1998 (2) TMI 595 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Conviction and sentencing of Nahar Singh (A-1), Shishupal Singh (A-2), and Ram Gopal (A-6).
2. Acquittal of other accused by the trial court and the High Court.
3. Delay in lodging the FIR and its implications.
4. Identification of the assailants and the role of artificial light.
5. High Court's interference with the trial court's judgment.

Summary:

1. Conviction and Sentencing of Nahar Singh (A-1), Shishupal Singh (A-2), and Ram Gopal (A-6):
The trial court found Nahar Singh (A-1) guilty u/s 148, 302, 449, and 201 IPC, sentencing him to death u/s 302 IPC, and various terms of rigorous imprisonment for other offenses. Shishupal Singh (A-2) and Ram Gopal (A-6) were found guilty u/s 148, 302/149, 449, and 201 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment u/s 302/149 IPC, along with other terms of rigorous imprisonment. The High Court, however, acquitted A-2 and A-6, which was contested by the State.

2. Acquittal of Other Accused by the Trial Court and the High Court:
The trial court acquitted Liyaqat Ali (A-3), Rakshpal Singh (A-4), Durgpal Singh (A-5), Bhagat Singh (A-7), Hari Shankar Singh (A-8), Brijendra Pal Singh, and Satendra Pal Singh of all charges. The High Court upheld these acquittals, dismissing the State's appeals against them.

3. Delay in Lodging the FIR and Its Implications:
The High Court noted the delay in lodging the FIR and found the explanation unconvincing. However, the Supreme Court found the delay justified due to the assailants keeping watch throughout the night, making it unsafe for PW 1 to lodge the complaint earlier. The Supreme Court emphasized that the explanation for the delay was not cross-examined, making the High Court's reasoning unconvincing.

4. Identification of the Assailants and the Role of Artificial Light:
The High Court doubted the identification of the assailants due to insufficient light at 6.30 p.m. The Supreme Court, however, found that there was enough light for the witnesses to identify the assailants, as stated by PW 5, who mentioned that a lantern was burning at the time of the incident.

5. High Court's Interference with the Trial Court's Judgment:
The Supreme Court held that the High Court's reasons for acquitting A-2 and A-6 were insufficient and not sustainable in law. It emphasized that the trial court's judgment was well-considered, based on credible eyewitness testimonies and corroborative evidence. The Supreme Court restored the trial court's judgment convicting A-2 and A-6 and directed them to be taken into custody to serve their sentences.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment acquitting Shishupal Singh (A-2) and Ram Gopal (A-6), restored the trial court's judgment convicting them, and directed their custody to serve their sentences. The appeals against other respondents were dismissed.