# 4 S.C.R. 312 SHEO SHANKAR SINGH v. STATE OF JHARKHAND & ANR

- **Citation:** [2011] 4 S.C.R. 312
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2011-02-15
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal Nos. 791-792 of 2005
- **Bench:** V.S. Sirpurkar, T.S. Thakur
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/4-s-c-r-312-sheo-shankar-singh-v-state-of-jharkhand-anr-27619
- **Pages:** 55

## Headnote

Penal Code, 1860 - s.302 rlw s.34 - Murder - Person
shot down on road, while he was riding pillion seat of
C motorcycle driven by PW 16 - Appellant S allegedly drove
his motorcycle to the left of PW16's motorcycle, while
appellant U, riding pillion, fired gun shots at the deceased
from close range - Allegation that accused-appellants were
part of the coal mafia and deceased, a sitting member of the
D State Legislative Assembly, incurred their wrath as he
opposed their activities - Eye-witness account of PW16 and
PW6 - Trial Court convicted the appellants and sentenced
them to life imprisonment - High Court confirmed the
conviction and also enhanced the sentence of life
E imprisonment to sentence of death - On appeal, held: The
deceased was perceived by the appellants as a hurdle in their
activities - The depositions of all the witnesses satisfactorily
prove that the appellants were seen hanging around the place
of occurrence on the incident date and were seen together
F riding a motorcycle proximate in point of time when the
deceased was gunned down - Seizure evidence corroborated
the prosecution version - Further corroboration from medical
evidence - The prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt
, the sequence of events underlying the charge of murder
levelled against the appellants - Conviction upheld but
G sentence modified to life imprisonment instead of death
sentence.
H
312
',,
•
SHEO SHANKAR SINGH v. STATE OF JHA,RKHAND 313
&ANR.
Criminal Trial:
A
Motive - Importance of proof of motive - Distinction
between cases where prosecution relies upon circumstanttal
evidence and where it relies upon the testimony of eye
witnesses - Held: In the former category of cases, proof of
motive itself constitutes a link in the chain of circumstances
8
upon which the prosecution may rely - Proof of motive,
however, recedes into the background in cases where the
prosecution relies upon an eye-witness account' of the
occurrence - That is because if the court, upon a proper
appraisal of the deposition of the eye~witnesses, comes to the
G
conclusion that the version given by them· is credible,
absence of evidence to prove the· motive is rendered
inconsequential - Conversely, even if prosecution succeeds
in estaqlishing a strong motive for the commission of the
offence, bf!t the evidence of the eye-witnesses is found
D
unreliable or unworthy of credit, existence of a motive does
not by itself provide a sa/e ,basis for convicting, the accus.eq
- That does not, however, mean that proof of motive even in
a case which rests on an eye-witness account does not l~nd
strength to the prosecution case or fortify the court in its
E
ultimate conclusion ::... Proof of motive in such a situation
certainly helps the prosecution and supports t~e eyewitnesse.s - The,Jnstant case rests upon the depositio(I of the
eyewitnesses, hence, absence of motive would not by itself
make any material difference, but if a motive is prover;! it wo.uid
F
lend support to the prosecution version - The prosecution
herein established the motive to fortify its charge against the
accused-appellants.
, ,
Witness - Examination of - Delay in examination -
Effect - Held: Mere delay in examination of a particular G
witness does not, as a rule of uniVersai application, render the
prosecution case suspect - In a case where the investigating
officer has reasons to b,elieve that a particulqr witness is an
eye-witness to the) occurrence but,'he does .not. exa,rgine ':him·. H'
314
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2011) 4 S.C.R.
A without any possible explanation for any such omission, the
delay may assume importance and require the Court to
closely scrutinize and evaluate the version of the witness -
But in a case where the investigating officer had no such
information about any particular individual being an eyeB witness to the occurrence, mere delay in examining such a
witness would not ipso facto render the testimony of the
witness suspect or affect the prosecution version - In the
instant case, t

## Text

_Characters 0–39,872 of 108,407. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39872 for what follows._

A
B
[2011) 4 S.C.R. 312
SHEO SHANKAR SINGH
V.
STATE OF JHARKHAND & ANR.
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 791-792 of 2005)
FEBRUARY 15, 2011
[V.S. SIRPURKAR AND T.S. THAKUR, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860 - s.302 rlw s.34 - Murder - Person
shot down on road, while he was riding pillion seat of
C motorcycle driven by PW 16 - Appellant S allegedly drove
his motorcycle to the left of PW16's motorcycle, while
appellant U, riding pillion, fired gun shots at the deceased
from close range - Allegation that accused-appellants were
part of the coal mafia and deceased, a sitting member of the
D State Legislative Assembly, incurred their wrath as he
opposed their activities - Eye-witness account of PW16 and
PW6 - Trial Court convicted the appellants and sentenced
them to life imprisonment - High Court confirmed the
conviction and also enhanced the sentence of life
E imprisonment to sentence of death - On appeal, held: The
deceased was perceived by the appellants as a hurdle in their
activities - The depositions of all the witnesses satisfactorily
prove that the appellants were seen hanging around the place
of occurrence on the incident date and were seen together
F riding a motorcycle proximate in point of time when the
deceased was gunned down - Seizure evidence corroborated
the prosecution version - Further corroboration from medical
evidence - The prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt
, the sequence of events underlying the charge of murder
levelled against the appellants - Conviction upheld but
G sentence modified to life imprisonment instead of death
sentence.
