Allahabad HC Upholds 5-Year Sentence For Man Who Dealt Fatal Spear Blow After Children’s Kabaddi Quarrel

In brief

The question

Whether the testimony of the complainant and related or injured witnesses, supported by medical evidence, sufficiently established the appellants’ individual roles despite the absence of independent witnesses.

The court held

The High Court dismissed the appeal, finding no perversity or illegality in the convictions or sentences of Indrajeet Singh and Deo Narain Singh.

It also directed

It directed them to surrender without delay, cancelled their bail bonds, discharged their sureties and ordered that their prior incarceration be adjusted against their sentences in accordance with law.

01Facts

On 6 July 1984, following a quarrel among children, the accused allegedly came to the complainant’s house armed with spears and lathis. Indrajeet Singh stabbed Udai Singh in the chest; Udai Singh died while being taken to hospital. Deo Narain Singh stabbed Vijay Bahadur Singh, and other accused allegedly caused lathi injuries to Chandrika Singh and Abhimanyu Singh.

pp. 2–3

The Sessions Court convicted Indrajeet Singh under Section 304 Part II IPC and Deo Narain Singh under Section 324 IPC; other accused were convicted under Sections 304 Part II/109 and 323 IPC.

p. 1 · p. 5

The appeal abated as to three appellants who died during its pendency; Indrajeet Singh and Deo Narain Singh continued to contest it.

p. 5

02Issues

i.Whether the testimony of the complainant and related or injured witnesses, supported by medical evidence, sufficiently established the appellants’ individual roles despite the absence of independent witnesses.

pp. 6–13

ii.Whether the evidence disclosed grounds to disturb the convictions and sentences imposed on Indrajeet Singh and Deo Narain Singh, including Indrajeet Singh’s plea of alibi.

pp. 15–18

03Law Applied

The Court considered Sections 299 and 300, Exception 4, IPC, as well as the appellants’ convictions under Sections 304 Part II and 324 IPC.

pp. 3–5

It relied on Hardeep Singh v. State of Haryana, Kilari Malakondiaah v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Namdeo v. State of Maharashtra for the principles that related or injured witnesses are not to be rejected merely because of their relationship, but their evidence must be scrutinised for credibility and may support conviction if trustworthy.

p. 5

It also cited Santosh Kumar Satishbhushan Bariyar v. State of Maharashtra for the proposition that motive recedes in importance where direct evidence proves the prosecution case, and Lalliram v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Harbhajan Singh v. State of Punjab for the principle that cases are decided on their own facts.

p. 5 · p. 17

Provisions in the judgment · 12 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Indian Penal Code, 1860 11 provisions

Section 109 Section 147 Section 148 Section 149 Section 201 Section 299 Section 300 Section 302 Section 304 Section 323 Section 324

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 313

04Reasoning

The Court found the eyewitness accounts consistent on the central facts: Indrajeet Singh inflicted the fatal spear blow on Udai Singh, and Deo Narain Singh stabbed Vijay Bahadur Singh.

pp. 7–13

The injured witnesses’ presence and accounts were corroborated by their medical examinations and by the post-mortem findings, which linked the chest wound to Udai Singh’s death.

pp. 7–13

The Court held that the absence of independent witnesses did not undermine otherwise credible testimony from related and injured witnesses.

pp. 6–7

It rejected Indrajeet Singh’s alibi because the eyewitness and injured-witness evidence established his presence and role, and found no basis to interfere with the trial court’s findings.

pp. 15–18