Full Judgment Text
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 475 OF 2013
(@SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION(CRL.)NO.6215 OF 2010)
RAM CHANDRA VERMA APPELLANT
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND RESPONDENT
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal by special leave is directed against the
judgment and order passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand at
Nainital in Criminal Jail Appeal No.243 of 2006, dated 18.11.2009.
By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has confirmed the
judgment and order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Second
Fast Track Court, Udham Singh Nagar, Uttarakhand in Session Trial
No.68 of 2003, whereby and whereunder the learned Trial Judge has
convicted the accused person under Section 302 of the Indian Penal
JUDGMENT
Code, 1860 (for short 'the IPC') and sentenced him to undergo
imprisonment for life along with a fine of Rs.5,000/- and, in
default of payment of fine, to further undergo imprisonment of one
year.
3. The prosecution case in brief is: On 29.11.2002, the
appellant-accused and one Sunil Kumar Verma (for short ‘the
deceased’) were returning home from work on a bicycle. The appellant
was the pillion rider on the said bicycle driven by the deceased. On
Page 1
the way, the appellant shot at the back of the deceased’s head by a
country made pistol, whereafter the deceased fell from the bicycle
and died on the spot. PW-1, Anil Kumar Verma and PW-2, Mohd. Sazid
witnessed the incident while they were heading towards the house of
the deceased. They tried to catch hold of the appellant however he
fled away. Thereafter, PW-1 lodged an FIR at P.S. Jaspur for offence
punishable under Section 302 of the IPC.
4. Upon investigation, the appellant was charged for offences
under Section 302 of the IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959
and the case was committed for trial.
5. During the trial, the prosecution relied upon eight
witnesses including PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 - Dr. Madan Mohan, who
conducted post mortem examination of the deceased. The Trial Court
after due appreciation of evidence has reached the conclusion that
the evidence of eye-witnesses, PW-1 and PW-2, corroborates with each
other on all material facts and further that the injuries sustained
JUDGMENT
by the deceased have been corroborated by the Post Mortem Report and
the evidence of PW-3 and therefore convicted and sentenced the
appellant for the aforesaid offences. Aggrieved by the aforesaid
judgment and order of the Trial Court, the appellant had filed
Criminal Jail Appeal No. 243 of 2006 before the High Court.
6. The High Court after re-appreciation of entire evidence on
record and analysis of submissions made by the parties has dismissed
the appeal and confirmed the conviction and sentence of the
appellant. It is the correctness or otherwise of the judgment and
Page 2
order passed by the High Court which is in appeal before us in this
appeal.
7. We have heard Ms. Minakshi Vij, learned amicus curiae
appearing for the appellant and Shri Jatinder Kumar Bhatia, learned
counsel appearing for the respondent-State.
8. We have carefully perused the evidence of the two
witnesses, namely, PW-1, who is none other than the brother of the
deceased and PW-2, the servant of the deceased person. We have also
seen the post-mortem report prepared by PW-3. We have also carefully
perused the judgment(s) and order(s) passed by the Courts below.
10. In our considered opinion, the impugned judgment and order
passed by the High Court confirming the conviction and sentence
awarded by the Trial Court does not suffer from any legal infirmity
which would call for our consideration and interference and
therefore, the appeal requires to be dismissed and stands dismissed
JUDGMENT
accordingly.
11. Fee of learned amicus is assessed at Rs.7,000/-.
Ordered accordingly.
.......................J.
(H.L. DATTU)
.......................J.
(JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR)
NEW DELHI,
MARCH 19, 2013.
Page 3