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

1988 Supreme(SC) 178

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
G.L. OZA, B.C. RAY AND K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY, JJ.
State of U.P., Appellant
Versus
Ram Swarup and others, etc., Respondents.
Cri. Appeals Nos. 336 and 337 of 1978, D/- 26-2-1988.
Advocates appeared
Mr. Prithvi Raj Sr. Advocate and Mr. Dalveer Bhandari, Advocate with him, for Appellant; Mr. J. P. Goyal Sr. Advocate and Mr. S. K. Jain and Mr. Rajesh Advocates with him, for Respondents.

Advocates:
DALVIR BHANDARI, J.P.GOYAL, Prithvi Raj, Rajesh Agarwal, S.K.JAIN

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302/149, 307/149 and 148 - Conviction for the offence under - Appeal - Allowed - On the ground that all the prosecution witnesses were partisan witnesses - Appeal against acquittal - Whether High Court was right in rejecting the prosecution case mainly because of partisanship?-(No) partisanship by itself is no ground for discarding sworn testimony.

       Held, there is no rule of law to the effect that the evidence of partisan witnesses cannot be accepted. The fact that the witnesses are associated with the faction opposed to that of the accused, by itself does not render their evidence false. Partisanship by itself is no ground for discarding sworn testimony. Interested evidence is not necessarily false evidence. In a small village like the one under consideration where people are divided on caste basis, the prosecution may not be able to get any neutral witness even if there is any such neutral witness, he will be reluctant to come forward to give testimony to support one or the other side. Therefore, merely because the eye-witnesses are associated with one faction or the other, their evidence should not be discarded. It should, no doubt, be subjected to careful scrutiny and accepted with caution. We may also point out that law does not lay down different standard of appreciation of evidence when the prosecution witnesses and the accused are of different caste. The principles are the same as in other cases. (Para 9)

Judgment

JAGANNATHA SHETTY, J.:- These two appeals by Special Leave are by the State of U. P. The respondents- accused in both the appeals are convicted by the Sessions Judge, Farrukhabad, Mainpuri under Ss. 302/149, 307/149 and 148 of I.P.C. and sentenced to various terms of imprisonment. Against the said conviction and sentence the accused preferred Criminal Appeals Nos. 235 and 240 of 1972 before the High Court of Allahabad. The High Court by judgment dated April 19, 1977 allowed the appeals, set aside the conviction and acquitted them from all the charges.

2. On March 2, 1970 there was triple murder in the village Husainpur Tarai, P. S. Shamshabad in the District of Farrukhabad : (1) Moonga Lal, (2) Dharmoo and (3) Jawala were done to death by gun shots. It was alleged by the prosecution that the village was mostly inhabited by Dhobies and Kisans. There was no co-ordination between them. The houses of the accused and the deceased are close to each other. There appears to be only a pathway in between. The deceased obstructed the pathway by constructing a bund across it and also by placing thorny bushes. That was the subject-matter of a panchayat in which Moonga Lal had agreed to remove the obstruction. But he never did. On March 2, 1970 at about sunset time Moonga Lal was working with his cutting machine under the Chapper in front of his house. Lajja Ram and Jamadar were operating the machine. Dharmoo and Jawala were sitting near the Chabutara. There then the accused and some others armed with the guns, pistols and spears came to the Chabutara of Moonga Lal. They fired from the guns. Dharmoo and Moonga Lal died at the spot. Jawala died while being taken from Chabutara to his house. Jamadar, Smt. Badame and Smt. Ram Pyari who were nearby received fire arm injuries.

3. The First Information Report was lodged by Bachchu (PW 3) on March 3, 1970 at 7.00 a.m. in the Police Station which was at a distance of 9 miles from the place of occurrence. The investigation was conducted by Shri B. R. Singh (P. W. 16) and Shri B. P. Singh (PW-15).

4. The post-mortem examination of the bodies of the deceased was conducted by Dr. B. N. Tangri (PW-1). Apart from circular wounds with irregular inverted margins found on the body, all the vital organs of the deceased were also ruptured. In the opinion of the Doctor, the injuries found on the body of the deceased were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.

5. On March 3,1970, at about 10.10 a.m. the injured Smt. Ram Pyari was examined by Dr. R. P. Chaudhary (PW-2). It was noticed that she had multiple fire arm injuries each measuring 1/8" x 1/8". The same Doctor also examined Smt. Badame and Jamadar. The former had three injuries while the latter had four, all caused by fire arms.

6. As many as fourteen accused were charge-sheeted under Ss. 302/149, 307/149 and 148 of I.P.C. and tried by the Sessions Judge, Furrukhabad.

7. The prosecution examined several witnesses out of whom five were eyewitnesses: Bachchu (PW-3), Jamadar (PW 9), Sint. Ram Pyari (PW- 11), Lajja Ram (PW 12) and Munshi (PW-14). The trial Judge after considering their evidence and other material on record convicted eight accused, while acquitting six of them. They are sentenced to life imprisonment under S. 302/149, I.P.C. 7 years imprisonment under S. 302/149 I.P.C. and 2 years under S. 148 I.P.C.

8. The accused who were convicted preferred appeals Nos. 235 and 240/1974 before the Allahabad High Court. The High Court allowed the appeals, and acquitted all of them. The State of U.P. has come up before this Court challenging the legality of the decision of the High Court.

9. The High Court has given mainly three reasons for acquitting the accused: (i) All the eye-witnesses produced by the prosecution are partisan witnesses being close relatives of the deceased. (ii) There was delay of about 12 hours in lodging the First Information Report and in all probabilities the report must have been lodged by Lajja Ram (PW- 12) afte

















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