Full Judgment Text
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
2024 INSC 384
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). 3684 OF 2023
JAGVIR SINGH .…APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF U.P. ….RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
Mehta, J.
1. The instant appeal is directed against the judgment dated
th
10 May, 2019 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of
Allahabad whereby the Criminal Appeal No. 6318 of 2003 preferred
th
by the appellant for challenging the judgment dated 25
th
November, 2003 and the order of sentence dated 27 November,
2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1,
Mainpuri(hereinafter being referred to as the ‘trial Court’) in S.T.
No. 56 of 2003 was rejected.
2. By the said judgment, learned trial Court convicted the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Deepak Singh
Date: 2024.05.07
15:40:21 IST
Reason:
accused appellant and accused Omkar for the offences punishable
under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code,
1
1860(hereinafter being referred to as ‘IPC’) while acquitting
accused Sobran and Durvin from the charges. The accused
appellant as well as accused Omkar were sentenced to undergo
imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, each and in
default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of one year.
This Court is informed that accused Omkar has served out
the sentence awarded to him and was released on remission.
Brief facts: -
3. The first informant-Ram Naresh(PW-5) gave a written
report(Ex.Ka.15) at the Police Station Dannahar, District Mainpuri
alleging that his sister, brother-in-law and nephew-
Sanju(deceased) were residing nearby his house in village
st
Gokulpur for the last 15 years; on 31 August, 2002, at about 5.00
p.m., accused Omkar came and asked Sanju(deceased) to remove
his Naands(Hauda) from the land of the accused, to which,
Sanju(deceased) objected saying that the Naands(Hauda) were
existing there for a long time; at this, accused Omkar armed with
a rifle of 315 bore along with Jagvir Singh(appellant herein) armed
with country made pistol climbed on the roof of house of accused
Omkar and exhorted the two accused(Durvin and Sobran) to
2
surround Sanju(deceased); the accused Durvin and Sobran who
were armed with country made pistols went to the house of
Sanju(deceased) who on account of fear and to save his life climbed
up to the roof of informant’s house. Accused Omkar and Jagvir
fired shots at Sanju(deceased) from the roof of Omkar’s house. On
hearing the noise, Ram Naresh-first informant(PW-5) and Ram
Prakash(PW-1) rushed to the courtyard and found injured-Sanju
trying to step down, but he rolled down near the staircase and died
in the courtyard. All four accused ran away from the spot after
firing gunshots.
4. On the basis of the said report, FIR No. 85 of 2002 (Ex.Ka.2)
st
dated 31 August, 2002 came to be registered against the four
accused namely Omkar, Jagvir Singh, Durvin and Sobran.
Investigation was assigned to Ganga Prasad Gautam(PW-6) who
prepared the inquest report(Ex.Ka.6) and other spot documents.
The dead body of Sanju was subjected to autopsy by Dr. M.L.
Gupta, Medical Officer(PW-3) who prepared the post mortem
report(Ex.Ka.1) taking note of four abrasions and two firearm
wounds on the body of the deceased. The entry wound was located
on the chest area and the exit wound was located on the back of
the chest. The Medical Officer(PW-3) opined that the death of Sanju
3
was caused due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante
mortem injuries. The Site Inspection Plan(Ex.Ka.12) was prepared,
statements of witnesses were recorded and a country-made pistol
was recovered vide recovery memo(Ex.Ka.13) on being pointed out
by the accused appellant Jagvir Singh.
5. Upon conclusion of the investigation, a charge
sheet(Ex.Ka.14) came to be filed against the four accused persons
nominated in the FIR for the offences punishable under Section
302 read with Section 34 IPC.
6. Since the offence was exclusively sessions triable, the case
was committed and transferred to the Court of Additional Sessions
Judge No.1, Mainpuri(‘trial Court’). The trial Court framed charges
against the accused persons for the above offences. They abjured
their guilt and claimed trial. The prosecution examined seven
witnesses, exhibited 15 documents and 8 material objects to prove
its case. The statements of the accused persons were recorded
under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973(hereinafter being referred to as 'CrPC’). They denied having
committed the crime and claimed to have been falsely implicated.
The accused appellant Jagvir Singh stated in his Section 313 CrPC
statement that “Pradhan-Ramvir and others were firing from the
4
roof of informant which hit deceased-Sanju standing in veranda,
due to which, Sanju died”.