H
312
',,
•
SHEO SHANKAR SINGH v. STATE OF JHA,RKHAND 313
&ANR.
Criminal Trial:
A
Motive - Importance of proof of motive - Distinction
between cases where prosecution relies upon circumstanttal
evidence and where it relies upon the testimony of eye
witnesses - Held: In the former category of cases, proof of
motive itself constitutes a link in the chain of circumstances
8
upon which the prosecution may rely - Proof of motive,
however, recedes into the background in cases where the
prosecution relies upon an eye-witness account' of the
occurrence - That is because if the court, upon a proper
appraisal of the deposition of the eye~witnesses, comes to the
G
conclusion that the version given by them· is credible,
absence of evidence to prove the· motive is rendered
inconsequential - Conversely, even if prosecution succeeds
in estaqlishing a strong motive for the commission of the
offence, bf!t the evidence of the eye-witnesses is found
D
unreliable or unworthy of credit, existence of a motive does
not by itself provide a sa/e ,basis for convicting, the accus.eq
- That does not, however, mean that proof of motive even in
a case which rests on an eye-witness account does not l~nd
strength to the prosecution case or fortify the court in its
E
ultimate conclusion ::... Proof of motive in such a situation
certainly helps the prosecution and supports t~e eyewitnesse.s - The,Jnstant case rests upon the depositio(I of the
eyewitnesses, hence, absence of motive would not by itself
make any material difference, but if a motive is prover;! it wo.uid
F
lend support to the prosecution version - The prosecution
herein established the motive to fortify its charge against the
accused-appellants.
, ,
Witness - Examination of - Delay in examination -
Effect - Held: Mere delay in examination of a particular G
witness does not, as a rule of uniVersai application, render the
prosecution case suspect - In a case where the investigating
officer has reasons to b,elieve that a particulqr witness is an
eye-witness to the) occurrence but,'he does .not. exa,rgine ':him·. H'
314
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2011) 4 S.C.R.
A without any possible explanation for any such omission, the
delay may assume importance and require the Court to
closely scrutinize and evaluate the version of the witness -
But in a case where the investigating officer had no such
information about any particular individual being an eyeB witness to the occurrence, mere delay in examining such a
witness would not ipso facto render the testimony of the
witness suspect or affect the prosecution version - In the
instant case, the trial court and the High Court had accepted
the explanation offered by the investigating officer for delay
c - No reason to take a different view or to reject the testimony
of the witness only because his statement was recorded a
month and half after the occurrence.
Identification - Test identification parade (TIP) - Purpose
of - Held: TIP is conducted with a view to strengthening the
D trustworthiness of the evidence - Such a TIP then provides
corroboration to the witness in the Court who claims to identify
the accused persons otherwise unknown to him -
TIPs,
therefore, remain in the realm of investigation - However,
CrPC, does not oblige the investigating agency to necessarily
E hold a TIP nor is there any provision under which the accused
may claim a right to the holding of a TIP - The failure of the
investigating agency to hold a TIP does not, in that view, have
the effect of weakening the evidence of identification in the
Court - As to what should be the weight attached to such an
F identification is a matter which the Court will determine in the
peculiar facts and circumstances of each case -
In
appropriate cases, the Court may accept the evidence of
identification in the Court even without insisting on
corroboration - On facts, the omission of the investigating
G agency to associate PW16 with the TIP in which PW1 identified
accused-appellant U did not ipso jure prove fatal to the case
of the prosecution, although the investigating agency could
and indeed ought to have associated the said witness also
with the TIP especially when the witness had not claimed
H familiarity with the accused-U before the incident -
The
•
SHEO SHANKAR SINGH v. STATE OF JHARKHAND 315
&ANR.
omission did not affect the credibility of the identification of A
the said appellant by PW16 in the Court - That is because
the manner in which the incident had taken place and the
opportunity which PW16 had, to see and observe the actions
of appellant U were sufficient for the· witness to identify him in
the Court- Absence of TIP and the failure of the Investigating
B
Officer to associate the witness with the same did not,
therefore, make any material difference in the instant case.
Investigation - Deficiencies in investigation - Effect of,
on prosecution case - Held: Deficiencies in investigation by C
way of omissions and lapses on the. part of investigating
agency cannot by themselves justify a total rejection of the
prosecution case - On facts, the failure on the part of the
investigating officer in sending the blood stained clothes to
FSL and the empty cartridges to the ballistic expert was not
sufficient to reject the version given by the eye witnesses -
D
Especially so, when a reference to the ballistic expert would
not have had much relevance since the weapon from which
the bullets were fired had not been recovered from the
accused and was not, therefore, available for comparison by
the expert.
