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

2007 Supreme(SC) 901

2007(5) Supreme 601
Supreme Court of India
(From Allahabad High Court)
Dr. Arijit Pasayat & D.K. Jain, JJ.
State of U.P. — Petitioner
versus
Raja Ram and Ors. — Respondents
Appeal (crl.) 1362 of 2002
Decided on : 20-06-2007

Important Point
When the witnesses try to introduce different versions from what has been stated during investigation to be in line with medical evidence; their evidence cannot be said to be cogent and the accused would be entitled to benefit of doubt.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302/149 – When the witnesses try to introduce different versions from what has been stated during investigation to be in line with medical evidence; their evidence cannot be said to be cogent and the accused would be entitled to benefit of doubt – Therefore, the High Court has rightly held that the evidence of PWs 2 and 3 is not cogent and extended benefit of doubt to respondents no. 4 to 6 and acquitted them of the offences charged for. (Para 9)

       Facts of the case :

       On 10.4.1984 Yadunath Chauhan, the ‘deceased’, was going from his village Bankat to village Jigirsar for some work. When he was near the Government Tube-well and the field of Balchand at about 6.30 a.m., all the appellants surrounded him. Appellants Raja Ram and Ram Nath were having ‘Spears’ while all other had lathis. On exhortation of accused Ram Prasad, appellants Raja Ram and Ram Nath started assaulting Yadunath with spear and rest with lathi. On the alarm raised by the victim, his son Babban Chauhan (PW-1), Ram Lal, Roop Narain (PW-2), Kamal Nath and others were attracted to the scene of occurrence. Seeing the pressure being mounted with the arrival of witnesses accused persons ran away with their respective weapons.

       Babban Chauhan (PW-1) son of the deceased, himself wrote down the First Information Report (Ex. Ka 1) and carried the same along with victim Yadunath to P.S. Khejuri where F.I.R. was recorded and the investigation was undertaken.

       The learned trial court Judge concluded that the prosecution had succeeded in establishing its case beyond reasonable doubt. The High Court found that the accusations so far as they relate to respondents 1 and 3 stand substantially established. Their participation in the occurrence was proved beyond doubt.

       Findings of the Court :

       Evidence of PWs 2 and 3 are not cogent and therefore the High Court rightly extended benefit of doubt to respondents no. 4 to 6.

       Result : Appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.—

1.The State of U.P. is in appeal against the judgment of the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court directing acquittal of the present respondent while upholding the conviction of three others, namely, Raja Ram, Ram Nath, and Ram Prasad, with the altercation that they were convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short ‘IPC’), instead of Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC. Conviction for offences punishable under Sections 147 and 148 IPC was set aside. The High Court set aside the conviction of Devender, Chhotey Lal and Subhash who are respondents 4 and 6 in this appeal.

2.Respondents faced trial for alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 302 read with Sections 149, 148 and 147 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short ‘IPC’). The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ballia found the accused persons guilty and sentenced each to undergo imprisonment for life and one year respectively in respect of three offences.

3.Prosecution version in a nutshell is as follows :

“On 10.4.1984 Yadunath Chauhan (hereinafter referred to as the ‘deceased’) was going from his village Bankat to village Jigirsar for some work. When he was near the Government Tube-well and the field of Balchand, all the appellants surrounded him. Time was about 6.30 a.m. Appellants Raja Ram and Ram Nath were having ‘Spears’ while all other had lathis. On exhortation of accused Ram Prasad, appellants Raja Ram and Ram Nath started assaulting Yadunath with spear and rest with lathi. On the alarm raised by the victim, his son Babban Chauhan (PW-1), Ram Lal, Roop Narain (PW-2), Kamal Nath and others were attracted to the scene of occurrence. Seeing the pressure being mounted with the arrival of witnesses accused persons ran away with their respective weapons.

Babba Chauhan (PW-1) son of the deceased, himself wrote down the First Information Report (Ex. Ka 1) and carried the same along with victim Yadunath to P.S. Khejuri where F.I.R. was recorded and the investigation was undertaken.

After completion of investigation charge sheet was placed. Accused person pleaded false implication. They examined one witness DW-1 and exhibited certain documents to show that the complainant was inimical to them.

4.On analysis of the evidence on record learned trial court held that the incident occurred at the time and place indicated by prosecution and the same is witnessed by PWs 1, 2 and 3 and their evidence was trustworthy. The First Information Report was lodged with promptness and the stand of defence that deceased was done to death in the early hours of the day while it was still dark was not acceptable. With these findings learned trial court Judge concluded that the prosecution had succeeded in establishing its case beyond reasonable doubt.5.Accused persons preferred appeal before the High Court. Analysing the evidence on record the High Court found that the accusations so far as they relate to respondents 1 and 3 stand substantially established. Their participation in the occurrence was proved beyond doubt. Ram Prasad, Raja Ram both assaulted the deceased with spear. In the post-mortem examination two incised penetrating wounds were found, beside five other incised injuries. As regards Ram Prasad, it was noted that all the witnesses stated that he assaulted the deceased on his head with a lathi.

6.Coming to the case of the respondents 3 to 6 it was found that the prosecution was not free from doubt. They were alleged to be armed with lathi. In the first information report there was a clear statement that these accused persons assaulted the deceased with lathis, Babban Chauhan (PW-1) had also stated about this. But PWs. 2 and 3 made a departure and stated that only accused Ram Prasad struck a lathi blow on the head of the deceased but others simply waved their lathis to scare the witnesses. The High Court found this was to be a development to bring their version in line with the medical ev





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