Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
.K. MUKHERJEE AND G.T. NANAVATI, JJ.
State of Punjab, Appellant
Versus
Surja Ram, Respondent.
Criminal Appeals Nos. 448 with 346 of 1984
Decided on 9-8-1995.
Held: It is trite that while dealing with an appeal against an acquittal recorded by the High Court this Court does not ordinarily interfere with it but if it is found that relevant and reliable evidence on record has been lost sight of, ignored or brushed aside for reasons which are wholly unsustainable this Court will not only be justified but it will be its duty - to interfere with the acquittal to make amends for the failure of justice. (para 7)
Further Held: That we have found that the reasons which weighed with the High Court in recording the order of acquittal in favour of the two respondents cannot be sustained we have to ascertain whether the trial Court was justified in convicting them solely relying on the evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 3. After going through their evidence carefully we find that they carefully supported the prosecution case as detailed earlier, including the specific roles played by the two respondents in the murder of Tulsa Ram. Considering the fact that the incident took place just in front of the house of Tulsa Ram, P.W. 2 was the most natural and probable witness. The claim of PW 3 that he was in the house of Tulsa Ram at the material time has already been found by us to be a genuine one. He must, therefore, also be held to be a probable witness. Though both of them were cross-examined at length nothing could be elicited to discard their evidence or materially contradict them. Dr. Minal (P.W. 1) testified that the deceased (Tulsa Ram) had an incised wound on the right chest, and an incised wound below base of neck. He also found four pellet wounds on the dead body besides some abrasions. When P.W. 1 was shown spear a (Ex. P.1) which was seized during investigation he opined that the two incised wounds might have been caused by one blow with that instrument as the two wounds communicated with each other. He further opined that the pellet wounds might have been the result of a single shot from a firearm. The evidence of the Doctor, therefore, fully supports the evidence of the two eye-witnesses. This apart, the F.I.R., which has been found by us to have been promptly lodged contains a detailed outline of the prosecution case and thus corroborates the evidence of P.W. 2. The find of human blood near the house of Tulsa Ram also is a piece of corroboration of the evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 3. The trial Judge, however, did not lend any importance to the factum of recovery of the spear and the pistol pursuant to the statements made by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 respectively, on the ground that no blood was found on the spear and the Ballistic Experts report only indicated that the pistol had been used before it was recovered but such user could not be connected with the commission of the crime. We also, therefore, do not find it prudent to take into consideration the above evidence. However such non-consideration dose not in any way deter us from accepting the prosecution case as we find that both P.W s.2 and 3 are wholly reliable and their evidence stands corroborated by other evidence on record. (Para 15)
JUDGMENT
M.K. MUKHERJEE, J. :- Surja Ram and his three sons Mohan Lal, Vinod Kumar and Pramod Kumar, all residents of village Puran Patti under the police station of Fazilka (Sadar), were placed on trial before the Sessions Judge, Ferozepore to answer charges under Section 302, read with Section 34, of the Indian Penal Code for the murders of Tulsa Ram, the elder brother of Surja Ram, and his son Brij Lal. On conclusion of the trial, the learned Judge acquitted all of them of the charge relating to the murder of Brij Lal and also acquitted Vinod Kumar and Pramod Kumar of the other charge but convicted Surja Ram and Mohan Lal and sentenced each of them to suffer imprisonment for life. Against their conviction and sentence, Surja Ram and Mohal Lal preferred an appeal which was allowed by the High Court. Assailing their acquittal these two appeals have been preferred; one by the State of Punjab (Criminal Appeal No. 448 of 1984) and the other (Criminal Appeal No. 346 of 1984) by Kamla Devi, daughter of the deceased Tulsa Ram. Both the appeals have been heard together and this judgment will dispose of them.
2. The case for the prosecution, briefly stated, is as under : Ishar Ram, father of Surja Ram and Tulsa Ram had divided his lands in three equal shares, one of which was given to Surja Ram (the respondent No. 1), another to Tulsa Ram (the deceased) and the third was retained by him. In terms of the said division, a field known as Diggiwala fell in the share of Tulsa Ram and he used to sow Moongi crops thereon. Surja Ram, however, was demanding a share out of the Moongi crops from Tulsa Ram, but the latter told him that as he (Surja Ram) was already in possession of more land than that fell in his share, he should first give him (Tulsa Ram) a part of it before he could claim any share in the Moongi crops. This proposal was however not acceptable to Surja Ram.
3. On April 18, 1982 at or about 5 P.M. Tulsa Ram was sitting in an open space outside his house while his two sons Ram Gopal (PW-4) and Brij Lal (the deceased) were away to the field for raising crops. At that time Surja Ram accompanied by his three sons came there and started shouting that Tulsa Ram should be taught a lesson for not giving the share of Moongi crops. Surja Ram was carrying a spear, Mohan Lal a pistol, Vinod Kumar a Kirpan and Parmod Kumar a soti. Apprehending danger, Tulsa Ram got up and tried to rush into his house when Mohan Lal fired from the pistol hitting him on the back. As a result thereof Tulsa Ram fell down with his face upwards. Surja Ram then inflicted a blow, with the spear he was carrying, on the chest of Tulsa Ram. Immediately thereafter Tulsa Ram died. Kamla Devi (PW-2), daughter of Tulsa Ram, and Ram Swarup (PW-3) who were inside the house and had earlier come out on hearing the shouts raised by Surja Ram, cried out for help. All the four miscreants then ran towards the field shouting that they would not spare the sons of Tulsa Ram also. Kamla Devi and Ram Swarup then rushed towards the field where Brij Lal and Ram Gopal were working. Sighting the miscreants Ram Gopal fled away but Brij Lal could not succeed in his attempt as Mohan Lal fired three shots at him resulting in his instantaneous death. Finding Brij Lal dead, Kamla Devi came back home and sent Ram Swarup to inform her maternal uncles, who lived in a nearby village. After Ram Swarup returned with her maternal uncles Raja Ram (PW-12) and Kanshi Ram (PW-13), Kamla Devi left for the police station accompanied by Kanshi Ram. There she lodged a First Information Report (Ext. PJ) which was recorded by Sub-Inspector Bhagwan Singh (PW-18).
4. After registering the case Bhagwan Singh left for the place of occurrence accompanied by Kamla Devi and Kanshi Ram.Reaching there he found the dead body of Tulsa Ram lying in front of his house. He held inquest thereupon and sent if for post-morterm examination. He also collected and seized some blood stained earth from the spot. He then went to the fiel
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
