The Supreme Court of India has dismissed a set of criminal appeals, thereby upholding the conviction and life imprisonment sentences awarded to appellants Om Pal, Narendra, Ranvir, and Dharamvir for a double murder committed in 1988.
The bench, comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra, affirmed the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the High Court of Uttarakhand, which held the appellants guilty under Section 302 (murder) read with Section 149 (unlawful assembly) and Section 307 (attempt to murder) read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
In a judgment authored by Justice Mishra, the Court ruled that the appellants were the aggressors in the incident, which stemmed from a land dispute, and rejected the defence’s plea that the case was one of a “free fight” falling under the exceptions to murder. The Court reinforced the principle that “ocular evidence is the best evidence unless there are reasons to doubt it” and that the testimony of an injured eyewitness “enjoys a presumption of truth.”
Background of the Case
The incident dates back to May 19, 1988, involving two groups of close relatives descended from a common ancestor, who had a “long-standing dispute” over a land boundary (mendh).
Two separate First Information Reports (FIRs) were lodged concerning the incident:
- FIR No. 65: Lodged on May 20, 1988, by the appellants’ side, alleging that the complainant party (Dile Ram, Ved Pal, etc.) had attacked them. This case (Session Trial No. 57 of 1992) resulted in the acquittal of all accused.
- FIR No. 65A: Lodged on May 23, 1988, by the complainant’s side (PW-1, Tejpal Singh, son of the deceased Dile Ram). This FIR alleged that on May 19, 1988, Molhar and Dharamvir damaged the field boundary, and when Dile Ram objected, they and other accused (Kantu, Inchha Ram, Narendra, Om Pal, Pehlu, and Ranvir) attacked Dile Ram, Braham Singh, and Bangal Singh with lathis, spades (phawads), and axes.
Dile Ram succumbed to his injuries on May 24, 1988, and Braham Singh expired on May 31, 1988.
The case based on FIR No. 65A (Session Trial No. 56 of 1992) concluded with the Trial Court finding all seven accused guilty. They were sentenced to life imprisonment for offences under Section 302/149 IPC and 10 years of rigorous imprisonment for offences under Section 307/149 IPC.
The appellants’ convictions were upheld by the High Court of Uttarakhand by a common judgment on November 29, 2010, which led to the present appeals before the Supreme Court. (Criminal Appeal No. 1614 of 2011, filed by Inchha Ram, abated as he passed away during the pendency).
Arguments of the Parties
Appellants’ Submissions: Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the incident was “not a premeditated murder but a result of a free fight that ensued between the two groups.” Key contentions included:
- Injuries were sustained on both sides, indicating the appellants may have been exercising their right of self-defense.
- The fact that their FIR (No. 65) was lodged first was highlighted.
- The cross-FIR from the complainant side was lodged after a delay of three days.
- It was argued that the conviction under Section 302/149 IPC was “totally misconceived” and that the case, if any, should fall under the fourth exception to Section 300 IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder), punishable under Section 304 Part II IPC.
Respondent-State’s Submissions: The State argued that the appellants were the “aggressors” and had a “motive for killing Dile Ram,” as consolidation proceedings regarding the disputed field had been decided in Dile Ram’s favour, which “enraged the appellants.”
- The State maintained that the fourth exception to Section 300 IPC was not attracted due to the “shared motive on the part of the appellants.”
- Regarding the delay in the complainant’s FIR, the State argued the Trial Court had correctly found that the “delay was well explained.”
Supreme Court’s Analysis
The Supreme Court began its analysis by noting the limited scope of interference under Article 136 of the Constitution against concurrent findings of fact, stating it is only done in “very exceptional circumstances” such as “a decision shocks the conscience of the court” or when findings are “manifestly perverse.”
Reliance on Injured Eyewitness (PW-2): The Court placed significant weight on the testimony of PW-2 (Bangal Singh), who was an injured eyewitness. The judgment observed: “It is settled that the testimony of an injured eyewitness is accorded a special status in law. As being a stamped witness, his presence cannot be doubted.” (Para 35).
Citing Jarnail Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab and Abdul Sayeed vs. State of Madya Pradesh, the Court noted that an injury to a witness is an “inbuilt guarantee of his presence at the scene of the crime” (Para 37). The Court found that the “defence had not at all challenged the version of PW-2, but on the contrary, the defence had admitted his presence at the spot of the said occurrence.” (Para 38).
The testimonies of other eyewitnesses, PW-3 and PW-4, were also found to be reliable and corroborative, with the Court noting the defence “had not at all been successful in eliciting any contradiction in their respective evidence.” (Para 41).
Rejection of ‘Free Fight’ Defence: The Court explicitly rejected the appellants’ main contention that the incident was a ‘free fight’ falling under the fourth exception to Section 300 IPC. The bench stated: “We, however, are not convinced with this argument…” (Para 44).
Relying on Pulicherla Nagaraju alias Nagaraja Reddy vs. State of A.P., the Court examined the intention of the accused based on factors including the “nature of the weapon used” and “whether the blow is aimed at a vital part of the body.”
The Court concluded: “From the medical evidence on record… The use of the sharp edges of spades, phawadas to deliver fatal blows on the heads of the deceased demonstrates that the assailants acted with a clear motive and object of permanently eliminating them, thereby committing their murder. Thus, the circumstances to bring the case under the fourth exception to Section 300 of the IPC do not exist.” (Para 45).
On Delay in FIR and Non-Recovery of Weapons: The Court also dismissed the appellants’ arguments regarding procedural lapses.
- Delay: The Court upheld the lower courts’ finding that the delay in FIR No. 65A was “well explained.” PW-1 (complainant) had stated he first took his “injured father (Dile Ram), injured uncle (Braham Singh), and nephew to the hospital in Chandigarh and after he came back… he lodged the FIR.” The Court found this explanation “probable and natural.” (Para 48).
- Non-Recovery of Weapons: The Court held this was not fatal to the prosecution’s case, citing State of Rajasthan vs. Arjun Singh & Ors. and Nankaunoo vs. State of Uttar Pradesh to reiterate that “non-recovery of the weapons cannot be considered fatal to the case of the prosecution if there is consistent medical and ocular evidence.” (Para 49-50).
Final Decision
The Supreme Court concluded that there was “no doubt” that the appellants, “in furtherance of their common intention formed an unlawful assembly,” and “committed the murder of Braham Singh and Dile Ram.” (Para 51).
Finding the appeals “being sans merit,” the Court dismissed them. The appellants were ordered to “surrender to custody forthwith,” and their bail bonds were cancelled. The Court clarified that the appellants were not precluded from “making an application for remission in accordance with law and the applicable policy of the State Government.”