E
Sentence/Sentencing - Death sentence - Commutation
to life, if warranted - 'Rarest of rare' test - Murder of sitting
member of State Legislative Assembly - Accused-appellants
were part of the coal mafia and deceased being opposed to
F
such activities incurred their wrath and got killed - Trial Court
convicted the appellants but did not find it to be a rarest of
rare case and awarded them life sentence - High Court
enhanced the sentence by imposing upon the accusedappellants the extreme penalty of death- Whether the present
G
case was one of those rare of rarest cases where High Court
was justified in imposing extreme penalty of death upon the
appellants - No - Reasons being, firstly, because the
appellants were not professional killers - Secondly, because
even when the deceased was a politician there was no political
H
316
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2011] 4 S.C.R.
A angle to his killing -
Thirdly, because while all culpable
homicides amounting to murder are inhuman, hence legally
and ethically unacceptable yet herein there was nothing
particularly brutal, grotesque, diabolical, revolting or dastardly
in the manner of its execution so as to arouse intense and
s extreme indignation of the community or exhaust depravity
and meanness on the part of the accused-appellants to call
for the extreme penalty - Fourthly, because there was
difference of opinion between the trial court and the High Court
on the question of sentence to be awarded to the convicts -
c Considering all the circumstances, death sentence awarded
to the accused-appellants commuted to life imprisonment.
According to the prosecution, the accusedappellants were part of the coal mafia and deceased, a
sitting member of the Jharkhand State Legislative
D Assembly, opposed their activities and that because of
this opposition, the appellants killed the deceased by
shooting him down on the road, when he was riding the
pillion seat of the motorcycle driven by PW 16-informant.
It was alleged that the accused-appellant 5 drove his
E motorcycle to the left of PW16's motorcycle, whereupon
accused-appellant U, riding pillion, shot the deceased
from close range on his head on which he slumped on
the back of PW16 thereby disturbing the balance of his
motorcycle and bringing both of them to the ground; that
F thereafter the motorcycle driven by appellant-5 was
stopped by him a little ahead whereupon appellant-U got
down and threatened PW16 that even he would be killed;
that so threatened PW16 hurried away from the spot
whereupon appellant U fired another bullet at the
G deceased, pushed his dead body down the side slope of
the road, walked back to the motorcycle whose engine
was kept running by appellant-5 and ttwy both fled away.
The deceased died a homicidal death caused by gunshot
injuries.
H
•
SHEO SHANKAR SINGH v. STATE OF JHARKHAND 317
&ANR.
The prosecution case rested entirely on the ocular A
testimony of PW16 and PW6, apart from the incriminating
circumstances called in aid by the prosecution to lend
support and corroboration to the testimony of the said
two eye-witnesses. The trial court convicted the
appellants under Section 302 r/w Section 34 IPC and B
sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for
life. The appellant U was additionally convicted under
Section 27 of the Arms Act. The conviction of the
appellants was upheld by the High Court.
In the instant appeals, various questions arose for C
consideration viz. 1) whether the prosecution proved any
motive for the commission of the crime alleged against
the appellants and if so to what effect; 2) whether the
prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt, the
sequence of events on which was based the charge of D
murder levelled against the appellants and finally. 3)
whether the present case was one of those rare of rarest
cases in which the High Court could have awarded to the
appellants the extreme penalty of death.
E
Partly allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD:1.1. The legal position regarding proof of
motive as an ·ess~ntial requirement for bringing home the
guilt of the accused is fairly well settled. There is a clear F
distinction between cases where prosecution relies upon
circumstantial evidence on the one hand and those where
it relies upon the testimony of eye witnesses on the other.
In the former category of cases proof of motive is given
the importance it deserves, for proof of a motive itself
constitutes a link in the chain of circumstances upon_ G
which the prosecution may rely. Proof of motive, however,
recedes into the background i,n,.:-e:ases where the
prosecution relies upon an eye-witn-Eiss account 9f the
occurrence. That is because if the co1,1rt upon a-'P'roper
I
H
318
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2011) 4 S.C.R.
A appraisal of the deposition of the eye-witnesses comes
to the conclusion that the version given by them Is
credible, absence of evidence to prove the motive is
rendered inconsequential. Conversely even If prosecution
succeeds in establishing a strong motive for the
B commission of the offence, but the evidence of the eyewitnesses is found unreliable or unworthy of credit,
existence of a motive does not by itself provide a safe
basis for convicting the accused. That does not, however,
mean that proof of motive even in a case which rests on
c an eye-witness account does not lend strength to the
prosecution case or fortify the court in its ultimate
conclusion. Proof of motive in such a situation certainly
helps the prosecution and supports the eye- witnesses.
