, two major points would arise for determination in these

appeals: first, as to whether the conviction of the appellant calls for any

interference; and second, if the conviction of the appellant is maintained,

as to whether the sentence of death awarded to the appellant deserves to

be maintained or deserves to be substituted by any other sentence?

3. With the aforesaid outline, we may take note of the relevant

factual and background aspects in necessary details.

READ MORE :

Analysis Section 307 Attempt to Murder.

CLICK HERE 

READ MORE :-  Important Judgement for judiciary :- CLICK HERE