Omkar Singh vs Jaiprakash Narain Singh

Omkar Singh vs Jaiprakash Narain Singh - Supreme Court Case 2022

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.84 OF 2022

Omkar Singh                ..Appellant(S)

Versus

Jaiprakash Narain Singh & Anr.             ..Respondent(S)

J U D G M E N T 

M. R. Shah, J.

1. Feeling   aggrieved   and   dissatisfied   with   the   impugned

judgment and order dated 15.03.2019 passed by the High

Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Appeal No.

304 of 1983 by which the High Court has allowed the said

appeal   preferred   by   respondent   No.1   herein   –   original

accused   No.2   and   has   acquitted   him   for   the   offences

punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the

1

IPC,   the   original   informant   –   son   of   the   deceased   has

preferred the present appeal.     

2. As per the case of the prosecution, one Omkar Singh son of

Parasnath Singh lodged an FIR at Police Station Karanda,

District Gazipur stating that due to the enmity going on

between his family members with Udaibhan Singh and his

father Jaiprakash Narain Singh @ Lala (original accused

Nos.1   and   2)   his   father   has   been   killed.   As   per   the

allegation, on 21.04.1982, there was marriage of daughter of

one Kailashu Vishwakarma, who was his neighbour where

he  along  with  his  Tau  ­  Vikrama  Singh   and  his  cousin

brother Indradeo Singh had gone. After taking meal at about

12 in the night, he along with his Tau and cousin had gone

on his pumping set for sleeping where his father Parasnath

was lying from before. He and his cousin Indradeo Singh

had slept on one cot whereas his Tau had slept on another

cot. There was a lantern burning which was hanging on a

stick.   In   between   2:30­3:00   am   in   the   night,   accused

Udaibhan Singh came near his cot and pulled the bed­sheet

on which he and his cousin woke up and his Tau also woke

up. At that moment Jaiprakash Narain Singh @ Lala (A­2)

2

exhorted and stated that Paras is lying here come quickly

and shoot him on which Udaibhan Singh (A­1) went near

the cot of his father Parasnath and shot him with country

made pistol on his chest from a point­blank range and when

the   informant   and   the   witnesses   raised   alarm   then

Udaibhan Singh again reloaded his country made pistol and

threatened   them   on   account   of   which   they   kept   quiet.

Thereafter   both   the   accused   ran   away   towards   North.

During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer

(IO)   recorded   the   statements   of   the   concerned   witnesses

including   eye   witnesses   and   also   collected   the   relevant

evidences. On conclusion of the investigation, the IO filed

the chargesheet against both the accused for the offences

under Sections 302 read with Section 302/34 of the IPC. As

the case was exclusively triable by the learned Court of

Sessions, the case was committed to the sessions court.

Accused pleaded not guilty and therefore both of them came

to be tried by the learned Sessions Court for the offences

punishable   under   Sections   302   and   302/34   of   the   IPC

respectively. 

3

3. In order to bring the guilt of the accused the prosecution

examined   PW­1   Omkar   Singh   –   informant   and   PW­2

Inderdeo Singh and PW­4 Vikram Singh (all eye witnesses)

and   PW­3   Dr.   P.C.   Srivastava   who   conducted   the   post

mortem  of  the  deceased  and  PW­5  SI  Kamta  Singh.  On

closure of the evidence on behalf of the prosecution, further

statements of the accused under Section 313 Cr.PC were

recorded.   That   thereafter   on   appreciation   of   the   entire

evidence on record and believing PW­1, PW­2 and PW­4 (eye

witnesses) the learned Trial Court convicted A­1 – Udaibhan

Singh for the offences punishable under Section 302 of the

IPC   and   A­2   –   Jaiprakash   Narain   Singh   @   Lala   for   the

offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34

of   the   IPC   and   sentenced   them   to   undergo   life

imprisonment. 

