IMPORTANT POINT
The direct evidence against the accused in committing the murder cannot be discarded merely because the prosecution case about hatching a conspiracy by the co-accused has not been established by any convincing evidence.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860-Section 302-Terrorists and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987-Section 5-Conviction of appellant for offences under-Appeal-Prosecution case that at the instance of co-accused, appellant caused murder of deceased by firing at him from a pistol-In FIR name of appellant was clearly mentioned-No reason to discard evidence of eye witnesses-Recovery of weapon of assault on basis of disclosure statement made by accused-Report of ballistic expert establishes that bullet which was recovered from body of deceased was fired from the pistol recovered-Manner in which the deceased was murdered by firing shot from behind as indicated by two eye witnesses also stands corroborated from medical evidence-Complicity of appellant in committing murder of deceased clearly established-Prosecution case about hatching a conspiracy by co-accused not established-On that account direct evidence against appellant in committing murder cannot be discarded-Conviction held legally sustainable. (Para 9)

JUDGMENT

G.N. Ray, J.-The convictions of the appellant under Section 302 IPC and for offence punishable under Section 5 of the Terrorists and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as TADA) and consequential sentences of imprisonment for life and the fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine further rigorous imprisonment for five months for offence under Section 302 and rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years together with a fine of Rs. 200/- in default of payment of fine, further rigorous imprisonment for two months under Section 5 of TADA passed in Sessions Trial No. 189/92 by the learned Additional Judge, Designated Court, Karnal at Panipat have been impugned in this appeal by the convicted accused Jagdish.

2. According to the prosecution case, at the instance of co-accused Ranbir Singh who died during the pendency of the trial and at the behest of co-accused Chaudhary Ram, the appellant Jagdish caused the murder of Pritam Lal Chopra on May 3, 1992 by firing at him from a pistol. The appellant was charged for the offence under Section 302 IPC and under Section 5 of TADA and the said deceased accused Ranbir Singh and the co-accused Chaudhary Ram were charged under Section 302 read with Section 120B IPC. The accused Chaudhary Ram and the deceased Ranbir Singh were also charged for the offence under Section 115 IPC.

3. It is the prosecution case that the accused Chaudhary Ram had a very strained relation with his son Om Prakash PW 2. Om Prakash was residing in one portion in the house owned by Chaudhary Ram with his wife and child and in another portion his father Chaudhary Ram and two other brothers used to stay. Chaudhary Ram had filed a civil suit in Delhi against Om Prakash by alleging that Om Prakash in connivance with his wife and in-laws wanted to extract a sum of Rs. 50,00,000/- from him on account of the share of the property and they had also been threatening to kill Chaudhary Ram and his family members and also had been harassing them in various manner - Chaudhary Ram also gave a publication in Hindustan Times on May 7,1991 to the effect that he had ousted his son Om Prakash and his wife Veena and his children from the family and they had no right to claim any share in the property of Chaudhary Ram. Chaudhary Ram also issued a notice on May 21, 1991 to Om Prakash asking him to vacate the said house.

4. On December 14, 1991, there was an attempt on the life of the deceased Pritam Lal Chopra when the assailant fired at him in Karol Bagh in Delhi. It was alleged that Chaudhary Ram led the said plot of murdering Pritam Lal Chopra. The Police, however, filed a final report by indicating that it could not be ascertained as to who had attempted to murder the said Pritam Lal in the said incident. On March, 13, 1991 PW 19 Shiv Lal came to Panipat to attend the auction of liquor vends for the year 1992-93. The deceased Pritam Lal Chopra and other liquor vend contractors had also attended the same and after about 15-20 minutes of the departure of Pritam Lal Chopra, Shiv Lal had noticed that the accused Chaudhary Ram accompanied by the other two accused Ranbir Singh and Jagdish were present at the said place and Chaudhary Ram had told Ranbir Singh and Jagdish that Pritam Lal was a hurdle in his way and he should be eliminated. PW 10 Prem Singla had celebrated the Mahurat ceremony of his liquor vend known as M/s. Singla Sales L-I at Gohana Road Panipat and in that connection, PW 1 Joginder Pal, PW 2 Om Prakash and the other witness Vijay Kumar came to Panipat and the accused Chaudhary Ram had attended the said function. PW 3 Vijay Kumar also noticed accused Chaudhary Ram in the company of other two accused Ranbir Singh and Jagdish and Vijay Kumar had over-heard Ranbir Singh telling Jagdish that murder of Pritam Lal Chopra must be committed on that day and he should not bother for the money which he would get from Chaudhary Ram. Chaudhary Ram had also told Jagdish that the said work

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1997 Supreme(SC) 1665

IMPORTANT POINTThe direct evidence against the accused in committing the murder cannot be discarded merely because the prosecution case about hatching a conspiracy by the co-accused has not been established by any convincing evidence.

IMPORTANT POINT
The direct evidence against the accused in committing the murder cannot be discarded merely because the prosecution case about hatching a conspiracy by the co-accused has not been established by any convincing evidence.