[Para 13) [337-0-H; 338-A]
D
E
1.2. The case at hand rests upon the deposition of the
eyewitnesses to the occurrence. Absence of motive
would not, therefore, by itself make any material
difference. But if a motive is indeed proved it would lend
support to the prosecution version. [Para 14) [338-C]
1.3. In the instant case, the depositions of PW16,
PW15 and PW19 are relevant on th-e question of motive.
There is evidence to prove that a petrol pump stood In the
name of PW1_pwhich had been allotted In his name In the
F Scheduled Tribe's quota. It is also evident that to establish
and run the said .Petrol pump, PW15 had taken the help
from appellant S and his father. Disputes between the
original allottee and the appellant-$ and his father had,
however, arisen and manifested in the form of civil and
G criminal cases between them. PW15 had In that
connection taken the help of the deceased who had with
the help of the police and local administration secured the
restoration of the petrol pump to PW15 which annoyed
the appellant-$ and his father. There Is also evidence to
H the effect that the deceased had acted against what has
•
'HEO SHANKAR SINGH v. STATE OF JHARKHAND 319
&ANR.
been described as 'coal mafia' of Dhanbad with thei help A
of police and administration to prevent the coal theft in
the region and the steps taken by the deceased had
resulted in the arrest of the father of appellant S and a coaccused in connection with the said cases. Both these
circumstances appear to have contributed to the incident B
that led to the killing of the deceased who was perceived
by the appellants as a hurdle in their activities. [Paras 15,
20) [338-D; 340-F-H; 341-A-B]
Shivaji Genu Mohite v. The State of Maharashtra, (1973) C
3 SCC 219, Hari Shanker v. State of U.P. (1996) 9 SCC 40
and State of Uttar Pradesh v. Kishanpal and Ors. (2008) 16
sec 73 - relied on.
2,1. In the instant case, the evidence adduced by the
prosecution in regard to the charge of murder levelled D
against the appellants comprises the following distinct
features:
(i) Evidence suggesting that on the date of
occurrence and proximate in point of time the E
appellants were seen together riding a black coloured
motor cycle, without a registration number.
(ii) Evidence establishing seizure of the motor cycle
on which the deceased was riding from the place of
occurrence and that which was being driven by F
appellant-'$' from his factory.
(Ill) The eye witness account of the occurrence as
given by PW16 and PW6.
(iv) Medical evidence, supporting the version of PW G
16, ttiat he sustained injuries when he fell from the
motor cycle being driven by him on the deceased
who was on the pillion being shot by appellant 'U'.
[Para 21) [341-C-H]
H
320
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2011] 4 S.C.,
A
2.2. The depositions of all the witnesses satisfactorily
prove that the appellants were seen hanging around the
place of occurrence on the incident date and were seen
together riding a motorcycle without registration number
going towards Govindpur at around 1.30 p.m. which is
s
proximate in point of time when the deceased was
gunned down. From the deposition of PW1 it is further
proved that the witness had identified appellant-U as the
person who was riding the motorcycle sitting behind
appellant-S not only in the Court, but also in the test
c identification parade held during the course of
investigation. [Para 27] [344-D-E]
2.3. It is clear that while the motorcycle on which the
deceased was travelling along with PW16 was seized
from the place of occurrence in terms of seizure memo,
D the Motor Cycle used by accused was seized from the
premises owned by appellant-S. From a reading of the
seizure memo it is evident that the motorcycle was a
black colour, Caliber Bajaj make with no registration
number on the plate. From the motorcycle was recovered
E
a certificate of registration and fitness showing the name
of the brother of appellant-S, as its owner .. [Para 28] [345F-H; 346-A]
2.4. The prosecution led evidence to prove that the
F
empty cartridges of 9 M.M. bullets were seized from the
place of occurrence. One of the empty cartridges was
recovered from near the dead body while the other was
recovered from the mud footpath on the southern side
of the road. This is evident from the seizure memo. In
G addition and more importantly is the seizure of light
green T-shirt of the complainant- (PW-16) with blood
stains at the arm and back thereof. The T-shirt is torn
near the left shoulder. Blue coloured jeans worn by the
witness was also seized with a tear on the left knee. The
H deposition of PW1 and PW2 support these seizures
• SHEO SHANKAR SINGH v. STATE OF JHARKHAND 321
&ANR.
which corroborate the version of the prosecution that the A
.occurrence had taken place at the spot from wtu~re the
dead body, the motorcycle, the empty cartridges and the
blood stained earth were seized. The seizure of the Tshirt and the Jeans worn by PW16 with bloodstains on
the T-shirt, scratches damaging the T-shirt near the left B
shoulder and the Jeans on the left knee also
corroborates the prosecution version that when hit by the .
