Full Judgment Text
1
2024 INSC 606
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.719 OF 2022
VIRENDRA KUMAR CHAMAR APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G E M E N T
ABHAY S. OKA, J.
1. The appellant is accused no.3. The Trial Court convicted
him for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘the IPC’). One
Jaggilal, a brother of the deceased Harilal, was the
complainant. He is the first informant. He stated that on
th
20 June, 2005, his brother, deceased Harilal, was
conversing with one Mohan Lal at around 6:30 p.m. At that
time, accused nos.1 and 2, holding pistols in their hand, and
the present appellant, holding a knife in his hand, came
there with the intention of killing the deceased. Accused
nos.1 and 2 fired on Harilal with their pistols. Harilal
Signature Not Verified
entered Mevalal’s house. He was shouting. The three accused,
Digitally signed by
KAVITA PAHUJA
Date: 2024.08.13
17:12:51 IST
Reason:
while chasing him, entered Mevalal’s house and again fired
pistols. The appellant assaulted him by using a knife.
2
2. PW1—Ram Sumer is another brother of the deceased who
also claims to be an eyewitness. We may note here that
Jaggilal, another brother of the deceased who had filed the
complaint, died before the trial started. The appellant's
conviction is based on evidence of PW1 Ram Sumer.
3. With the assistance of learned counsel appearing for the
appellant and learned counsel appearing for the State, we
have carefully perused the evidence of PW1.
4. Before we appreciate the evidence of PW1, we may note
here that the case of the prosecution is that firearm
injuries caused the death of the deceased. The allegation
against the appellant is that he was carrying a knife in his
hand, and he assaulted the deceased after the bullets were
fired on the deceased by the other two accused.
Surprisingly, a charge under Section 34 of the IPC has not
been framed against the appellant.
5. PW1 - Ram Sumer, in his examination-in-chief, stated
that he heard the sound of fire and noise, and after hearing
the noise, he and his brother Jaggilal (complainant) ran
towards the spot. He saw his brother Harilal entering
Mevalal’s house, and three accused were running after him.
The three accused entered Mevalal’s house. He, along with
Jaggilal, also entered the house, and he saw accused nos.1
3
and 2 firing on his brother, and after that, the appellant
injured his brother with a knife.
6. In the cross-examination by the Advocate for the
accused, the PW1 admitted that he reached the spot two or
three minutes after hearing the firing sounds. He stated
that when he and his brother Jaggilal reached there, people
were shouting, and no one was standing near the spot. He
answered in the cross-examination that he had not seen the
actual incident of accused nos.1 and 2 firing bullets at the
deceased and accused no.3 (appellant) assaulting the deceased
with a knife. His statement in the cross-examination
indicates that the deceased had already died when he reached
the scene of the offence. In the cross-examination, he
further admitted that he did not know how many rounds were
fired on the deceased Harilal because, at that time, he was
at home. Thus, a serious doubt is created whether PW1 had
seen the incident of assault by the accused.
7. No other eyewitness was examined, though from the
evidence of PW1, it is apparent that the incident happened at
6.30 pm. and that there were many people around. We are
surprised to note that the courts have convicted the
appellant only based on evidence of PW1—Ram Sumer. He has
already undergone incarceration for sixteen years. This is a
shocking state of affairs.
4
8. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the
conviction of the appellant cannot be sustained.
Accordingly, the impugned judgments are set aside. The
appellant, accused no.3 in Sessions Trial No.82 of 2006
before the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge/FTC-Second,
Kaushambi is acquitted of the charges framed against him.
9. The appellant shall be immediately set at liberty if he
is not required to be detained in any other case.
10. The appeal is accordingly allowed.
11. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
......................J.
(ABHAY S.OKA)
......................J.
New Delhi; (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH)
August 7, 2024.
5
ITEM NO.107 COURT NO.6 SECTION II
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Criminal Appeal No.719/2022
VIRENDRA KUMAR CHAMAR Appellant(s)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Respondent(s)
(IA No. 47007/2024 - EARLY HEARING APPLICATION
IA No. 47000/2024 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
IA No. 46998/2024 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/
FACTS/ANNEXURES)
Date : 07-08-2024 These matters were called on for hearing
today.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY S. OKA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
For Appellant(s) Mr. Vishal Vishwadheesh, Adv.
Ms. Manju Jetley, AOR
Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Adarsh Upadhyay, AOR
Mr. Rajesh Kumar Singh, Adv.
Mr. Aman Pathak, Adv.
Ms. Pallavi Kumari, Adv.
Mr. Shashank Pachauri, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed non-
reportable judgment.
The operative portion of the judgment reads thus:
“Therefore, we are of the considered view
that the conviction of the appellant cannot be
sustained. Accordingly, the impugned judgments
are set aside. The appellant, accused no.3 in
6
Sessions Trial No.82 of 2006 before the Court
of the Additional Sessions Judge/FTC-Second,
Kaushambi is acquitted of the charges framed
against him.”
The appellant shall be immediately set at
liberty if he is not required to be detained in
any other case.
The appeal is accordingly allowed.”
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(KAVITA PAHUJA) (AVGV RAMU)
ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (NSH)
[Signed non-reportable judgment is placed on the file]