7. The learned trial Court, proceeded to rely upon the testimony
of Ram Prakash(PW-1)(father of Sanju), Sultan Singh(PW-2)(uncle
of Sanju), and Ram Naresh(PW-5)(the first informant and maternal
uncle of Sanju) as being eyewitnesses of the occurrence.
8. The evidence of Medical Officer(PW-3) was treated as
conclusive to establish the fact regarding the homicidal death of
Sanju. Upon conclusion of trial, the learned trial Court acquitted
two accused Durvin and Sobran and convicted the accused
th
appellant and accused Omkar by judgment dated 25 November,
2003 and sentenced them on above terms by order of sentence
th
dated 27 November, 2003.
9. The appeal preferred on behalf of the accused appellant
challenging the conviction and sentence was rejected by learned
Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court by judgment dated
th
10 May, 2019 which is subjected to challenge in this appeal by
special leave.
Submissions on behalf of the appellant:
10. Shri Kaushal Yadav, learned counsel for the accused
appellant vehemently urged that the testimony of so called eye
5
witnesses, Ram Prakash(PW-1), Sultan Singh(PW-2) and Ram
Naresh(PW-5) is totally unreliable and they are concocted
witnesses as they were not present at the crime scene.
11. It was submitted that the manner and location at which
Sanju(deceased) received the injuries would make it clear that
none of these so called eye witnesses were in a position to see the
incident.
12. He urged that as per the admitted case of prosecution,
gunshots were fired by the accused persons while standing on the
roof of the house of accused Omkar and that time Sanju received
the gunshot injury while standing on the roof of the house of his
maternal uncle Ram Naresh(PW-5). Drawing the Court’s attention
to the Site Inspection Plan(Ex.Ka.12) prepared by Ganga Prasad
Gautam, Investigating Officer(PW-6), learned counsel urged that
there is a gap of almost 3-4 houses between the two spots. The
eyewitnesses were admittedly not anywhere near Sanju(deceased)
and were admittedly on the ground when the gunshots were fired
at him.
13. Thus, there was no possibility that any of these witnesses
could have actually seen the incident of firing or identified the
assailant(s) who fired gunshots at Sanju(deceased).
6
14. Attention of the Court was drawn to the certain excerpts from
the evidence of the three star prosecution witnesses namely, Ram
Prakash(PW-1), Sultan Singh(PW-2) and Ram Naresh(PW-5) which
are reproduced hereinbelow:-
Examination in Chief of Ram Prakash(PW-1)
“Omkar had 315 bore illegal rifle and Jagvir had illegal country
made gun and Sobran and Durvin were also carrying illegal
weapons in their hands, they came to my house and Omkar
asked them to surround Sanju, Sanju climbed the wall of my
under constructed house and ran towards his maternal Uncle's
house. The accused reached the roof of their house and Sanju
has reached the roof of his Uncle's house. On chaos myself and
my brother in law Ram Naresh also reached the roof of the
house. I was about 10 paces away from Sanju when Omkar
fired on him. Out of fear we came down and Sanju also followed
us. Sanju was shot on roof itself and while getting down the
blood was flowing and he stumbled upon the stairs. After falling
from the staircase he died on the spot”
Cross Examination of Ram Prakash(PW-1)
“I work in the bangle factory in Firozabad. My village Gokulpur
to Firozabad where I work in the factory is about 56-57 kms
away. The witness of the incident is Sultan Singh who is the
son of Ramvir Pradhan's uncle. He is nephew in relation to my
wife Shaitan. During the incident I used to stay in Firozabad in
the rented accommodation.
Accused Omkar house is towards the north side of my village.
There is a Chak Road which runs from Omkar's house. The
chak road is used to travel for the city, there are 3 rooms in
Omkar's house facing towards east. Each room is at least 5-5
or 6-6 feet long. There is a dilapidated house while coming
towards my house from Omkar's house. The dilapidated house
is about 10-12feet long. There is a Girdhari's finished house
which is 18feets long in north south and my brother in laws
Ram Naresh house is situated along with house of Girdhari
which has one room and a veranda. There is a balcony in front
of the veranda. Both the doors of the room of Ram Naresh house
open in the veranda. Both the rooms of Ram Naresh is about 6-
6 or 7-7 feet long. Veranda is about 10-11 feet long. It is
connected with the wall of my house, one room of Ram Naresh
7
a courtyard and two other room, right after that is my house.
