Murder Conviction Upheld: Ombir Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh

The case of Ombir Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh revolves around the conviction of the appellant for the murder of Abhaiveer Singh Bhadoria @ Munna. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, along with Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959. This judgment highlights the legal principles surrounding eyewitness testimony, delay in the FIR, and the weight of circumstantial evidence in criminal trials.

Background of the Case

The prosecution alleged that on 15th July 1999, at around 9 AM, the deceased, Abhaiveer Singh Bhadoria @ Munna, was shot and killed near the house of one Shivraj Singh Sengar. The murder was allegedly committed by the appellant, Ombir Singh, along with his associates, using firearms. The trial court convicted the appellant, sentencing him to life imprisonment and imposing a fine of Rs. 11,000. The Allahabad High Court affirmed this judgment.

Key Issues Before the Court

• Was the delay in sending the First Information Report (FIR) to the Magistrate prejudicial to the accused?
• Were the eyewitnesses reliable?
• Did the prosecution prove its case beyond reasonable doubt?
• Was the appellant entitled to acquittal on the ground that his co-accused, Pramod Singh, was acquitted?

Arguments of the Petitioner (Ombir Singh)

The defense raised the following contentions:

• The eyewitnesses were unreliable: The appellant argued that Dinesh Singh (PW-1) and Mukesh Singh (PW-2) had been planted as witnesses by the prosecution. They allegedly failed to notice the field unit officers who had taken photographs at the crime scene.
• The FIR was ante-timed: The FIR was purportedly registered on the day of the incident but was sent to the Magistrate after 11 days, violating Section 157 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). The defense claimed this delay indicated fabrication of evidence.
• Absence of injuries on eyewitnesses: The appellant highlighted that PW-1 and PW-2, despite allegedly being close to the deceased, did not suffer any injuries.
• Acquittal of co-accused: The trial court had acquitted Pramod Singh due to lack of forensic evidence linking him to the crime. The appellant argued that he should be given the same benefit.

Arguments of the Respondent (State of Uttar Pradesh)

The prosecution countered these arguments with the following points:

• Eyewitness testimony was credible: PW-1 and PW-2 provided a consistent account of the incident, including the sequence of events and the weapons used. Their testimonies were corroborated by forensic evidence.
• The delay in the FIR was not fatal to the prosecution: The Supreme Court has held in multiple cases that a delay in sending the FIR to the Magistrate does not vitiate the trial unless prejudice is caused to the accused.
• The post-mortem report supported the prosecution’s case: Dr. Balbeer Singh (PW-3) conducted the autopsy and confirmed that the deceased suffered five firearm injuries, consistent with the eyewitness accounts.
• The appellant’s absconding was an incriminating circumstance: The appellant was missing from his residence on the morning of the murder and was arrested a week later, indicating his involvement.

Supreme Court’s Judgment

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction, making the following key observations:

Delay in Sending FIR to Magistrate

The Court noted that while the FIR was sent to the Magistrate with an 11-day delay, this alone was insufficient to discredit the prosecution’s case. Citing precedent, the Court held:

“Delay in compliance of Section 157 of the Code cannot, in itself, be a good ground to acquit the appellant. Albeit, this fact has to be considered when we examine the credibility of the version of the eye-witnesses.”

Reliability of Eyewitnesses

The Supreme Court found that the testimonies of PW-1 and PW-2 were credible and consistent. It rejected the argument that their failure to recognize the field unit officers undermined their credibility:

“A witness would not be aware about the difference between an officer of the field unit and officers attached to the police station.”

Post-Mortem Report

The forensic evidence was crucial in establishing the prosecution’s case. The Court observed:

“The deceased suffered five firearm injuries, which matched the number of shots fired by the accused, as per the eyewitness accounts.”

Acquittal of Co-Accused

The Court rejected the appellant’s argument that he should be acquitted because his co-accused, Pramod Singh, was acquitted. It held:

“Pramod Singh was acquitted because the police failed to recover the empty cartridges or pellets that could link him to the crime. The same does not apply to the appellant, against whom there is clear eyewitness and forensic evidence.”

Final Verdict

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, confirming the appellant’s conviction and life imprisonment.

Impact of the Judgment

This case reinforces several key principles of criminal law:

• Delays in FIR submission do not automatically nullify a case: The judgment reiterates that unless prejudice is shown, delays in forwarding an FIR to the Magistrate are not fatal to the prosecution.
• Eyewitness testimony is crucial: The Court placed significant reliance on consistent eyewitness accounts despite minor discrepancies.
• Forensic evidence strengthens the prosecution: The post-mortem report corroborated the prosecution’s case, confirming multiple gunshot wounds.
• Acquittal of a co-accused does not guarantee acquittal for all: The Court emphasized that each accused must be judged based on the evidence against them.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Ombir Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh underscores the importance of eyewitness testimony and forensic evidence in criminal trials. Despite procedural lapses, the conviction was upheld based on substantive evidence, reinforcing the principles of justice and rule of law.

Petitioner Name: Ombir Singh.
Respondent Name: State of Uttar Pradesh and Another.
Judgment By: Justice N.V. Ramana, Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, Justice Sanjiv Khanna.
Place Of Incident: Uttar Pradesh.
Judgment Date: 26-05-2020.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Ombir Singh vs State of Uttar Prade Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 26-05-2020.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Murder Cases
See all petitions in Bail and Anticipatory Bail
See all petitions in Attempt to Murder Cases
See all petitions in Fraud and Forgery
See all petitions in Theft and Robbery Cases
See all petitions in Judgment by N.V. Ramana
See all petitions in Judgment by Mohan M. Shantanagoudar
See all petitions in Judgment by Sanjiv Khanna
See all petitions in dismissed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments May 2020
See all petitions in 2020 judgments

See all posts in Criminal Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category