SADHU SINGH ALIAS SURYA PRATAP SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
LAWS(SC)-1978-9-42
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on September 04,1978

SADHU SINGH ALIAS SURYA PRATAP SINGH Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) The appellant Sadhu Singh alias Surya Pratap Singh was convicted of the murders of the Shyama Devi and Randhir Singh and sentenced to death by the learned VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Allahabad. The sentence of death was confirmed by the High Court and the appellant has come up in appeal by special leave. Sadhu Singh's father Udai Raj Singh, Nagendra Nath Singh and Bhuleshwar Nath were also tried by the learned Sessions Judge. Nagendra Nath Singh and Bhuleshwar Nath were acquitted and Udai Raj Singh was convicted under Section 302 Indian Penal Code read with Section 34 and sentenced to imprisonment for life by the learned Sessions Judge. There was an appeal by Udai Raj Singh against his conviction while the State preferred an appeal against the order of acquittal of Nagendra Nath Singh and Bhuleshwar Nath. Udai Raj Singh's appeal was allowed and he was also acquitted. The appeal by the State was dismissed.
(2.) The case of the prosecution briefly was as follows : Randhir Singh owned about 45 bighas of land in the village of Nadula. His only son had died about 14 years before the occurrence and his widowed daughter-in-law Shyama Devi was living with him. Randhir Singh was aged about 70 years at the time of his death. Shyama Devi was aged about 35 years. Randhir Singh and Shyama Devi used to attend to the cultivation of land. Randhir Singh had a daughter who was living with her husband in another village about 20 miles from Nadula. Their daughter Deomani was living with her grand father Randhir Singh and aunt Shyama Devi in the Village of Nadula. At the time of the occurrence Deomani was aged about 13 years. As Randhir Singh had no male issue, Udai Raj Singh and his son Sadhu Singh wanted to grab his property. Randhir Singh apprehended danger to his life and in fact made a complaint Exh. Ka 53 and sought police protection. On 26th March, 1973, at about 7-30 a.m. Deomani (P. W. 2) was sitting at the door of her house while Shyama Devi was tethering a cow in front of the house. At that time Randhir Singh was sitting in front of a cycle repair shop about 100 yards away and attending to the harvesting of his wheat crop. The four accused came to the house of Randhir Singh. Sadhu Singh was armed with a pistol, Udai Raj Singh was armed with a gun while Nagendra Nath Singh and Bhuleshwar Nath were armed with a spear and a Gandasa respectively. Seeing Shyama Devi, Udai Raj Singh and the others shouted "Kill the Sali, she has become the owner of the property". Shyama Devi started running. Sadhu Singh chased her and shot at her with his pistol. He fired three shots. Shyama Devi fell down dead. Deomani (P. W. 2) started running to the place where her grandfather Randhir Singh was sitting in order to convey the information to him. While she was going towards her grandfather crying and shouting, the four accused also came to the place where her grandfather was sitting. Randhir Singh tried to escape by attempting to run into the house of Jagdeo. Sadhu Singh chased him and fired three shots at him. Randhir Singh also fell down dead. Thereafter the accused persons ran away. The occurrence was witnessed, amongst others, by Mataphal (P. W. 3), Jagbir Singh (P. W. 4) and Amar Nath (P. W. 5). Mataphal and Amar Nath witnessed the shooting of Randhir Singh only while Jagbir Singh witnessed the shooting of both Randhir Singh and Shyama Devi. After the accused persons ran away Deomani, Mataphal and other witnesses went to the spot where Randhir Singh had fallen and found him dead. Deomani got a report Ex. Ka 1 prepared by Mataphal. Deomani and Mataphal went to the Police Station at Sarai Mamrez, four miles away, and presented the report to the Sub-Inspector (P. W. 11) at 10.05 a.m. On receipt of the report P. W. 11 recorded the statement of P. W. 3 and then proceeded to the village for investigation. After holding the inquest, he arranged to send the two dead bodies for autopsy. P. W. 8 the Reader in Forensic Medicine conducted the post mortem examination on the two dead bodies. He noticed gun shot injuries on both the dead bodies and opined that death was due to gun shot injuries in both the cases. The stomach contents of both Shyama Devi and Randhir Singh showed partly digested food. The Investigating Officer who looked for the accused persons did not find them in the village. Udai Raj Singh, Sadhu Singh and Nagendra Nath Singh surrendered themselves in the Court of the Additional District Magistrate on 2nd April, 1973, while Bhuleshwar Nath surrendered himself on 5th April, 1973. P. W. 11 handed over the investigation to the C. I. D. and later took over the investigation again from the C. I. D. on 20th June, 1973. After completion of investigation a charge-sheet was filed against the four accused persons.
(3.) At the trial the prosecution examined P. Ws. 2, 3, 4 and 5 as eye-witnesses to the occurrence. The learned Sessions Judge did not administer the oath to Deomani on the ground that she was a child but he satisfied himself that she understood the necessity to speak the truth. The learned Sessions Judge noticed that P. Ws. 3, 4 and 5 were inimically disposed towards the accused and that there were circumstances in the case to support the defence allegation that they must have exercised some influence over Deomani. He thought that the implication of Nagendra Nath Singh and Bhuleshwar Nath could not be said to be free from doubt. However, he expressed the view that Deomani was a natural and convincing witness whose evidence was left unshaken despite lengthy cross-examination. Her evidence, according to the learned Sessions Judge left no room for doubt about the guilt of Sadhu Singh and Udai Raj Singh though her evidence against Nagendra Nath Singh and Bhuleshwar Nath could not be said to be free from "suspicion and influence". On those findings the learned Sessions Judge acquitted Nagendra Nath Singh and Bhuleshwar Nath and convicted Sadhu Singh and Udai Raj Singh as aforesaid. We may mention at this stage that the plea of the accused was one of denial. According to them they had been falsely implicated at the instance of Mataphal and Jagbir Singh. Both of them had developed intimacy with Shyama Devi. They also stated that they had no enmity either with Randhir Singh or with Shyama Devi.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.