There is a room within a veranda towards the east having
staircase used for going on to the roof. There is no other way to
reach the roof of Ram Naresh. Accused Omkar's house cannot
be seen by standing in the veranda of Ram Naresh. We ran after
my son incurred injury of fire.
My signature was not taken by the Inspector on the Fard. My
signatures was not taken anywhere in the Panchama. The
people who registered the report informed me that your name
is also mentioned as the witness.”
Examination in Chief of Sultan Singh(PW-2)
“Date of incident 31.08.2002 at about 5 pm in the evening. I
was cutting grass at the time of the incident in my field. I heard
the sound of the abuse and that surround him so that he
cannot run away. I saw this while standing on the ram of my
field that the Omkar was carrying 315 bore rifle, Jagvir carrying
country made gun and these people were standing on the roof
of Omkar. I saw that Omkar fired on Sanju who was standing
on the roof of Ram Naresh. The fire shot hit Sanju. Jagvir also
fired. 3-4 firing was made on the roof. Sanju incurred firearm
injury, he could only come towards the staircase and fell from
there. Then I came to the house of Ram Naresh from my field
and saw Sanju had died.”
Cross Examination of Sultan Singh(PW-2)
“My field is 100 mts away from my house towards the south.
From my field deceased Sanju's house is visible but the door is
not visible nor the complainant Ram Naresh's house and
veranda is not visible.
I stood in my field after hearing the noise of abuses. I came to
the place of incident after the firing took place. I did not see the
bullet entering and exit the body of the deceased but i heard
the sound of fire and saw Sanju falling down from the
staircase.”
Examination in Chief of Ram Naresh(PW-5)
“At 5 pm 4 people came at the door of Sanju namely Omkar,
Soberan, Jagvir and Durvin. After taking fodder when Sanju
came to the house then these people asked him to remove his
Naands (Hauda) then Sanju replied that Naada (Hauda) were
there since his birth and that he will not remove. On this all the
8
four people ran away to their houses and Omkar carrying a rifle,
Jagveer, Soberan and Durvin carrying country made pistols
came there. Durvin and Soberan came in front of the door of
Sanju. Omkar asked them to surround him while Omkar and
Jagveer climbed on top of the roof. Out of fear of Durvin and
Soberan my nephew Sanju reached on the roof of my house
from his half constructed house. As soon as me and my brother
in law Ram Prakash from the staircase went to the roof then
Omkar made 2-3 firing on Sanju. Jagvir also fired. Me and Ram
Prakash were climbing the stairs up while Sanju was coming
towards the staircase.
This incident was witnessed by me, my brother in law, Sultan
Singh S/o Moti Lal and all the people from my house.
Cross Examination of Ram Naresh(PW-5)
In my report I have stated that "I and my brother in law Ram
Prakash after hearing the sound of firing went towards the roof
we saw Sanju was injured". This is the correct statement. When
I climbed one step of the staircase I saw Sanju coming towards
the staircase, my brother in law saw the same thing with me.
When I and my brother in law reached the courtyard we saw
Sanju stumbling down from the staircase from the courtyard
where there is a veranda in front of my house, from where the
roof of Omkar is not visible.
When Inspector arrived Ram Prakash was present at the place
of the incident. He was conscious but he did not state anything
to the Inspector.”
15. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the
theory setup by Ram Prakash(PW-1) in his examination-in-chief,
that he and Ram Naresh(PW-5) both climbed on to the roof with
Sanju(deceased) and saw the gunshots being fired at him is totally
falsified and contradicted by Ram Naresh(PW-5) who candidly
admitted that he and his brother-in-law Ram Prakash(PW-1), upon
hearing the sound of firing, went towards the roof and saw that
9
Sanju had been injured by gunshots. This very fact was also
mentioned in the FIR(Ex.Ka.2). He also urged that the witness Ram
Naresh(PW-5) admitted in his testimony that they saw Sanju
stumbling down from the staircase into the courtyard. They were
standing in the veranda in front of his house and from there the
roof of Omkar’s house is not visible.
16. Learned counsel urged that Ram Prakash(PW-1) being the
father of the deceased did not sign any of the documents prepared
at the spot. He admitted in his cross examination that during the
incident, he used to stay in Firozabad in a rented accommodation
which was about 56-57 kms away from his village Gokulpur where
the alleged incident took place. The witness also admitted that the
people who registered the report informed him that his name was
also mentioned as a witness. Learned counsel submitted that the
conjoint reading of these admissions as appearing in the evidence
of Ram Prakash(PW-1) would make it clear that he was not present
at the spot and was created to be an eye witness at a subsequent
point of time.