. bullet fired by the pillion rider of the motorcycle ~driven by
appellant-S, the motorcycle on which the deceased was
travelling lost its balance bringing both of them down to c
the ground and causing damage to the clothes worn by
PW16 and injuries to his person. The Courts below
correctly appreciated the evidence produced by the
prosecution in this regard and rightly concluded that the
seizure of the article's mentioned above clearly supports 0
the prosecution version and the sequence of ev~ehce
underlying the charge. [Para 29] [345-B-G]
·. ·-
2 .5. The third aspect is the medical evidence,
supporting the version of PW16' that he had sustained
injuries when he fell down from the motor cycle aftei".·the E
deceased had been shot by the appellant-LI. The medical
certificate goes on to state that the injuries had been
· caused by hard and blunt substance. The making of the
requisition by the Medical Officer (by which PW16 was
sent for treatment with request for issue of an injury F
report), the medical examination of PW16 and presence
of injuries on his person were satisfactorily proved by the
prosecution and go a long way to support the
prosecution version that PW16 was driving the
motorcycle at the time of the incident and had sustained G
injuries once he lost his balance after the deceased sitting
on the pillion was shot by the appellant-LI. [Paras 30, 31]
[345-H; 346-B-C; F-H]
2.6. PW16 was cross-examined extensively but his
deposition was accepted by the Courts below who found H
322
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2011) 4 S.C.R.
A the version to be both consistent and reliable. There is
nothing inherently improbable about the manner in which
PW16 narrated the occurrence or his presence on the
spot. There is not even a suggestion of any enmity
between the appellants and the witness nor a bias
B favouring the prosecution to make his version suspect.
The narration given by the witness is natural and does
not suffer from any material inconsistency or
improbability of any kind. The presence of the witness on
the spot is proved by PWs 1 & 2, both of whom reached
c the place of occurrence immediately after hearing about
the killing of the deceased and met PW16 on the spot.
Both these witnesses have testified that the T-shirt worn
by the witness was bloodstained and the motorcycle
which he was driving was lying on the spot with the dead
o body of the deceased at some distance. Both of them
have signed the statement made by PW16 before the
police which constitutes the first information report about
the incident in which both of them have claimed that they
have seen appellant-$ with one other person going on
E the motorcycle whom they could identify. The presence
of PW16 on the spot is testified even by PWG, also an
eye-witness to the occurrence. That apart the presence
of injuries on the person of the PW16 duly certified by the
medical officer concerned, and the fact that the T-shirt
worn by him was torn at two different places
F corresponding to the injuries sustained by him also
corroborates the version given by the witness that he
was driving the motorcycle as claimed by him when the
deceased was gunned down. [Para 34] [348-F-H; 349-AG E]
2. 7. The first information report was registered
without any delay and PW16 was medically examined on
the incident date itself, though late in the evening. All
these circumstances completely eliminate the possibility
H of the witness being a planted witness. The testimony of
•
•
SHEO SHANKAR SINGH v. STATE OF JHARKHAND 323
& ANR.
this witness and the deposition of the PWs 1 and 2 prove A
his being with the deceased before the incident and being
on the spot immediately after the occurrence with
bloodstains on his clothes with the motorcycle being
driven by him lying nearby. Therefore, the finding
recorded by the two courts below that the deceased was B
travelling with PW16 on the latter's motorcycle from
Dhanbad to Nirsa at the time of the occurrence and was,
therefore, a competent witness who could and has
testified to this occurrence, as the same took place, is
affirmed. [Para 35] [349-F-H; 350-A-B]
·
c
3.1. Identification of an accused in the Court by a
witness constitutes substantive evidence in a case
although any such identification for the first time at the
trial may more often than not appear to be evidence of a
weak character. That being so, a test identification D
par~de (TIP) is conducted with a view to strengthening
the trustworthiness of the evidence. Such a TIP then
provides corroboration to the witness in the Court who
claims to identify the accused persons otherwise
unknown to him. Test Identification parades, therefore, E
remain in the realm of investigation. The Code of Criminal
Procedure does not oblige the investigating agency to
necessarily hold a test identification parade nor is there
any provision under which the accused may claim a right
to the holding of a test identification parade. The failure F
of the investigating agency to hold a test identification
parade does not, in that view, have the effect of
weakening the evidence of identification in the Court. As
to what should be the weight attached to such an
identification is a matter which the Court will determine G
in the peculiar facts and circumstances of each case. In
appropriate cases the Court may accept the evidence of
identification in the Court even without insisting on
corroboration. [Para 37) [350-F-H; 351-A-C]
H
324
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2011] 4 S.C.R.
