Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.S.Anand : Faizan Uddin
Ram Dev
Versus
State Of U.P.
Case No. : 247 of 1989
Date of Decision : 2/23/94
Indian Penal Code - Section 302/ 34 - Against the acquittal – Offence of Murder – Injury – First Information Report - Investigating officer Sharma, Sub-Inspector arrived at spot and after preparing the site plan, inquest report and effecting seizure of the pellets and from the spot, sent the dead body of Ram Chandra for post-mortem examination and also sent Ram Saran Public Witness 1 for medical examination. Dr R.C. Gupta, Public Witness 3 examined the injuries of Ram Saran, Public Witness 1 while Public Witness 6 performed post- mortem examination on the dead body of Ram Chandra, deceased - Medical evidence has been reproduced by both the High court and Sessions court and we need not record the injuries found on the deceased or on Ram Saran, PW I in this judgment. Previous enmity is stated to be motive for the assault – Held, That occurrence took place in the courtyard of the deceased and his brother Ram Saran and others is amply established from the fact that the pellets and were found from that courtyard and there were also pellet marks on the walls - Dead body of was also lying in the same courtyard - This is evident from site plan - Since appellants were known to the complainant party question of any doubt in identification does not arise, particularly when the lantern light was available in the courtyard and we therefore, do not find any merit in the next argument of the learned counsel, that the occurrence took place at a different place and the assailants could not be identified either. We also do not find any merit in the last argument of the learned counsel that the delay in lodging FIR has rendered the prosecution case doubtful. Ram Saran, Public Witness 1 has given a cogent explanation for lodging the FIR in the morning and both the courts below have rightly accepted the same - After considering the judgment of the trial court and the High court, we find ourselves in complete agreement with both the courts that the prosecution has established the case against both the appellants. Ram Dev and beyond a reasonable doubt - Their conviction for the murder of Ram Chandra and for causing injuries to Ram Saran, Public Witness 1 is well merited and the sentence imposed upon them on each count also does not call for any interference. There is no merit in their appeal - Before parting with the judgment court would however like to observe that the prosecution did not examine Sub-Inspector, who was the investigating officer of the case - It was desirable for the prosecution to produce the investigating officer at the trial notwithstanding the fact that the various documents which were to be proved by the investigating officer were accepted by genuine documents and were not disputed - ff However non- examination of the investigating officer does not in any way create any dent in the prosecution case much less affect the credibility of the otherwise trustworthiness of the oral testimony of the eyewitnesses which we have accepted – Appeal dismissed
(1) RAM Chandra was subjected to violent death at about 10 or 10.30 p.m. on 12/6/1977 in the courtyard of his own house at Village Gudera. His brother Ram Saran Public Witness 1 received two injuries in the same incident. Both the appellants along with Ram Mohan and Rabudi alias Pratap Narain were challaned in that connection by the police, after investigation which started after lodging of the FIR on 13/6/1977 at 6.30 a.m. at police outpost Amritpur, at a distance of about 8 miles from the place of occurrence on the statement of Ram Saran, Public Witness 1, the injured witness. They were put on trial. The learned Sessions Judge, vide judgment dated 6/9/1978 acquitted Ram Mohan and Rabudi but convicted both the appellants. Ram Dev was convicted for an offence under Section 302 Indian Penal Code for the murder of Ram Chandra and also for an offence under Section 307 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code in respect of the injuries caused to Ram Saran, Public Witness 1. Sudhakar was convicted for an offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code in respect of the murder of Ram Chandra and under Section 307 Indian Penal Code for the injuries caused to Ram Saran Public Witness 1. Both the appellants were sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and rigorous imprisonment for five years each on each of the two counts respectively The State did not file any appeal against the acquittal of Ram Mohan and Rabudi in the High court but the appellants challenged their convictions and sentence. The High court, vide judgment dated 7/11/1988 dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants and confirmed their conviction and sentence.
(2) THE prosecution story in short is that Ram Saran, Public Witness 1 along with his three brothers Ram Chandra, deceased, Ram Bharose, Public Witness 2 and Raksh Pal used to live in different kothas of the same house with a common courtyard. On the fateful day, the appellants who have their houses not very far away came to the courtyard of the house of Ram Saran, Public Witness 1 and his brothers. While the deceased Ram Chandra, according to the prosecution case, was sitting on a Rajai, his other brothers Ram Saran, Ram Bharose and Raksh Pal were sitting on a cot towards the east side of the kitchen inside the courtyard. There was a lighted lantern hanging on the wall. Both the appellants were armed with a gun each while according to the prosecution case the acquitted co-accused were armed with country-made pistols. Soon after arrival in the courtyard Ram Dev appellant I shouted that Ram Chandra should be put to death and should not be allowed to escape. He thereafter fired from his gun at Ram Chandra causing him injuries as a result of which he died on the spot. The three brothers took shelter by running away and hiding behind the wall of the kitchen and raised an alarm. Sudhakar appellant is then reported to have fired from his gun towards them and Ram Saran Public Witness 1 was hit by the pellets from the fire shot by Sudhakar. On hearing cries of Ram Chandra and others some persons from the locality including Brij Bhushan Public Witness 5 arrived at the spot flashing their torches. They challenged the accused party, who however made good their escape. Early in the next morning Ram Saran Public Witness 1 went to the police outpost Amritpur and lodged the first information report. The investigating officer, Shri Bharat Lal Sharma, Sub-Inspector arrived at the spot and after preparing the site plan, inquest report and effecting seizure of the pellets and tikiis from the spot, sent the dead body of Ram Chandra for post-mortem examination and also sent Ram Saran Public Witness 1 for medical examination. Dr R.C. Gupta, Public Witness 3 examined the injuries of Ram Saran, Public Witness 1 while Dr P.K. Bansal, Public Witness 6 performed the post- mortem examination on the dead body of Ram Chandra, deceased. The medical evidence has been reproduced by both the High court and the Sessions c
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