17. It was contended that the allegation made by the witnesses
that the accused appellant fired at Sanju while standing beside
10
accused Omkar is nothing but a piece of fabrication made owing
to prior enmity.
18. It was further submitted that as per Ram Prakash(PW-1) and
Ram Naresh(PW-5), the incident took place in two parts. In the
first part, there was an exchange of hot words(arguments) between
the four accused and Sanju(deceased). Even at that point of time,
all the four accused were carrying weapon in their hands whereas,
Sanju(deceased) was alone and unarmed. Thus, if at all, the
accused were intending to kill Sanju, then there was no reason for
them to have gone away from the house of Ram Naresh(PW-1)
where this heated exchange took place. Rather, they could have
easily shot and killed Sanju then and there.
19. It was further submitted that the very sequence of events
regarding the second part of the incident wherein, the witnesses
claimed that the two accused persons Sobran and Durvin were
asked to surround Sanju; the accused Omkar and Jagvir
Singh(accused appellant) went towards the house of Omkar and
climbed on to the roof; that Sanju climbed to the roof of Ram
Naresh’s house and then, the gunshots were fired at him by
accused Omkar and Jagvir Singh from the terrace of Omkar’s
house is on the face of it a piece of fiction without an iota of truth.
11
20. He urged that conviction of the accused appellant is totally
unjustified because the testimony of the so-called eyewitnesses is
unreliable on the face of the record.
Learned counsel thus implored the Court to accept the appeal
and quash the impugned judgment and acquit the accused
appellant by giving him the benefit of doubt.
Submissions on behalf of the Respondent-State: -
21. Per contra , Ms. Garima Prasad, learned Additional Advocate
General representing the State of Uttar Pradesh, vehemently and
fervently opposed the submissions advanced by learned counsel
for the appellant and urged that two Courts, i.e., the trial Court
and the High Court, have recorded concurrent findings of facts
while convicting the appellant and affirming his conviction and
hence, this Court should be slow to interfere in such concurrent
findings of facts. She submitted that it is clear from the testimony
of the three eye witnesses i.e. Ram Prakash(PW-1), Sultan
Singh(PW-2) and Ram Naresh(PW-5) that the accused appellant
Jagvir Singh and the accused Omkar fired gunshots at
Sanju(deceased) causing his death at the spot. She implored the
Court to dismiss the appeal.
12
22. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the
submissions advanced at bar and have gone through the
impugned judgments and the material placed on record.
Discussion and Conclusion:
23. From a perusal of the FIR(Ex.Ka.2), it is manifest that the
first informant-Ram Naresh(PW-5) categorically mentioned in the
report that on hearing the gunshots, he and his brother-in-law
Ram Prakash(PW-1) climbed on the top of the roof and saw that
Sanju(deceased) was injured, and while he was climbing down the
staircase, he rolled down, fell in the courtyard near the stairs and
died. This fact is even admitted by Ram Naresh(PW-5) during this
cross-examination in the following terms: -
“However, I mentioned in my report that, “when I and my
brother-in-law after hearing the gun shots/fire reached the roof
of the house, we saw Sanju injured”, is correct.”
24. The first informant-Ram Naresh(PW-5) also stated that he
and Ram Prakash(PW-1) were climbing up the stairs while Sanju
was coming down the staircase. Sanju got down 2-3 steps from
the staircase and then stumbled down. When he and his brother-
in-law Ram Prakash(PW-1) reached the courtyard, they saw Sanju
stumbling down from the staircase from the courtyard, from where
the roof of Omkar is not visible.
13
25. Thus, apparently, the claim made by Ram Prakash(PW-1) in
his evidence that he and Ram Naresh(PW-5) had reached the roof
of the house from where they saw Omkar firing at Sanju is a sheer
piece of concoction and unacceptable on the face of the record.
26. Another material fact emerging from examination-in-chief of
Ram Prakash(PW-1) is that he did not allege that accused
appellant Jagvir Singh also fired at Sanju. He also admitted in his
cross-examination that the house of accused Omkar will not be
visible from the courtyard of Ram Naresh.