A
3.2. The omission of the investigating agency to
associate PW16 with the test identification parade in
which PW1 identified the appellant-U will not ipso jure
prove fatal to the case of the prosecution, although the
investigating agency could and indeed ought to have
B associated the said witness also with the test
identification parade especially when the witness had not
claimed familiarity with the appellant-U before the
incident. Even so, its omission to do so does not affect
the credibility of the identification of the said appellant by
c PW16 in the Court. That is because the manner in which
the incident has taken place and the opportunity which
PW16 had, to see and observe the actions of appellantU were sufficient for the witness to identify him in the
Court. This opportunity was more than a fleeting glimpse
0
of the assailants. Appellant-U was seen by the witness
pillion riding the motorcycle, coming in close proximity
to his motorcycle, shooting the deceased from close
range, stopping at some distance and coming back to the
motorcycle where the deceased and the witness had
E
fallen, abusing and threatening the witness and asking
him to run away from the spot. All this was sufficient to
create an impression that would remain imprinted in the
memory of anyone who would go through such a
traumatic experience. It is not a case where a chance and
F
uneventful glance at another motorcyclist may pass
without leaving any impression about the individual
concerned. It is a case where the nightmare of the
occurrence would stay in the memory of and indeed
haunt the person who has undergone through the
experience for a long long time. Absence of a test
G identification parade and the failure of the Investigating
Officer to associate th~ witness with the same does not,
therefore, make any material difference in the instant
case. [Para 40] [353-D-H; 354-A-C]
H
Ma/khansingh and Ors. v. State of MP. (2003) 5 SCC
I
,
SHEO SHANKAR SINGH v. STATE OF JHARKHAND 325
& ANR.
746; Pramod Manda/ v. State of Bihar (2004) 13 SCC 150;
A
Aqeel Ahmad v. State of Uttar Pradesh 2008 (16) SCC 372
- relied on.
Krishna Govincf Patil v. State of Maharashtra 1964 (1)
SCR 678 - referred to.
4.1. It is true that not only according to PW16 but also
according to PW1, PW2 and the Investigating Officer, the
T-shirt worn by PW16 was bloodstained which was
seized in terms of the seizure memo referred to earlier. It
8
is also true that a reference to the forensic science C
laboratory would have certainly corroborated the version
given by these witnesses about the T-shirt being
bloodstained and the blood group being the same as that
of the deceased. That no explanation is forthcoming for
the failure of the prosecution in making a reference to the
D
forensic science laboratory which could have
strengthened the version given by PW16 too is not iii
dispute. However, the failure of the investigating agency
to make a reference would not in the circumstances of
the case discredit either the version of the witnesses that
E
the T-shirt was bloodstained when it was seized or
constitute a deficiency of the kind that would affect the
prosecution version. Failure to make a reference to
forensic science laboratory is in the circumstances of the
case no more than a deficiency in the investigation of the
F
case. Any such deficiency does not necessarily lead to
the conclusion that the prosecution case is totally
unworthy of credit. Deficiencies in investigation by way
of omissions and lapses on the part of investigating
agency cannot in themselves justify a total rejection of
the prosecution case. [Para 42] [354,F-H; 355-A-y]
G
4.2. The failure on the part of the investigating' officer
in sending the blood stained clothes to the FSL aild the
empty cartridges to the ballistic experf would not be
1
sufficient to reject the version given by the eye witnesses., , •
.
-·
I\
'
H
e
326
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2011] 4 S.C.R.
A That is especially so when a reference to the ballistic
expert would not have had much relevance since the
weapon from which the bullets were fired had not been
recovered from the accused and was not, therefore,
available for comparison by the expert [Para 44] [356-E]
B
Ram Bihari Yadav v. State of Bihar and Ors. (1998) 4
SCC 517; Surendra Paswan v. State of Jharkhand (2003) 12
SCC 360; Amar Singh v. Ba/winder Singh and Ors. (2003) 2
sec 518 - relied on.
c
5. The fact that the motorcycle on which the
deceased was travelling along with PW16 was found at
the place of occurrence is amply proved by the evidence
adduced by the prosecution. It is also clear that the
motorcycle in question did not belong either to the
D deceased or to PW16. In the circumstances there is no
improbability in the version of PW16 that the said
motorcycle had been borrowed by him from his friend.
The mere fact that the owner of the motorcycle or PW16
had not applied for release of the motorcycle in their
E favour does not in the least affect the prosecution case
muchless does it render the same doubtful in toto. [Para
45) [356-G-H; 357-A-B]
6. The incident in question had taken place around
F 2.45 p.m. The statement of PW16 was recorded by the
investigating officer at around 4.15 p.m. on the same day
based on which first information report was registered in
the police station. The copy of the first information was
received by the jurisdictional magistrate the next day.
G
Apart from PW16, the statement was also signed by PW1
and PW2. All the three witnesses have stood by what has
been attributed to them in the first information report. Also,
there was absence of any unexplained or abnormal delay
in the registration of the case and the despatch of the first
1
information report to the jurisdictional magistrate. [Para
H 46) [356-G-H; 357-C-G]
• SHEO SHANKAR SINGH v. STATE OF JHARKHAND 327
& ANR.