              

4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and

order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Trial

Court convicting the accused for the offences punishable

under   Section   302   and   Section   302/34   of   the   IPC

respectively,   the   accused   preferred   an   appeal   before   the

High Court. By the impugned judgment and order, the High

4

Court has though believed the eye witnesses – PW­1, PW­2

and PW­4 so far as the A­1 – Udaibhan is concerned and

has confirmed the judgment and order of conviction passed

by the learned Trial Court convicting the A­1 – Udaibhan,

has acquitted A­2 – Jaiprakash Narain Singh @ Lala mainly

on the ground that the three prosecution witnesses  had

given him role of exhortation only and no overt act has been

assigned   to   him   and   therefore   there   might   be   an

exaggeration   of   his   role   and   false   implication   by   the

witnesses in order to see that both the accused – father and

son are put behind the bars because of the property dispute

between the parties. 

5. Feeling   aggrieved   and   dissatisfied   with   the   impugned

judgment and order passed by the High Court acquitting

respondent No.1 herein ­ original accused No.2, the original

informant has preferred the present appeal. 

6. Shri D.P. Singh Yadav, learned counsel appearing on behalf

of the appellant has vehemently submitted that in the facts

and   circumstances   of   the   case,   the   High   Court   has

committed a grave error while acquitting respondent No.1

herein – original accused No.2. 

5

6.1 It is vehemently submitted by learned counsel appearing on

behalf of the appellant that as such respondent No.1 was

named in the FIR. It is submitted that all the three eye

witnesses – PW ­1, PW­2 & PW­4 named respondent No.1 –

accused who went to the pumping set where the deceased

was   sleeping   and   that   respondent   No.1   with   a   common

intention to murder the deceased accompanied his son –

accused No.1 and on finding the deceased on a different cot

exhorted his son to kill him and thereafter accused No.1

killed   the   deceased   with   fire   arm.   It   is   submitted   that

therefore   the   learned   Trial   Court   rightly   convicted

respondent No.1 – accused with aid of Section 34 of the IPC.

6.2 It is further submitted that even as per the finding recorded

by the High Court the motive has been established and

proved   by   the   prosecution.   It   is   submitted   that

unfortunately the High Court has acquitted respondent No.1

– accused solely on the ground that overt act assigned to

respondent No.1 – accused No.2 is of exhortation only and

therefore, his involvement appears to be doubtful.

6

6.3 It   is   submitted   that   the   said   finding/observation   is   on

surmises and conjectures and just contrary to the evidence

on record. It is submitted that the presence of the accused

has   been   established   and   proved   by   the   prosecution   by

examining PW­1, PW­2 and PW­4, who are the eye witnesses

and   that   their   evidence   has   been   believed   by   the   High

Court. It is submitted that therefore there is no reason to

doubt the presence of the accused – respondent No.1 herein

at the place of incident.

7. Making the above submissions it is prayed to allow the

present appeal. 

8. Shri Garvesh Kabra learned counsel appearing on behalf of

the State has supported the appellant and has submitted

that the High Court has erred in acquitting respondent No.1

– accused No.2. 

9. The present appeal is opposed by Shri R.M. Sinha learned

counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 – accused

No.2. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf

of respondent No.1 – accused No.2 that cogent reasons have

been given by the High Court while acquitting respondent

No.1 – accused for the offence punishable under Section

7

302 of the IPC, and therefore the same is not required to be

interfered with by this Court in exercise of power conferred

under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. 

9.1 It is further submitted that as rightly observed by the High

Court all the three prosecution witnesses had given accused

the role of exhortation only and no further overt act has

been   assigned   to   him   and   even   as   per   the   prosecution

witnesses and even the prosecution the fire arm was used

by accused No.1 and the only allegation against respondent

No.1 herein – original accused No.2 was exhortation. The

High Court has rightly acquitted respondent No.1 – accused

for the offences punishable under Section 302/34 of the

IPC. 

10. Making the above submissions it is prayed to dismiss the

present appeal.      

11. We have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

respective parties at length. 