27. Both, Ram Prakash(PW-1) and Ram Naresh(PW-5) stated in
their testimony that they got alarmed on hearing the sound of
gunfire. If at all the shot had been fired from the house of Omkar,
there is no reason as to why the witnesses would go to the
courtyard of the house of Ram Naresh(PW-5) rather than rushing
towards the direction from where the sound of the gunshot had
been heard. Manifestly, their attention would be drawn towards
the sound of the gunshots being fired and in natural course, they
would look towards that direction and not anywhere else.
28. Ram Prakash(PW-1) and Ram Naresh(PW-5) deposed in their
testimony that during the second part of the incident; accused
Omkar asked the accused Durvin and Sobran(since acquitted) to
14
corner and surround Sanju who also rushed to the roof of the
house of Ram Naresh(PW-5).
29. We further find that the conduct of the eye-witnesses Ram
Prakash(PW-1) and Ram Naresh(PW-5) is totally unnatural. Both
the witnesses claimed to have seen Sanju(deceased) being chased
and surrounded by accused Durvin and Sobran. Despite, that,
neither of them, made an attempt to save Sanju from these
assailants or to at least raise a hue and cry so that the
neighbouring people could be sounded about the incident. Neither
of the witnesses made an attempt to intervene or to shield Sanju.
30. Furthermore, both the witnesses claimed that they saw
accused Omkar and accused appellant Jagvir Singh rushing
towards the house of Omkar and climbing the roof thereof. Hence,
there was no rhyme or reason as to why, Sanju would also climb
up the roof of Ram Naresh’s house and take the risk of exposing
himself to the offensive intents of the accused persons.
31. The participation of accused Durvin and Sobran in the
incident has not been accepted by the trial Court and on that
basis, these two accused persons were acquitted. Clearly, thus, the
story put forth by the witnesses that accused Durvin and Sobran
were also amongst the four offenders who were making an attempt
15
to eliminate Sanju is unacceptable and unbelievable. Thus, the
quarrel, if any, unquestionably took place between accused Omkar
and accused appellant Jagvir Singh on the one side and Sanju on
the other. Once accused Omkar and accused appellant Jagvir
Singh had moved on from the place where the first part of the
incident took place, Sanju had no reason, whatsoever, to climb up
the roof of Ram Naresh’s house because he was not facing any
threat thereafter. Thus, the entire prosecution case is shrouded
under a cloud of doubt.
32. A three judge Bench of this Court in the case of Selveraj v.
1
State of Tamil Nadu set aside the concurrent findings of guilt
recorded by the trial Court and the High Court, wherein on an
appreciation of evidence the prosecution story was found highly
improbable and inconsistent of ordinary course of human nature.
The relevant extract of which is reproduced hereinbelow: -
“4. The conviction of the appellant rests on the oral testimony
of Natesan and Manisekaran who claimed to be eyewitnesses to
the murder of the deceased. Both the learned Additional
Sessions Judge as well as the High Court have believed the
evidence of these two witnesses and ordinarily we would be
loath to disturb the concurrent view taken by both these Courts
as regards the appreciation of their evidence, but we find that
there are inherent improbabilities in the story put forward by
these two witnesses and we do not think it would be safe to act
upon their uncorroborated testimony. In the first place, it is
difficult to believe that the appellant was so inflamed with
passion as to demand sexual intercourse with the deceased who
1
(1976) 4 SCC 343
16
happened to be the wife of his cousin, and that too, not while
she was alone, but in the presence of her husband. Even if he
was mad with lust, he would not have chosen to come at this
particular time, namely, 9 p.m. for making advances to the
deceased, when he must have known that her husband
Natesan would in all probability be at home. In any event, when
Natesan came into the house, the appellant would have run
away and not continued to insist that the deceased should
submit to sexual intercourse with him. The entire story appears
to be highly improbable and inconsistent with the ordinary
course of human nature. Then again, look at the conduct of
Natesan on seeing this highly explosive situation. He finds that
the appellant is demanding sexual intercourse with his wife and
is threatening her with a knife in his hand. And yet, he does not
step out of the house and shout for help. He does not even try
to go to the rescue of the deceased. He silently and
shamefacedly watches his wife being murdered by the
appellant. He is not alone in the house. Manisekaran has come
in the meantime, with the result that there are two persons on
his side and yet, both of them quietly watch the proceedings
without making any attempt to save the deceased. This conduct
is highly unnatural and we find it difficult to accept it.
5. It may be noted that Manisekaran's presence at the time of
the incident is rather unusual. Manisekaran was, according to
his evidence, working as an apprentice in the tailoring shop of
Natesan, and it is difficult to believe that he should have been
at the house of Natesan at 9 p.m. after the tailoring shop was
closed. Manisekaran was admittedly not staying with Natesan.
