Supreme Court Convicts Two in Fatal Dacoity and Directs Life Sentences

A bench of Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar heard appeals filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh challenging the Allahabad High Court's judgment dated 29.02.2012 that had allowed Criminal Appeal Nos. 5509/2007 and 4954/2007 and acquitted two respondents. The appeals arose from a night-time dacoity in which the deceased, Dharampal, was shot dead; the State sought reversal of the High Court's acquittal of the two accused who the trial court had earlier convicted.

The Court allowed the appeals in part and held that the High Court had erred in disbelieving the prosecution's eyewitnesses. The Supreme Court accepted the trial court's findings on identification, observed that the contemporaneous FIR supported the ocular account, and held that "charges under Sections 323, 450, 307 and 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC are made out against the respondents, Satendra and Neetu." The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "Thus, we would not treat the versions given by Rajveer Singh (PW-1), Rajpal Singh (PW-2) and Lakshman Singh (PW-3) as improbable or unnatural. On the other hand, their versions and the facts stated by them are utmost believable and should be accepted, as held by the trial court." The bench therefore convicted the two respondents under Sections 323, 450, 307 and 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and imposed concurrent sentences, including life imprisonment for the charge under Section 302.

Background The incident occurred on the night of 30-31 January 2004 at about midnight when a group of miscreants allegedly broke into the house where Lakshman Singh and his family resided. Three eyewitnesses—Rajveer Singh (PW-1), Rajpal Singh (PW-2) (brothers of the deceased) and Lakshman Singh (PW-3) (their father)—deposed that intruders entered by the roof and main door carrying firearms and that, during a scuffle after an alarm, the respondent Satendra fired a shot which struck and killed Dharampal. The postmortem report confirmed that "the bullet pierced and exited through the upper side of the chest of the deceased, Dharampal, causing his death." Names and parentage of the two respondents were recorded in the FIR registered at 02:30 a.m. on 31.01.2004.

At trial, the court convicted the respondents while acquitting six other accused; the acquittals were not challenged and became final. The High Court, however, had set aside the convictions on perceived discrepancies in eyewitness accounts, non-matching ballistic evidence and investigative lapses (including that one respondent was not initially charge-sheeted). The Supreme Court re-examined the testimonies, noted minor inconsistencies that were explainable by the sudden and traumatic nature of the incident, and found overall consistency between the witnesses' court testimony and their earlier statements and the FIR. The Court held that the inability to match recovered cartridges with a seized pistol did not by itself demolish the eyewitness account where the postmortem and contemporaneous statements corroborated the prosecution version.

Concluding that the ingredients of offences under Sections 323, 450, 307 and 302 read with Section 34 IPC were established, the Court sentenced both respondents to life imprisonment for murder with fines, and additional concurrent terms for other offences (including five years' rigorous imprisonment for offences under Sections 307 and 450, and one year for Section 323). The Court gave the benefit of Section 428 CrPC, directed surrender within four weeks, and ordered arrest if they failed to surrender.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 409; Criminal Appeal Nos. 550-551/2015 Case Title: THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH v. SATENDRA, ETC. Appearances: (List advocates if available, for both sides using the format) For the Petitioner(s): Not indicated in the judgment For the Respondent(s): Not indicated in the judgment