Back
2002(6) Supreme 471
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Madhya Pradesh High Court)
R.C. Lahoti & Brijesh Kumar, JJ.
Shyam Sunder -Appellant
versus
State of Chhattisgarh -Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 597 of 2001
Decided on 16-9-2002
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : Ms. Neeru Vaid (A.C.) Advocate.
For the Respondent : Rudreshwar Singh, Advocate for Prakash Shrivastava, Advocate.
Held : It is true that the relationship between this witness and his family members on the hand and the deceased and his family members on the other was strained and criminal litigation was also pending between the two. The testimony, therefore, needs to be subjected to careful scrutiny. Having done so, we are satisfied to hold that Baldau Ram (PW 2) is a witness of truth. The factum of his having gone to his field for performing agricultural operations and engaging labour is something natural to do as he had gone to his field from early morning, at about 5.30 a.m., accompanied by his cattle to be left for grazing in or near the field. At about 7.30 a.m., on the arrival of Kamta (PW 4) on the field he was returning to his home. Having been intercepted by the appellant he returned back to his field and told his brother Kamta (PW 4) of what had happened with him. Kamta (PW 4) supports this part of the version. The subsequent part of the story of his having seen the assault on his brother Radhey Shyam and thereafter, that is, his having reached the house of Kartik Ram to save himself from a likely assault by the appellant on him finds support from the testimony of Kartik Ram (PW 3). The fact that Punni Bai (PW 6) has also her field close to the place of the incident has not been disputed by the defence by making any suggestion to the contrary during her cross-examination. She could have seen the assault on Radhey Shyam by Shyam Sunder from her field situated near the place of occurrence. On alarm being raised by Baldau Ram (PW 2), she reached near the place of the incident. The testimony of Baldau Ram also finds corroboration from a promptly lodged FIR. The statements of both the eye witnesses find support from the medical evidence. The learned Sessions Judge has carefully scrutinized the evidence of both the eye witnesses and found it worthy of reliance. The High Court too has though in a very brief judgment observed that the guilt of the accused was proved beyond reasonable doubt by overwhelming evidence adduced by the prosecution, and in particular there was no reason to doubt the ocular evidence of Baldau Ram (PW 2) and Kamta (PW 4). In our opinion the conviction of the accused-appellant is well founded and cannot be interfered with. It is true that during the cross-examination of Baldau Ram (PW 2) and Punni Bai (PW 6) the attention of the witnesses was invited to certain portions of the FIR and their police statements in an effort to demonstrate that there were inconsistencies. We have cautiously examined all such contradictions and inconsistencies and we find none of them to be material. When an incident is narrated by the same person to different persons on different occasions some difference in the mode of narrating the incident is bound to arise. However, such differences do not militate against the trustworthiness of the narration unless the variations can be held to be so abnormal or unnatural as would not occur if the witness would have really witnessed what it was narrating. For the abovesaid reasons the appeal does not have any merit and is liable to be dismissed. It is dismissed accordingly. The conviction of the accused-appellant along with the sentence passed thereon as recorded by the Trial Court and upheld by the High Court are maintained. (Paras 8, 9 and 10)
JUDGMENT
R.C. Lahoti, J.-The accused has been held guilty of an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life by the Court of Sessions Judge, Bilaspur. An appeal preferred by him was dismissed by the High Court. This appeal has been filed by special leave.
2. Nathu Lal (PW 1) and Ram Ratan are two real brothers. Baldau Ram (PW 2), Kamta (PW 4) and Radhey Shyam - the deceased (who died in the incident) are all sons of Nathu Lal, the elder of the two brothers. Ram Ratan, the younger brother, had six sons of whom one had died earlier. Shyam Sunder, the accused-appellant, is the third one out of the five surviving sons of Ram Ratan. At one point of time Nathu Lal and Ram Ratan were living together, also having joint cultivation. Long before the incident, Nathu Lal and Ram Ratan had separated by effecting a partition of their residential house as also of the agricultural land. They are living separately in adjoining houses and their agricultural lands are also situated adjoining to each other. However, the partition had resulted into the feelings between the two brothers and their respective family members being strained so much so that at about 4-5 years prior to the date of this incident, there was another incident, which had resulted in proceedings under Section 107 Cr.P.C. being drawn up against both the parties. Baldau Ram (PW 20, Kamta (PW 4), Radhey Shyam - the deceased and their one more brother Jai Lal, in all the four brothers, were also facing prosecution under Section 325 IPC for causing injuries to Shyam Sunder - the accused-appellant and his mother Ram Kali. A few days before the death of Radhey Shyam there was yet another incident in which the accused-appellant and a few others on his side were accused of throwing stones on the house of the deceased and hurling abuses on the inmates of the house.
3. On 21.7.1985, at about 5.30 a.m., Baldau Ram (PW 2) had gone to his field for grazing cattle. Sowing operation was going on. There were a few labourers on his field. He was returning at about 7.30 a.m. through a path passing by the side of the field of the accused-appellant. There Baldau Ram saw the appellant standing armed with a Tabbal and his father armed with an axe. On seeing Baldau Ram, the appellant tried to come close to him. Baldau Ram was scared by the menacing attitude of the appellant and apprehending some danger, he returned back to his field. By this time his brother Kamta (PW 4) had also reached the field to take work from the labourers. Baldau Ram narrated what had happened with him to his brother Kamta (PW 4). Kamta advised Baldau Ram not to go to the village by the path which passes by the side of the field of the appellant and instead choose a different path. It appears that there is not much of distance between the two paths which are available to be used for reaching the village from the field of Baldau Ram. It also appears that the path which leads to the field of Baldau Ram from the village and passes by the side of the field of the accused is crossed by a nala (culvert) before the path reaches the field of the accused. Baldau Ram while going from his field to the village, through the different route which he had chosen saw the appellant Shyam Sunder jumping into the nala. He also saw his brother Radhey Shyam coming out of the nala. At this point of time the appellant-Shyam Sunder dealt blows by Tabbal on the person of Radhey Shyam. The first blow landed at the upper region of right ear of Radhey Shyam whereupon he fell down. The appellant dealt two further blows landing on the shoulder and throat of Radhey Shyam.
4. Having dealt three blows on the person of Radhey Shyam, the appellant ran towards Baldau Ram. Baldau Ram ran for his life and entered the house of Kartik Mochi situated nearby. Baldau Ram hid himself inside the house of Kartik Mochi. Kartik Mochi who was present there closed the door of the house and bolted the door from outside. The appellant t
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
