Dhirendra Singh @ Pappu v. State of Jharkhand, 2021 SC 103 - Synopsis
Ahir Mitra 15 Jul 2021

Dhirendra Singh @ Pappu v. State of Jharkhand.

2021 SC 103

The accused person appeal from the judgment passed by the High Court of Jharkhand, in which the High Court dismissed the appeal by referring to the Sessions Court order, where the accused person was convicted under Section 302 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The prosecution stated that Suraj Mandal and deceased Nirmal Mahto came to Jamshedpur attend the last rituals of Avtar Singh’s Mother and they stayed at TISCO Guest House.

Along with a few other people, left the guest home around 11:45 a.m. on August 8, 1987, to travel to Avtar Singh Tari's house. Others arrived as well, on their way to Avtar Singh's residence. Meanwhile, a vehicle with the number DEA-2544 arrived and five people disembarked. The informant inquired about their identities, and Nirmal Mehto responded that two of them were brothers of Birendra Singh, Pandit, and Pappu. Pandit walked inside the guest house and emerged with his brother Birendra Singh, who began conversing with one other. Meanwhile, Birendra Singh fired a gunshot at Nirmal Mehto, striking him and knocking him down.

A FIR was also filed against Pandit under Section 302, 307, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Then the investigation was taken by the CBI and submitted the charge sheet against accused Birendra Singh, showing the appellant and others to be absconders. That Birendra Singh was tried in a separate session and found guilty and punished for the crimes listed in Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. He died as a result while his appeal in the High Court was pending.

The appellant and another person were arrested after a time of 13 to 15 years. As a result, a supplemental charge sheet was prepared against the appellant and the other defendants. As they pled not guilty, the appellant and another were brought before the learned Sessions Court to stand trial under Sections 302/34 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act. 35 witnesses were examined along with the eyewitness, and the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was also examined.

After the trial, the learned Trial Court found the accused guilty of the charges under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced him to life imprisonment. After this, the appeal was filed in the High Court of Jharkhand, but the high court also upheld the order of the Sessions Court. However, because the deposition was made after a period of about 15 years, there are sure to be some small contradictions, as the High Court correctly pointed out. It is important to note, however, that the appellant was convicted under Section 302 of the IPC with the aid of Section 34 of the IPC.

Therefore, when the presence of the appellant-accused at the time of the incident and his active participation has been established and proved, it cannot be said that both, the learned Trial Court as well as the High Court, have committed any error in convicting the appellant-accused under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. The Court decided that just because the weapon used to perpetrate the crime was not confiscated is not a reason to acquit the accused when his presence, active involvement, and use of a firearm by him were proven and demonstrated.


C2RMTo Know More

Something Awesome Is In The Work









Sign-up and we will notify you of our launch.
We’ll also give some discount for your effort :)

* We won’t use your email for spam, just to notify you of our launch.

SAARTHTo Know More

Launching Soon : SAARTH, your complete client, case, practise & document management SAAS application with direct client chat feature.

If you want to know more give us a Call at :+91 98109 29455 or Mail info@soolegal.com