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

2008 Supreme(SC) 261

2008(2) Supreme 34
Supreme Court of india
(From Punjab and Haryana High Court)
P. P. Naolekar & Lokeshwar Singh Panta, JJ.
Babu Ram & Ors. — Petitioners
versus
State of Punjab — Respondent
Appeal (crl.) 654 of 2006
Decided on : 15-02-2008

important point
Non-explanation of the injuries sustained by the accused at about the time of the occurrence or in the course of altercation is a very important circumstance.

Headnote:(a)Criminal trial – Well-settled law that in a murder case, the non-explanation of the injuries sustained by the accused at about the time of the occurrence or in the course of altercation is a very important circumstance – Further, failure of the prosecution to explain the injuries on the person of the accused assumes much greater importance where the evidence consists of interested or inimical witnesses or where the defence gives a version which competes in probability with that of the prosecution one. (Paras 18 and 19)

       (b)Criminal trial – In view of the improbabilities, the serious omissions and infirmities, the interested nature of the evidence and other circumstances, prosecution failed to prove the case against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt – High Court judgment set aside being not sustainable. (Para 22)

       Facts of the case:

       1.On 03.03.1993 at about 7.30 PM, the complainant Sohan Lal (PW-2) on hearing some noise coming from the street near the house of Ram Pratap (PW-3) came out of his house with a torch in his hand and saw that Babu Ram (A-1) and Indraj (A-2) had caught hold of Ant Ram while Suraj Dev (A-3) gave a blow with a ‘Rambi’ on the chest of Ant Ram whereupn Ant Ram fell down.

       2.Ant Ram was taken to the Civil Hospital, Abohar, by PW-2 and PW-3 where he was declared dead.

       3.The Trial Court held the appellants guilty of the murder of Ant Ram and, accordingly, convicted and sentenced them.

       4.The appellants preferred an appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Cr.P.C. before the High Court, whereas PW-2 Sohan Lal filed Criminal Revision No.306 of 1997 claiming compensation to the heirs of the deceased. The High court confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellants, but dismissed the Criminal Revision of the complainant.

       Findings of the Court:

       Prosecution failed to prove the case against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt.

       Result : Appeal allowed.

judgment

Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J. –

1.The appellants have filed this appeal against the Judgment and Order dated August 03, 2005 passed by a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh, confirming the conviction and sentence in respect of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short the ‘IPC’) and a fine of Rs.2000/- with a default clause to undergo R.I. for six months awarded to Suraj Dev and imposing punishment of life imprisonment upon appellants Babu Ram and Indraj under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- each, in default of payment of fine to further suffer R.I. for six months each in Sessions Case No. 83 of 1993 Sessions Trial No.10 of 1997.

2.Briefly put, the facts may be summarized as follows :

On 03.03.1993 at about 7.30 PM, the complainant Sohan Lal (PW-2) on hearing some noise coming from the street near the house of Ram Pratap (PW-3) came out of his house with a torch in his hand. PWs. 2 and 3 saw that Babu Ram (A-1) and Indraj (A-2) had caught hold of Ant Ram while Suraj Dev (A-3) gave a blow with a ‘Rambi’ (an instrument for cutting leather by a cobbler) on the chest of Ant Ram. On receipt of the said blow, Ant Ram fell down. PWs-2 and 3 raised an alarm which attracted many other persons on the spot. Ant Ram was taken to the Civil Hospital, Abohar, by PW-2 and PW-3 where he was declared dead. A ruqqa was sent to Police Station regarding receipt of the dead body of Ant Ram. A.S.I. Hardev Singh (PW-5) came to the hospital and recorded statement of PW-2 Sohan Lal. On the basis of the said statement, formal FIR Ex.PH/1 came to be registered at the Police Station. The Investigating Officer started investigation and prepared an inquest report. He recorded the statement of PW-3 Ram Pratap on the following day of the incident. He went to the place of occurrence and lifted the blood-stained earth and prepared a site plan.

3.On 08.03.1993, Indraj (A-2) was discharged from hospital and was arrested by the Investigating Officer and thereafter investigation of the case was taken over by S.I. Jagdev Singh. On 10.03.1993, S.I. Jagdev Singh accompanied by A.S.I. Hardev Singh (PW-5) went to Village Kikker Khera, where Ram Pratap, Ex-Sarpanch, produced Babu Ram (A-1) and Suraj Dev (A-3) who, later on, were arrested. It was further case of the prosecution that on 12.03.1993, pursuant to the disclosure statement Ex.PK made by A-3, the Police recovered one blood-stained ‘Rambi’ concealed in an iron box meant for keeping clothes from his house. ‘Rambi’ (Ex.P1) was taken into possession through Memo (Ex.PK/2). On completion of the investigation, charge sheet was presented against the appellants A-1, A-2 and A-3 in the Court of Illaqa Magistrate, who committed the same to the Court of Sessions. The learned Sessions Judge, Ferozpur, charge-sheeted A-3 Suraj Dev under Section 302 IPC, while A-1 Babu Ram and A-2 Indraj were charged under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The appellants pleaded not guilty to the offence and claimed to be tried.

4.In support of its case, the prosecution examined Dr.Lal Chand Thakral as PW-1, Sohan Lal as PW-2, Ram Pratap as PW-3, Het Ram as PW-4 and A.S.I. Hardev Singh as PW-5. In their statements recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the appellants Babu Ram (A-1) pleaded as under:-

“I am innocent. I have love affairs with Kant daughter of Sohan Lal. I have produced letters Mark D.1 to D.8 which are in her own hand-writing and I have been falsely involved due to this reason.”

Indraj (A-2) pleaded as under:-

“I was preparing shoes by cutting leather with the Rambi. Ant Ram came there and started abusing me for not supporting Sohan Lal. We exchanged abuses and a quarrel started. In the meanwhile, my wife also came there. Ant Ram had a Kapa with him. He gave blows to me and my wife with Kapa from its sharp and blunt side. In order to defend me and my wife, I gave a Rambi blow to him. Police hel








































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