He was living in a house which was a little distance away from
the house of Natesan. He would ordinarily go back to his house
after the tailoring shop was closed. But, in order to make
Manisekaran an eyewitness, the prosecution came forward with
the story that he was sent by Natesan with edibles for his
children at 8.15 p.m. This is a tall story which is difficult to
believe. There is no reason why at 8.15 p.m. Manisekaran
should have been asked by Natesan to purchase edibles from
the market and carry them to the house for the children. In all
probability the children would have finished their meals. Even
if Manisekaran carried edibles to the house of Natesan, there is
no reason why he should have waited there for half an hour
from 8.30 p.m. to 9 p.m. in order to be able to witness the
incident. It is again strange and unusual that though
Manisekaran saw the appellant stabbing the deceased, he did
not utter any shout or attempt to run out of the house for the
purpose of seeking help for the deceased. We are not at all
satisfied that Manisekaran was an eyewitness to incident and
his testimony cannot be relied upon for the purpose of
supporting the conviction of the appellant.”
17
33. The so-called eye witnesses, Ram Prakash(PW-1) and Ram
Naresh(PW-5) were the closest relatives of the victim. They
allegedly saw the fatal assault on the victim and yet did not take
any step to save him from the assault. If these witnesses PW-1
and PW-5 had actually seen the assault, their reaction and
conduct does not match up with the reaction expected from them.
Their conduct is highly unnatural, and we find it difficult to accept
their presence at the crime scene.
34. Further, it is evident from the testimony of Ram Prakash(PW-
1) that there is a gap of 3 to 4 houses between the house of Ram
Naresh(PW-5) and the house of accused Omkar which makes it
clear that the estimated distance between the two locations would
be more than 30-40 ft. The Site Inspection Plan(Exhibit P-12) also
fortifies our conclusion. Both the witnesses, PW-1 and PW-5
admitted the fact that the roof of accused Omkar was not visible
from the courtyard of Ram Naresh(PW-5) in their evidence as we
have elaborated above. In this background, we have no hesitation
in holding that the so called eye witnesses, PW-1 and PW-5, who
were unquestionably standing or moving at the ground level could
18
not have seen the gunshots being fired at Sanju(deceased) from the
roof of Omkar’s house.
35. Sultan Singh(PW-2) admitted that he was working in his field
when the incident took place and thus, there was no possibility
that, he could have seen the incident with his own eyes. But
despite that, the prosecution tried to project him as an eyewitness
of the incident which again creates a grave doubt on the
truthfulness and bona fides of the prosecution story.
36. Resultantly, we have no doubt in our mind that neither of the
so called eye witnesses i.e., Ram Prakash(PW-1), Sultan Singh(PW-
2) and Ram Naresh(PW-5) had actually seen the gunshots being
fired at Sanju(deceased). As a matter of fact, the entire sequence
of events as narrated by prosecution witnesses does not inspire
confidence.
37. Indisputably, Sanju received a single gunshot injury which
proved fatal. Considering the significant disparities and
discrepancies in the evidence of Ram Prakash(PW-1) and Ram
Naresh(PW-5) regarding the identity of the assailant who actually
fired at Sanju(deceased), we feel that the conviction of accused
appellant Jagvir Singh on the basis of such flimsy and wavering
evidence is not at all justified. The trial Court as well as the High
19
Court committed glaring error while holding that Ram
Prakash(PW-1), Sultan Singh(PW-2) and Ram Naresh(PW-5) were
eyewitnesses to the incident and that they saw the accused
appellant along with accused Omkar firing at Sanju(deceased).
These findings are unsustainable on the face of the record in view
of the analyses and discussion of evidence made above.
38. Consequently, the appellant deserves to be acquitted giving
th
him the benefit of doubt. Hence, the judgment dated 25
th
November, 2003 and order of sentence dated 27 November, 2003
th
passed by the trial Court and judgment dated 10 May, 2019
passed by the High Court are hereby quashed and set aside.
39. The appellant is acquitted of the charges. He is in custody
and shall be released from the prison forthwith, if his custody is
not required in any other case.
40. The appeal is accordingly allowed.
41. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
………………….……….J.
(B.R. GAVAI)
………………………….J.
(SANDEEP MEHTA)
New Delhi;
May 07, 2024
20