7.1. No doubt there was delay of one and half months A
in the recording of statement of PW-6, however, the same
does not by itself justify rejection of his testimony. The
legal position is well settled that mere delay in the
examination of a particu!ar witness does not, as a rule of
universal application, render the prosecution case 9
suspect. It depends upon circumstances of the case and
the nature of the offence that is being investigated. It
would also depend upon the availability of information by
which the investigating officer could reach the witness
and examine him. It would also depend upon the C
explanation, if any, which the investigating officer may
offer for the delay. In a case where the investigating officer
has reasons to believe that a particular witness is an eyewitness to the occurrence but he does not examine him
without any possible explanation for any such omission, 0
the delay may assume importance and require the Court
to closely scrutinize and evaluate the version of the
witness but in a case where the investigating officer had
no such information about any partic1,Jlar individual being
an eye-witness to the occurrence, mere delay in
examining such a witness would not ipso facto render the
E
testimony of the witness suspect or affect the
prosecution version. (Para 49] (359-0-H; 360-A]
7.2. The investigating officer, in the instant case,
stated that PWG had met him for the first time on 2nd June,
F
2000 and that he recorded his statement on the very same
day. He further stated that prior to 2nd June, 2000 he had
no knowledge that PW6 was a witness to the occurrence.
Even PW6 has given an explanation how the investigating
officer reached him. According to his deposition the G
Inspector had told him that he had come to record his
statement after making an enquiry from the person who
was sitting on the pillion of his motorcycle on the date of
occurrence. The pillion rider had also informed him that
his statement had been recorded by the police. The Trial
H
328
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2011] 4 S.C.R.
A Court and the High Court have accepted the explanation
offered by the investigating officer for the delay. There
is no reason to take a different view or to reject the
testimony of this witness only because h.is statement
was recorded a month and half after the occurrence.
B [Para 51) [360-F-H; 361-A-B]
Ranbir and Ors. v. State of Punjab (1973) 2 SCC 444;
Satbir Singh and Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2009) 13
sec 790 - relied on.
C
8. PW6 clearly stated that he has seen the deceased
going on a motorcycle on the date of the occurrence and
that appellant-$ had brought his motorcycle to the left of
the motorcycle of the deceased whereupon appellant-U
pillion rider had shot the deceased in the head. The
o version given by the witness does not admit of being
understood to suggest that the witness reached the place
of occurrence after the occurrence had taken place. What
the witness has stated is that he went to the place where
the deceased had fallen 5-7 minutes after the occurrence
E was over. Witnessing the occurrence cannot be
confused with going to the place where the deceased
had fallen. On a careful reading of the deposition of the
witness it is clear that there is no infirmity in the same
that may justify the rejection of the ver~ion of PW6. Both
F the Courts below rightly accepted the testimony of PW
6 while finding the appellants guilty. [Para 52) [361-B-E]
9. In the instant case, the High Court was, however,
not justified in imposing the extreme penalty of death
upon the appellants for reasons more than one. Firstly,
G because the appellants are not professional killers. Even
according to the prosecution they were only a part of the
coal mafia active in the region indulging in theft of coal
from the collieries. The deceased being opposed to such
activities appears to have incurred their wrath and got
H killed. Secondly, because even when the deceased was
•
•
SHEO SHANKAR SINGH v. STATE OF JHARKHAND 329
& ANR.
a politician there was no political angle to his killing. A
Thirdly, because while all culpable homicides amounting
to murder are inhuman, hence legally and ethically
unacceptable yet there was nothing particularly brutal,
grotesque, diabolical, revolting or dastardly in the
manner of its execution so as to arouse intense and B
extreme indignation of the community or exhaust
depravity and meanness on the part of the assailants to
call for the extreme penalty. Fourthly, because there was
difference of opinion on the question of sentence to be
awarded to the convicts. The Trial Court did not find it to c
be a rarest of rare case and remained content with the
award of life sentence only which sentence the High
Court enhanced to death. Considering all these
cir.cumstances, the death sentence awarded to the
appellants deserves to be
commuted to life D
imprisonment. [Para 60] [365-E-H; 366-A-B]
Jagmohan Singh v. The State of UP (1973) 1 SCC 20;
Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 684; Machhi
Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab (1983) 3 SCC 470; farooq E
alias Karattaa Farooq and Ors. v. State of Kera/a (2002) 4
SCC 697; Santosh Kumar Satishbhushan Bariyar Ii. State of
Maharashtra (2009) 6 SCC 498; State of Maharashtra v.
Prakash Sakha Vasave and Ors. (2009) 11 SCC 193 - relied
on.
10. In the result, the judgments and orders under
appeal are affirmed with the modification that instead of
sentence of death as awarded by the High Court, the
appellants shall suffer rigorous imprisonment for life.
F
[Para 61] [366-B-C]
G
Case Law Reference:
(1973) 3 sec 219
Relied on
Para 13
H
•
330
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2011] 4 S.C.R.
A
(1996) 9 sec 40
Relied on
Para 13
(2008) 16 sec 73
Relied on
Para 13
(1964) 1 SCR 678
Referred to
Para 36
B
(2003) 5 sec 146
Relied on
Para 37
(2004) 13 sec 150
Relied on
Para 38
c2008) 16 sec 372
Relied on
Para 39
(1998) 4 sec 517
Relied on
· Para 42
c
(2003) 12 sec 360
Relied on
Para 42
(2003) 2 sec 518
Relied on
Para 43
(1973) 2 sec 444
Relied on
Para 49
D
(2009) 13 sec 190
Relied on
Para 50
(1973) 1 sec 20
Relied on
Para 54
(1980) 2 sec 684
Relied on
Para 55
E
(1983) 3 sec 470
Relied on
Para 56
(2002) 4 sec 697
Relied on
Para 57
(2009) 6 sec 498
Relied on
Para 58
F
(2009) 11 sec 193
Relied on
Para 59
CRIMINAL APPELATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
Nos. 791-792 of 2005 .
