Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
4th December, 1958
P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR AND A.K. SARKAR JJ.
Narain and others, Appellants
Versus
State of Punjab, Respondent.
Criminal Appeal No. 186 of 1956.
Advocates Appeared
Mr. Jai Gopal Sethi, Senior Advocate, (Dr. Vidya Dhar Mahajan, Advocate, for Mr. K. L. Arora, Advocate, with him), for Appellants, Mr. N. S. Bindra, Senior Advocate, (M/S. R. H. Dhebar and T. M. Sen, Advocates, with him), for Respondent.
CRIMINAL LAW - EVIDENCE - WITNESS - MATERIAL WITNESS - PROSECUTION NOT BOUND TO CALL WITNESSES TO ESTABLISH DEFENCE - WITNESS ESSENTIAL TO UNFOLDING OF PROSECUTION CASE - TEST.
Fact of the Case:
The prosecution case was that the accused had assaulted and abducted Mani Ram. Raghbir, a witness cited by the prosecution, refused to give evidence claiming protection under Art. 20 of the Constitution. The trial court held that Raghbir could not be compelled to give evidence and rejected the contention of the accused that he was not entitled to the protection. The High Court upheld the conviction of the accused, holding that the fact that Raghbir was not examined did not vitiate the trial in any way.
Finding of the Court:
The Supreme Court held that the prosecution was not bound to call Raghbir as a witness to establish its case, as he was not a witness essential to the unfolding of the prosecution case. The Court further held that the trial had not been vitiated by the failure to call Raghbir, as the appellants had not sought to produce him as a witness on their behalf.
Issues: Whether the prosecution was bound to call Raghbir as a witness to establish its case.
Ratio Decidendi: The test whether a witness is material for the purpose of determining whether the prosecution is bound to call him is whether he is a witness "essential to the unfolding of the narrative on which the prosecution is based". Raghbir was not such a witness, as he could not have given any evidence about the prosecution case, which was concerned with the injuries caused to Mani Ram and his abduction. Raghbir arrived after these offences had been committed, and the prosecution admitted that he shot Sahi Ram in self-defence, which was an entirely separate incident.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed.
Judgement
A. K. SARKAR, J. : Eight persons were tried for offences under Ss.148, 307 and 364 both read with Ss. 149 and 34, Penal Code, by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur. The learned Sessions Judge acquitted four of the accused, namely, Het Ram, Teja Ram, Manphul and Surja Ram as he did not think that their presence at the occurrence had been proved beyond reasonable doubt. He convicted the remaining four, namely, Narain, Jot Ram, Gheru and Jalu under Ss. 307 and 364 read with S. 34. He sentenced Narain, Jot Ram and Gheru to rigorous imprisonment for three years under S. 307 and two years under S. 364. He sentenced Jalu to two years rigorous imprisonment under each section. On appeal by the convicted persons the High Court of Punjab maintained the convictions but reduced the sentences passed on Jot Ram and Gheru to one year s rigorous imprisonment and Jalu to the term of imprisonment already undergone. It maintained the sentence passed on Narain and dismissed his appeal. Narain, Jot Ram and Gheru have appealed to this Court from that judgment.
2. The prosecution case is that one Sultan was the proprietor of a field described in the proceedings as plot No. 97. Sahi Ram had been a tenant of the land. The land had not been cultivated in the year preceding the occurrence with which this case is concerned and the owner had thereupon resumed possession of it. On 14-6-1953, Mani Ram a son of the proprietor, arrived at the field on a tractor accompanied by a labourer, Moola Ram, with the object of ploughing it and found Sahi Ram actually ploughing. Mani Ram turned Sahi Ram out of the field Sahi Ram raised a protest but eventually left abandoning his plough on the field. Mani Ram then began to plough the field with his tractor. A little later the tractor developed mechanical trouble and Mani Ram stopped ploughing and started attending to it. While Mani Ram was so engaged, Sahi Ram arrived at the spot accompanied by seven persons, being the accused earlier named other than Narain, variously armed. Jalu had come on a horse. They fell upon Mani Ram and assaulted him. Moola Ram who ran to his rescue was also assaulted. Moola Ram then attempted to run away whereupon Sahi Ram and his party chased him. While Sahi Ram and his party had their attention on Moola Ram, Mani Ram got into his tractor and began to drive away from the field. At this point of time Narain arrived on a horse with a gun in his hand. He told the pursuers of Moola Ram to leave him as he was merely a hired man and pointed out that the real culprit Mani Ram was about to escape in the tractor. The party then turned round and pursued Mani Ram. Narain on his horse soon overtook Mani Ram and fired at him while he was still on the tractor in the driver s seat. Mani Ram fell down from the tractor which, being in motion, proceeded on its own and ran into a tree and stopped. Narain s horse fell against the cultivator of the tractor and was injured. Mani Ram picked himself up and staggered for shelter into the hut of one Mukh Ram, which was nearby. The pursuers then came up and Jot Ram fired a shot at Mani Ram inside the hut and so did Gheru. Mani Ram fell down in the hut. Mukh Ram threw himself on the body of Mani Ram to protect him. Gheru and Narain then said that they would burn the hut with Mani Ram inside it. Sahi Ram suggested that it would be better to carry Mani Ram to their house and there kill him and burn his body. Mukh Ram was then dragged away and Mani Ram s body was put on a horse and Jalu mounted it. The party then proceeded towards the village by a foot path with Mani Ram, who was then unconscious, as their captive. After they had gone some distance Raghbir, the younger brother of Mani Ram, having heard of the incident came to rescue Mani Ram. He met Jalu on the horse with Mani Ram and Sahi Ram walking close behind, the rest of the party being at some distance. Raghbir asked Jalu to put down Mani Ram on which Jalu threatened to kill, and Sahi Ram pointed his s
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
