Case: Raghubir Singh vs State Of U.P.
Date of Judgement: August 11, 1971
Citation: AIR 1971 SC 2156
Bench: Hon’ble Justice I D Shelat and Hon’ble Justice S Roy
Appellant: Raghubir Singh
Respondent: State Of U.P.
Facts:
1. Appellant 1, 2 and 3 were convicted for the Murder of deceased under Section 302, Indian Penal Code. Appellant 1 was sentenced to death whereas the other two were sentenced to imprisonment for life. In high Court, Appellants challenged their conviction and sentence.
2. While deceased was coming back on the bicycle all alone, when suddenly the three Accused persons emerged from a place where they were apparently waiting for him. Appellant 2 & 3 were alleged to be armed with spears whereas Appellant 1, had a pistol with him and fired a shot at the deceased from behind from a close range.
3. The witnesses reached the spot and found the deceased already dead. One of them went to the house of the deceased and narrated the entire occurrence to Respondent, his father, who proceeded to the place of occurrence and found his son lying dead on the passage. He then filed the First Information Report and registered a case against the accused persons. There was no spear injury on the body of the deceased. So the High Court Acquitted Appellant 2 and 3.
4. The Appellant’s counsel contended that the deceased had been killed by someone in the early hours of the morning when no one was present near about and therefore neither the assault nor the murderer was seen by any one.
Issue involved:
- Whether Appellant 1 was liable to death penalty under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code?
Obiter Dicta:
The Court convicted Appellant 1 towards death sentence under Section 302 IPC r/w Section 34 which states that, “When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.”
Section 302: “Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.”
Rationale:
1. Medical evidence as held by the two Courts supports the prosecution with respect to the pistol shot wound and also with respect to the time of the occurrence. The deceased left Burhaich village on a bicycle for his own village at 8:15 am. Moreover the first information report was lodged within a reasonable time after the occurrence and in that report the Appellant’s name mentioned as the person who had fired at the deceased around 9.30 in the morning.
2. It was held that the deceased had been murdered at about 9.30 a.m. in broad daylight and not in the early hours of the morning as suggested by the defence. The witnesses were not strangers to the Appellant and therefore it was contended that they identified him when the murder was committed in broad day-light.
3. The Court in this case states that the Appellant has been sentenced to death, however, court allowed the Appellant’s learned Counsel to refer to the evidence on the record to prove if there was any material on which his submission could be reasonably founded. He was unable to convince the court and did not put forth any substantial argument.
4. The Court find that the evidence of the eye-witnesses accompanied by the medical evidence which clearly states about the nature and condition of the wound and the contents of the stomach as found by the medical witnesses fulfilled the required combination which coupled with the statements of eye-witnesses exclude every element of reasonable doubt. Therefore the court holds that the Appellant has been rightly convicted of the Offence of murder.
Judgement:
In view of the facts and circumstances of this case, the court states that the sentence of imprisonment for life would seem to be justifiable and therefore reduces the sentence. The appeal succeeds in part.
Conclusion:
Appellants were convicted for the murder of one person named Brijendra Singh. They were sentenced to death and life imprisonment under Section 302 r/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code.
The court acquitted Appellant 2 and 3 but upheld the sentence of Appellant 1 on the basis of all the evidences given by eye-witness along with the medical evidences.
But the court found death penalty as an unreasonable punishment for this case so it commuted the punishment to Life imprisonment.
Drafted By: Param Mansinghka
Edited By: Tanvi Mahajan, Publisher, Law Insider
Published On: February 15, 2022 at 22:00 IST