SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1973 Supreme(SC) 288

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
H.R. KHANNA AND A. ALAGIRISWAMI JJ.
Ram Prasad and others, Appellants
Versus
The State of U.P., Respondent.
CriminaI Appeal No. 52 of 1970, D/- 17-9-1973.

Advocates:
K.B.ROHTAGI, O.P.RANA

Headnote:

Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 148, 302 and 149 - Murder Offence – Appeal Against Conviction - Prosecution case is that deceased and (PW 4) purchased two plots of land - Possession of those plots had been taken by vendees – Deceased was getting wheat crop standing in two plots mentioned above harvested - Six accused dragged deceased inside tarwaha which had a thatched roof - Tarwaha had one shutterless opening - Umrao and others shouted to accused not to kill deceased, but they too were threatened by accused - Accused thereafter ran away - Umrao and others then went inside tarwaha and found deceased lying dead in a pool of blood – Held, It is as much duty of prosecutor as of court to ensure that full and material facts are brought on record so that there may be no miscarriage of justice - Discharge of such a duty cannot be affected by consideration that some of facts if brought on record would be favourable to accused - In case court finds that prosecution has not examined witnesses for reasons not tenable or not proper, court would be justified in drawing an inference adverse to prosecution – Court find that prosecution has examined four eye witnesses of occurrence and their evidence has been found by trial court and High Court to be reliable, conviction and sufficient to warrant conviction of accused - It has not been shown to Court that evidence of persons who were not examined as witnesses was essential for unfolding of narrative on which prosecution was based - Present is not a case wherein witnesses not examined could have given evidence on a point regarding which witnesses actually examined were not in a position to depose – Court is, therefore, of view that failure of prosecution to examine persons mentioned above as witnesses would not justify interference with judgments of High Court and trial court - Appeal dismissed.

Judgment

KHANNA J.:- This is an appeal by special leave by Ram Prasad (65), his son Udit Narain (22) and their servant Sri Pal (22) against the judgment of the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court affirming on appeal the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge Lucknow whereby the three appellants and three others, namely, Sarju. Putti and Jagannath had been convicted under Section 148 and Section 302 read with Section 149 Indian Penal Code and had been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 18 months on the first count and imprisonment for life on the second count.

2. The occurrence giving rise to the present case took place on March 31, 1967 at 2-30 p. m. in front of and inside the tarwaha of the house of Jaskaran father of Jagannath accused, in village Gadarian Purwa at a distance of two miles from Police Station Mandiaon. The person murdered during the course of the occurrence was Parmeshwar Din (35). The prosecution case is that Parmeshwar Din deceased and Sita Ram (PW 4) purchased two plots of land situated in the area of village Gadarian Purwa from Paggu and others for Rs. 3,000 as per sale deed dated December 23, 1966. The possession of those plots had been taken by the vendees about one or two months earlier when they paid Rs. 500 as earnest money. The vendees sowed wheat in those plots. Sarju and Putti accused, who are both brothers, laid claim to those plots. As Ram Prasad accused was an influential person. Sarju and Putti sought his assistance in obtaining the possession of the plots Ram Prasad is also stated to have been assured by Sarju and Putti that in case they were successful in getting those two plots, they would give him half of the land.

3. On March 31. 1967, it is stated, Parmeshwar Din was getting the wheat crop standing in the two plots mentioned above harvested. The plots are at a distance of about 150 paces from the house of Jaskaran, father of Jagannath accused. Umrao (PW 1) as well as Sita Ram (PW 4) were also present in the fields along with Parmeshwar Din. The actual work of harvesting was being done by seven labourers, four of whom were women. The male labourers were Shankar, Baddal and Hubba. At about 2.30 p.m. it is alleged, Udit Narain accused came to Parmeshwar Din and told him that some persons were waiting for him in the abadi of Gadarian Purwa to have some talks with the deceased regarding the two plots in dispute. Parmeshwar Din deceased then went with Udit Narain. Shortly thereafter, Umrao and Sita Ram PWs heard the cries of Parmeshwar Din. On looking towards the house of Jaskaran, they found that the six accused had surrounded Parmeshwar Din and were giving banks blows to him in front of that house. The six accused then dragged Parmeshwar Din deceased inside the tarwaha which had a thatched roof. The tarwaha had one shutterless opening. Umrao and Sita Ram then ran towards the tarwaha and stood close to the opening of the tarwaha. The labourers engaged in harvesting also followed Umrao and Sita Ram to that place. Chandrika (PW 2) and Mohan (PW 3) were passing that way at that time. Both of them on hearing alarm also came there and saw the accused giving banka blows to Parmeshwar Din. Umrao and others shouted to the accused not to kill Parmeshwar Din, but they too were threatened by the accused. The accused thereafter ran away. Umrao and others then went inside the tarwaha and found Parmeshwar Din lying dead in a pool of blood. A number of persons then collected there.

4. Umrao got report Ka-1 written by his son Hari Prasad. Umrao thereafter went to Police Station Mandiaon and lodged there report Ka-1 at 5. 30 p. m. Station Officer Tiwari (PW 11) was not present at the Police Station at the time the report was lodged. On being informed about the lodging of the report, the Station Officer went to the place of occurrence and arrived there at 6. 30 p. m. The Station Officer on arrival recorded the statements of Umrao, Sita Ram and Mohan PWs end prepared inquest report r














Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top