12. At the outset it is required to be noted that in the present

case right from the very beginning the name of respondent

No.1 was disclosed. Respondent No.1 – accused No.2 was

named in the FIR. There are three eye witnesses to the

8

incident   namely   PW­1,   PW­2   and   PW­4   and   all   the

prosecution   witnesses   have   named   respondent   No.1   –

accused No.2 and all of them have stated that both the

accused came at the pumping set where the deceased was

sleeping and at that time on finding the deceased sleeping

on the different cot, respondent No.1 herein – accused No.2

exhorted his son to kill the deceased and his son – accused

No.1   killed   the   deceased   by   fire   arm.   All   the   three

prosecution witnesses are consistent and fully supported

the case of the prosecution. Even the High Court has also

specifically observed and held that all the three prosecution

witnesses   are   reliable   and   trustworthy   and   there   is   no

reason to doubt them. Therefore, once even the High Court

also found all the three prosecution witnesses – PW­1, PW­2

and PW­4 trustworthy and reliable and in fact confirmed the

conviction of accused No.1 for the offence punishable under

Section 302/34 of the IPC, the High Court ought not to have

thereafter   doubted   the   presence   of   accused   No.2   –

respondent   No.1   herein.   Once   the   High   Court   has   even

confirmed the conviction of accused No.1 relying upon all

the   three   eye   witnesses,   the   High   Court   ought   to   have

9

confirmed the conviction of respondent No.1 – accused No.2

also relying upon the three eye witnesses. 

12.1 From the reasoning given by the High Court it appears that

the High Court has acquitted respondent No.1 – accused

No.2 just on the ground that all the three eye witnesses had

given him the role of exhortation and no overt act has been

assigned to him, this may be due to exaggeration of his role

so as to falsely implicate him and see that the father and

son are put behind bars. However, it is required to be noted

that both the accused – father and son went together to the

place/pumping set where the deceased was sleeping. Even

as per the High Court the motive has been established and

proved. The High Court has also observed that due to land

dispute there was enmity between the parties. Therefore,

the High Court ought to have appreciated that respondent

No.1 – accused No.2 was rightly convicted with the aid of

Section 34 of the IPC as he with a common intention to kill

the   deceased   accompanied   his   son   and   on   finding   the

deceased sleeping on the different cot exhorted his son to

kill him and thereafter his son killed the deceased by fire

arm. Therefore, once his presence has been established and

10

proved and specific role of exhortation was assigned to him,

the High Court ought to have confirmed the conviction of

respondent No.1 – accused No.2 for the offence punishable

under Section 302/34 of the IPC.           

12.2 It is also required to be noted that as such the High Court

has upheld/confirmed the conviction of accused No.1 for

the offence punishable under Section 302/34 of the IPC.

Therefore,   once   the   conviction   of   accused   No.1   for   the

offence punishable under Section 302/34 of the IPC was

upheld/confirmed,   the   High   Court   ought   to   have

upheld/confirmed the conviction of accused No.2 who was

also   charged   for   the   offence   punishable   under   Section

302/34   of   the   IPC.   Both   the   accused   with   a   common

intention went to the place of deceased at mid­night and as

observed hereinabove the motive has been established and

proved,   the   High   Court   has   committed   a   grave   error   in

acquitting   respondent   No.1   –   accused   No.2.   The   finding

recorded by the High Court is just contrary to the evidence

on   record.   The   impugned   judgment   and   order   is

unsustainable both, on law and on facts. 

11

13. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above the

present appeal succeeds. The impugned judgment and order

passed   by   the   High   Court   acquitting   respondent   No.1   –

original accused No.2 – Jaiprakash Narain Singh is hereby

quashed and set aside and the judgment and order passed

by the learned Trial Court convicting him for the offence

punishable under Section 302/34 of IPC and sentencing

him to undergo life imprisonment is hereby restored. Now

respondent No.1 – original accused No.2 to surrender within

a period of four weeks to undergo life imprisonment.            

…………………………………J.

   (M. R. SHAH)

…………………………………J.

  (SANJIV KHANNA)

New Delhi, 

February, 9th 2022

12

Landmark Cases of India / सुप्रीम कोर्ट के ऐतिहासिक फैसले