. From the Judgment & Order dated 6.5.2005 of the High
G ·court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 43
of 2004 and Criminal Revision No. 136 of 2004.
WITH
Criminal Appeal No. 793-794 of 2005.
H
•
SHEO SHANKAR SINGH v. STATE OF JHARKHAND
&ANR.
331
U.R. Lalit, A.T.M. Rangaramanujam, Sunil Kumar, Ashok
A
Kumar Singh, Prakhar Sharma, Anu Gupta, S Biswajit Meitei,
S. Chandra Shekhar, P. Sharma, M.K. Jha, Anil K. Jha, Lalita
Kaushik, V.N. Raghupathy for the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
B
T.S. THAKUR, J. 1. These appeals by special leave are
directed against a common judgment and order dated 6th May,
2005 passed by the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi
whereby the conviction of appellant-Sheo Shankar Singh under
Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and that of appellantC
Umesh Singh under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and
Section 27 of the Arms Act have been confirmed and the
sentence of rigorous imprisonment for life imposed upon the
said two appellants by the Trial Court enhanced to the sentence
of death. Criminal Revi~ion Petition No.136 of 2004 seeking
D
enhancement of sentence imposed upon Umesh Singh and
Sheo Shankar Singh has been consequently allowed by the
High Court while Criminal Revision Petition No.135 of 2004 filed
against the acquittal of three other accused persons Md. Zahid,
Premjeet Singh and Uma Shankar Singh dismissed.
E
2 Briefly stated the prosecution case is that on 14th April,
· 2000, the deceased-Shri Gurudas Chatterjee, a sitting member
of Jharkhand State Legislative Assembly was returning to Nirsa
from Dhanbad riding the pillion seat of a motorcycle that was
being driven by the first informant Apurba Ghosh, examined at
the trial as PW 16. At about 2.45 p.m. when the duo reached
a place near Premier Hard Coke, Apurba Ghosh, the informant
heard the sound of a gunshot from behind. He looked back only
F
to find that appellant-Sheo Shankar Singh was driving a black
motorcycle on the left of the informant with an unknown person,
G
later identified as Umesh Singh, sitting on the pillion seat
carrying a pistol in his hand. Umesh Singh, the pillion rider, is
alleged to have fired a second time from close range which hit
the deceased-Gurudas Chatterjee in the head, who slumped
H
332
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2011) 4 S.C.R.
A on the back of the informant thereby disturbing the balance of
the motorcycle and bringing both of them to the ground. The
motorcycle driven by Sheo Shanker Singh was stopped by him
a little ahead whereupon Umesh Singh the pillion rider got down;
walked back to the place where the deceased had fallen,
B abused the informant verbally and asked him to run away from
there failing which even he would be killed. So threatened the
informant hurried away from the spot whereupon Umesh Singhappellant fired a third bullet at the deceased, pushed his dead
body down the side slope of the road, walked back to the
c motorcycle whose engine was kept running by Sheo Shankar
Singh and fled towards Nirsa. Some people are said to have
run towards them but were scared away by Umesh Singh with
the gun. The motorcycle did not have a re9istration number. A
crowd is said to have gathered on the spot that included Abc\~i
0 Kudus Ansari (PW1) and Lal Mohan Mahto (PW2) 1whe.
disclosed that they had seen Sheo Shankar Singh and on~
unknown person moving on a motorcycle without a registration
number sometime before the occurrence.
•
3. On hearing a rumour about the killing of the deceased :•
E MLA, Sub Inspector of Police Ramji Prasad (PW17) rushed to
the spot and recorded the statement of Apurba Ghosh (PW16)
in which the informant narrated the details of the incident as set
out above. The statement of Apurba Ghosh constituted the First
Information Report in the case which was signed not only by
F Apurba Ghosh but also by Abdul Kudus Ansari (PW1) and Lal
Mohan Mahto (PW2). Based on the said statement/FIR a case
under Section 302/34 and 1208 of IPC and Section 27 of the
Arms Act was registered in Police Station Govindpur and the
investigation commenced.
G
4. In the course of the investigation an inquest report was
prepared by BOO, Shishir Kumar Sinha, while the investigating
officer seized two empties of 9 M.M. bullet engraved with "HP
59/2" at the bottom from the spot, apart from the red Hero
H Honda splendour motorcycle bearing registration No. WB 38
•
SHEO SHANKAR SINGH v. STATE OF JHARKHAND 333
& ANR. [T.S. THAKUR, J.]
E 7053 on Which the deceased was travelling at the time of A
occurrence.