KARAN SINGH Vs. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

(2 MARCH, 2022)

INTRODUCTION

The case of Karan Singh Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh is an appeal case in which the appellant was accused of murder in the original decision of the Allahabad High Court. The accused was granted bail by the trail court as well as the Allahabad High Court during the pendency of the appeal but he was taken into custody as soon as the appeal was dismissed. The case was with regards to murder of one Brahmapal Singh who was shot dead by the accused. As far as this case is concerned other accused were dead as the appeal was put upon to release the remaining appellant accused as there was no direct evidence against him. On how this fact was perceived and the judgement of the Supreme Court formed the core of the case.

FACTS OF THE CASE

1. Ratipal is the complainant, who was the brother of Brahmapal Singh, the murdered. Eight days before Holi, Rajkumar Singh purchased a buffalo worth of Rs. 1900 from the complainant’s brother and promised to pay after 8 days to Holi.
2. Rajkumar defaulted over his payment and Brahmapal restricted him from harvested his crops. So, Rajkumar instructed him to come collect his money at a certain place (Simra Khera).
3. Brahmapal gathered at over the place with his brother Ratipal, brother-in-law, Shreepal Singh, A villager and Mahendra Singh.
4. When Rajkumar Singh was called upon, he arrived with a rifle, with also the appellant with a rifle, three others with single barrel guns and the other one with a double barrel gun.
5.  When Rajkumar Singh was asked to discharge his debt to Brahmapal Singh, Rajkumar Singh opened fire from the rifle, anf it hit his head and he fell unconscious. The others who came with Rajkumar Singh started to opened fire and one of the bullets shot Brahmapal Singh dead.
6. The others who went there with Brahmapal Sing, ran away to escape out of the fire and ran int the Sher Shah Thakur’s house to hide behind. When they returned, they found Brahmapal Singh dead.
7. An FIR was filed and all six of them including the appellant was submitted as the accused, post mortem report concluded several bullet wounds on the dead.
8. The trail court examined all the witnesses and found their testimonies reliable. The motive for murder was proved and the trial court sentenced them to life-imprisonment.
9. There was an appeal in the High Court held where upon all other accused except the appellant were dead. The High Court upheld the decision of the trial court and said that the minor discrepancies in the case would not be significant to the case. An appeal was raised before the Supreme Court of India by the Accused to acquit him.

ISSUES RAISED

Whether minor discrepancies on the evidence that is visible in the face of the record and no proof of the appellant’s guilt beyond guilt would be sufficient to declare the accused innocent?

PROVISIONS CONCERNED

1. Section 148 of IPC:- Any prison who is guilty of rioting or being armed with a deadly weapon which is more likely to cause death, when leads to death, shall be sentenced to imprisonment which may extend to three years or fine or both.
2. Section 149 IPC:- Every person who were in an unlawful assembly  where an offence was committed, where they that the offence is more likely to get committed is guilty of that offence.
3. Section 302 IPC:- Any person who commits murder shall be punished with death, imprisonment for life, or death.

CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT

1. The counsel appearing for the appellant stated that no weapon of crime used by the appellant was discovered from the crime place and the collected exhibits doesn’t include one such.
2. He submitted that the dispute was only between Brahmapal Singh and Rajkumar Singh and there existed no dispute between the appellant and the deceased.
3. He contended that there was no proper eye-witness for the act of the appellant firing at the deceased as the main witness Mahender Singh had not seen the appellant at the crime spot when th incident took place.
4. He purported that there existed a discrepancy in the FIR report itself where it was stated that Mahender Singh was a relative of the appellant but he was actually a close relative of the deceased.
5. He contended that no specific proof for the injury caused by the appellant’s rifle was produced explicitly.
6. He established that the conviction made by the trial court was only due an assumption or presumption. As all the witnesses ran away to save themselves, there was no stern witness against the appellant to prove him guilty. The doctrine of severability would not be applicable in case of the statement of the witness in a criminal trial.
7. He contended that the prosecution failed to prove the appellant’s guilt beyond doubt and so that the appeal shall to be allowed.

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT

1. The decision of the trial court and the High court should not be interfered.
2. He argued that there was existence of wounds that has penetrated and left the deceased body and gunshot wounds have been discovered on the injured witness Mahender Singh.
3. Although there was presence of minor discrepancies all the corroborative evidence had been proved and the presence of the appellant at the place was confirmed and although no one saw the others firing, the sounds of gun shots were heard.
4. The cause of death was sought to be multiple gun shots and not a single one and the injured witness was not put upon the question regarding the appellant, so he didn’t disclose anything to that regard.
5. He argued that there was clear evidence regarding the presence of the appellant at the crime place, and him carrying out the rifle and sound of gun shot. 
6. The doubts have been cleared beyond doubt and non-mentioning of the name od the appellant doesn’t demolish the evidence of the witnesses.

JUDGEMENT

The Supreme Court of India held that there was no proper contention regarding the current findings to interfere with the decision of the trail court or the High court. The existence of the fact that appeal took years and the other accused are dead was not a sufficient ground for the acquittal of the appellant and the appeal was dismissed.

ANALYSIS

1.  The minor discrepancies on the evidence that is visible in the face of the record and lack of proof for the appellant’s guilt would not be sufficient to declare the accused innocent.
2. The persistence of the fact that other day accused were dead was not sufficient for the acquittal of the appellant.
3. The non-disclosure of information by the witness regarding the appellant in the absence of any question raised on regards them is not a sufficient proof to declare the accused innocent.

CONCLUSION

This case provided a clear explanation over the matter of fact whether any person who was part of an unlawful assembly, owing to know the occurrence of any offence is guilty of the offence and shall be liable for imprisonment for life.

REFERENCES

1. www.indiankanoon.org
2. www.casemine.com

This Article is written by Magizhini M of The Tamilnadu Dr. Ambedkar Law University(SOEL), An Intern at Legal Vidhiya.

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.

Admin