The Allahabad High Court has converted the death sentence given by the lower court to Ranveer Singh, accused of Bulandshahr’s Barari massacre, into life imprisonment.
The Division Bench of Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Syed Aftab Husain Rizvi passed this order while hearing a petition filed by Ranvir Singh.
The capital criminal case (appeal) has been preferred by the appellant Ranvir Singh against the order dated 20/21.07.2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bulandshahr in case under section 302/34 and 302/120 B IPC, P.S Aurangabad, District Bulandshahr whereby the appellant has been convicted U/s 302 IPC and sentenced to penalty of death with a fine of Rs 1 lac and in default of payment of fine rigorous imprisonment of 2 years.
The appellant has also been convicted under section 25 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs 50,000/- and in default of payment of the fine, he has been directed to undergo further rigorous imprisonment of one year.
The facts of the case are that in the intervening night 0f 28/29.07.2009 at 3:20 am, information was received in the city control room from mobile of which entry is made to the effect that at village Barari the house of Sukhveer Singh has been surrounded by miscreants and incessant firing is going on and some murders have also been committed.
On receiving this information the police team headed by SHO Balveer Singh reached the village by which time several persons had gathered at the house of Sukhveer Singh. The police team witnessed the scary scene. Six bodies with bullet injuries were strewn all over the house and the body of Sukhveer Singh was lying in his tube well.
FIR of the case was lodged on the written report of Sanjeev Kumar S/o Shiv Charan Singh with the allegations that his brother Sukhveer Singh was sleeping at his tube- well situated at his agricultural field. His two sons Surya Pratap alias Rinku and Abhishek and their wives Mamata and Lata and the wife of Sukhveer Singh namely Suremvala and Chiku the son of Surya Pratap were sleeping inside their house. In the night at about 2 a.m, some unknown miscreants after scaling the boundary wall entered the house and started indiscriminate firing and killed the wife of Sukhveer, both the sons of Sukhveer, their wives, and grandchild Cheeku. Hearing the sound of gunshots the villagers and family members challenged the miscreants but they did not allow anyone to move forward and the miscreants after committing murder of all the family members of Sukhveer Singh went away.
Thereafter, the complainant and others went to the field of Sukhveer and saw that he was also done to death by slitting his neck. All the family members have been done to death by the miscreants and the bodies are lying on the spot. On the aforesaid written information, an FIR case under section 302 IPC against unknown was registered.
The Court observed that,
The part of the ocular testimony of Pyare Singh and Jagveer Singh, that supports the prosecution case, is reliable and trustworthy. The contradictory statements have been made with an ulterior motive to save their real brother, the appellant, from the gallows. The portion of their oral testimony that corroborates the prosecution case can be segregated from the unreliable statements made in their testimony and can be considered as credible evidence.
It is settled law that the court should separate the grain from the chaff while appreciating the oral testimony. These witnesses are not only neighbours but also the real brothers of the deceased. It is entirely natural for them to be curious to know what is happening in their brother’s nearby residence upon hearing the sounds of gunshots in the odd hours of the night. Considering the circumstances, where multiple rounds of firing occurred over a span of ten to twenty minutes, it is expected that both witnesses would have witnessed the incident.
Furthermore, the material on record indicates that due to prolonged cross-examination with significant intervals, their testimony may have been influenced by the defence. The oral testimony of Amar Pal Singh is also reliable, as there are no significant contradictions or serious discrepancies that would render his testimony untrustworthy. The prosecution has successfully established the motive, and it is evident from the manner in which the incidents occurred and the intent behind the offense that only the appellant, and no one else, committed the crime.
In view of the above, the trial court has rightly placed reliance on the statements of Amar Pal Singh, Pyare Singh, and Jagveer Singh. The finding of guilt for offense under Section 302/34 IPC rendered by the trial court is just and proper. There is no illegality or infirmity in it. From the prosecution evidence, the charge under Section 302/34 IPC stands proved beyond reasonable doubt, against the appellant. However, the finding of guilt returned by the trial court for offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act based on the evidence of recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act is not sustainable.
“Now comes the question of the quantum of punishment. The trial court has imposed the death penalty for the offence under Section 302 IPC, categorizing it as one of the rarest of the rare cases. While there is no doubt that the offence has been committed in a gruesome manner, with the intention of exterminating the entire family and ending the future generation of real brother, several aggravating factors weigh against the appellant. Six individuals, including a pregnant woman and an infant, met their tragic end through indiscriminate firing in their home while the head of the family was slaughtered at his tubewell, all while they slept during the night. These circumstances are undeniably severe.
Mitigating factors to consider are that about fifteen years have elapsed since the incident. Appellant-accused has been incarcerated since then. The age of the appellant-accused as mentioned in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.PC, in the year 2015, was around 69-70 years. So at present, the appellant-accused is over 75 years of age. Considering all the aforementioned facts and circumstances, imposing the death penalty at this point of time will not be just. It will be proper to modify the sentence to imprisonment for life with a fine of Rupees two lacs. In the event of default in the payment of the fine, three years of rigorous imprisonment shall be imposed”, the Court further observed while allowing the appeal.
“The conviction of the appellant-accused for offence under Section 302/34 IPC is maintained. However, the sentence is modified from the death penalty to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rupees two Lakhs, in default of payment of the fine of three-years rigorous imprisonment. The conviction and sentence for the offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act are set aside. The reference is decided accordingly”, the order reads.