Case Summary: Bir Singh and Ors. Vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh

Author: Mayank Raj

Case – Bir Singh and Ors. Vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh.

Citation – AIR 1978 SC 59, 1978 CriLJ 177 a, (1977) 4 SCC 420.

Bench – S M Ali and A Gupta.


The appellants were attempted under the watchful eye of the Court of the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Unnao for charges under Sections 302 and 307. The preliminary Court in the wake of considering the proof drove before it arrived at the resolution that the arraignment has neglected to demonstrate the body of evidence against the appellants past sensible uncertainty and appropriately cleared the appellants of the apparent multitude of charges encircled against them. From that point, the State of Uttar Pradesh went up in offer under the steady gaze of the High Court against the request for exoneration passed by the Additional Sessions Judge. The High Court anyway has taken an alternate view and switched the request for exoneration passed by the preliminary Court and held that the arraignment body of evidence was plentifully demonstrated against the appellants and indicted the litigant Bir Singh under Section 302 and condemned him to detainment forever. He was likewise indicted under Section 307 and condemned to 7 years thorough detainment. The litigant Ram Dularey Singh was indicted under Section 307 and condemned to 7 years thorough detainment and furthermore under Section 302 and condemned to detainment forever. The third appealing party Hukum Singh was indicted under Section 302 and condemned to life detainment and furthermore under Section 307 to 7 years thorough detainment. The appellants have recorded the current intrigue against the aforementioned request of conviction and sentences passed by the High Court.

Fact –

The fact of the case is that, the appellant Bir Singh is a boy of 14 years. Bir Singh studying in the class 8 at that time of the occurrence. Bir Singh is the son of Ram Narain Singh and employed in the Police Department and posted at Banda. He possessed the license gun (rifle) for the elder brother Bir Singh, Vidya Vinod Singh. On the 9 Nov.1967, around 4 p.m. Bir Singh and Hukum Singh went to the spot of event which is almost a tank and begun burrowing the earth from the Sahan of Man Singh, sibling of the perished Bans Gopal. Shrimati Rampati, widow of Man Singh and Vidya Devi questioned the activity of the appellants however; they paid no regard to the fights of these people. Surajpal Singh the child of the perished was cutting feed. On the Chabutra before his entryway. In the interim Bans Gopal showed up at the location of event and asked Bir Singh and Hukum Singh not to burrow earth and this prompted a quarrel. Restrictions Gopal grabbed the spade from the hands of Bir Singh and discarded it. This seems to have given genuine incitement to the appellants who subsequent to giving dangers went to the houses and came back to the spot differently furnished. Bir Singh was equipped with a twofold-barrelled weapon, Hukum Singh with a rifle and Ram Daularey Singh with a nation made gun. Hukum Singh provided the requests for ambush. Boycotts Gopal then moved towards the place of Man Singh when Bir Singh shot at him with the weapon, because of which Bans Gopal tumbled down. Sughar who was additionally there interceded and challenged the overbearing activity of the appellants on which the litigant Ram Dularey Singh is said to have shot at him with the gun that hit him on the leg. The observer additionally tumbled down and was harmed. Roshan Singh and other people who were viewing the episode raised an alert on which the blamed fled away from the spot for event. From that, point Surajpal Singh quickly left for the police headquarters where he stopped the principal data report describing what had occurred and the conditions bringing about the demise of his dad. Umesh Chandra, the Investigating Officer, begun the examination, arranged the sketch map and after the standard examination, presented a charge-sheet against the appellants who were attempted by the Additional Sessions Judge in any case vindicated as shown previously.  The protection of the appellants was that they had literally nothing to do with the event and had been erroneously embroiled because of ill will. A couple conceded realities might be referenced before we continue to examine the judgment of the two Courts. The observer Surajpal Singh unmistakably concedes that Ram Narain Singh, father of the litigant Bir Singh, had an authorized rifle and Vidya Vinod Singh the other child of Ram Narain Singh had an authorized firearm. One of the unprecedented highlights of this case is that the Investigating Officer made no endeavor whenever to ask Ram Narain Singh or Vidya Vinod Singh to deliver their weapons in order to bar the chance of these weapons having been utilized by the appellants. Then again, when these weapons were accessible it is hard to accept that Bir Singh a kid of 14 years would get a twofold-barreled firearm except if it was effectively or promptly accessible. The Investigating Officer plainly concedes that he never looked through the place of Ram Dularey Singh at all and the reason given by him was that since he was educated that denounced were not in the house in this way he did not look through the house. Another wonderful component of this case is as the Sessions Judge has obviously called attention to, that there is a genuine insertion in the overall journal kept up by the police and there was a decent arrangement of deferral in sending the overall journal to the higher officials. The scholarly Sessions Judge who had the first journal before him had discovered that there were insertions and overwriting where the name of Ram Dularey Singh was composed. The Sessions Judge subsequent to investigating the journal found that the chance of Ram Narain having been changed over to Ram Dularey could not be barred. Accordingly the guard implies that the indictment had first chosen to embroil Ram Narain Singh however when it found that at the hour of the event Ram Narain Singh was posted at Banda and could outfit a cast iron explanation which would have devastated the arraignment case, the name of Ram Dalarey Singh was subbed. He was along these lines given the job of shooting with a nation made gun. On the off chance that this is valid, at that point all arraignment observes who loaned themselves to help this bogus rendition cannot be accepted by any means. The High Court has not switched this finding of the Sessions Judge and has in certainty discovered that the over-composing was without a doubt there where the name of Ram Daularey Singh was referenced. We will advert to this part of the issue when we manage the overall journal, which has been the topic of genuine remark by the Sessions Judge, and we find that the High Court has not had the option to unstuck the analysis leveled against the indictment.

Issue –

  • Whether the appellant get free from the charges due to lack of evidence available was there.

Judgment –

After the negligent investigating by the Investigating Officer and the lost, the very valuable clue, which may clinch the issue, was lost.

The Supreme Court states that due to lack of evidence the appellant is acquitted from all the charges rammed against him and is directed to be set at liberty forthwith. Moreover, change the judgment of HC in favor of the appellant.