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

2017 Supreme(SC) 681

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.K. SIKRI AND ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.
STATE OF U.P. – APPELLANTS
VERSUS
RAM KUMAR & ORS. – RESPONDENTS
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1584 OF 2010
Decided On : 20-07-2017

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants :- Adarsh Upadhyay, Adv.
For the Respondent No.1:- Puja Sharma, Adv.
For the Respondent No.2:- Ajay Sharma, Adv.
For the Respondent No.3:- Nidhi, Adv.

IMPORTANT POINTS
It is not easy to comprehend as to how a human being will react on a particular incident.
Minor discrepancy in evidence of injured witness as also omissions in the inquest report are inconsequential.

Headnote:(a) Criminal trial – Identification – Accused and victims belonging to same family and residing nearby – Informant identifying accused persons in lantern light – High Court disbelieving it because there was no blackening on walls – When lantern is covered and hanging on long peg, there will not be blackening on the walls – IO stating that he did not remember whether there was blackening on the walls – High Court reading it as no blackening on the walls – Impugned judgment based on surmises – Not sustainable. (Para 31, 32)

       (b) Criminal trial – Motive – High Court disbelieving statements of PW1 and 2 and observing without any other evidence that the dispute was not such as to prompt accused persons to kill the informant and therefore prosecution failed to establish motive – It is not easy to comprehend as to how a human being will react on a particular incident – High Court reasoning not sustainable. (Para 33)

       (c) Criminal trial – Appreciation of evidence – Minor discrepancy in evidence of injured witness – Inconsequential – So are omissions in the inquest report. (Para 38, 39, 40)

       (2011) 6 SCC 288 – Relied upon

       Facts of the case:

       The High Court rejected the Capital Sentence Reference made by Additional Sessions Judge and allowed the criminal appeals filed by the accused acquitting them from the charges.

       Result: Appeal allowed.

JUDGMENT

Ashok Bhushan, J.

The State is in appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dated 11.10.2002 in Capital Sentence Reference No. 1 of 2001 and three criminal appeals filed by the accused.

2. The High Court rejected the Capital Sentence Reference made by Additional Sessions Judge and allowed the criminal appeals filed by the accused acquitting them from the charges. The Fifth Additional Sessions Judge vide its judgment dated 18.01.2001 had convicted the accused Ram Prasad, Ram Kumar, Ramakant, Kalloo and Daya Shankar and by order dated 19.01.2001 had awarded death sentence with other sentences.

3. The prosecution story, in brief, is that when at 7.30 P.M. on 09.10.1995 PW. 1 Mohan Lal was sitting outside his house and his wife, now deceased lying on a cot near him, the accused persons armed with deadly weapons reached there and on exhortation of accused Ram Prasad to kill Mohan Lal accused Daya Shankar, Ramakant and Ram Kumar started firing due to which PW.1 Mohan Lal had to run for safety but sustained firearm injuries including the wife who was present with him. The accused persons followed PW. 1 Mohan Lal inside the house and on not finding him there demanded from the other family members to open the door of the room in which they had locked themselves fearing for their life due to the sudden assault by the accused persons. When on demand the door was not opened the accused persons set on fire the house due to which three humans including one child and one animal lost their lives. Smt. Makhana wife of the informant PW. 1 Mohan Lal who had sustained firearm injuries also succumbed to those injuries.

4. A written report was lodged by the injured PW.1 Mohan Lal at the police station at 10.15 P.M. the same night. According to the report lodged the accused persons were of the family of his step brother and the assault was due to the altercation which had taken place between the informant and the accused Ram Prasad his step brother one week ago.

5. The I.O., B. P. Singh who was present in the Police Station at the time of lodging of First Information Report, after lodging of the report proceeded to place of occurrence at 12.05 A.M. on 10.10.1995. At 12.30 A.M., he reached the place of occurrence. He directed Shri Nisanath Misra, Sub Inspector Police Chowki, to conduct the Inquest Report of the deceased Sarvesh Kumari, Kumari Kunti aged 03 years, and Santosh son of Ram Asrey aged 09 years.

6. I.O. inspected the place of occurrence, collected the blood found on the spot, collected ashes of burnt chhappar and also examined the lantern (lalten) which was stated to be burning at the time of occurrence and gave it in the supurdgi of Parshuram son of Mohan Lal. I.O. had already recorded the statement of Mohan Lal, the informant at the Police Station itself. The inquest of the deceased started at 6 A.M. on 10.10.1995.

7. Injured Mohan Lal, Ram Asrey, Smt. Shakuntla and Guddu were sent from the Police Station itself to the District Hospital. Medical examination of injured was conducted at 1.45 A.M. on 10.10.1995, which had revealed firearm injuries on different parts of the bodies of Mohan Lal. Medical examination of Ram Asrey, Shakuntala and Guddu had revealed that they were suffering from inhalation of carbon dioxide and carbon mono oxide.

8. The postmortem was also conducted of deceased Sarvesh Kumari, Kumari Kunti, Santosh and Smt. Makhana. The postmortem report of Sarvesh Kumari, Kumari Kunti and Santosh revealed that death had occurred due to suffocation from the smoke. Postmortem of Smt. Makhana revealed fire arm injury on the chest to the extent of 15 X 17 cm. Postmortem report opined that death had occurred due to firearm injury sustained by the deceased. Postmortem of the she buffalo was also conducted by the veterinary doctor, who also opined that she buffalo died due to third-degree burns.

9. The Police submitted the chargesheet against Ram Prasad, Ram Kumar, Ramakant, Kalloo and Shripal on which Ses
































































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