Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, DEEPAK GUPTA, JJ.
Ramji Singh & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
The State Of Uttar Pradesh – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1397 of 2014
Decided on : 11-12-2019
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302/149, 449 and 148 – Murder, House trespass and rioting – Common object – Reversal of acquittal by High Court – Complaint gives all necessary facts – FIR is not supposed to be an encyclopaedia detailing all facts in extenso – Complaint is complete and additions made during evidence are not such which cast a doubt on correctness of complaint – Mere delay in compliance of Section 157 by itself is not fatal to prosecution – All it does is to raise a doubt that prosecution story may have been concocted at a later stage – Even if prosecution has failed to prove strict compliance of Section 157 of Cr.P.C. there is sufficient material on record to show that copies of FIR were sent to other officials as required under U.P. Police Regulations and there was no false FIR lodged after consultation, as alleged by appellants – Medical evidence fully corroborates prosecution story – High Court was absolutely justified in coming to conclusion that Trial Court had totally misdirected itself in holding that medical evidence did not support ocular evidence – Medical evidence fully supports ocular evidence and there is virtually no contradiction – Version of two eye witnesses with regard to injuries caused by fire arms and sharp-edged weapons, find corroboration from medical report – Relationship between two sides was strained – They belonged to different groups and there was enmity between them – Complaint depicts what actually happened – Merely because these witnesses are interested witnesses their testimony cannot be discarded – Guns seized may or may not be guns used – However, when ocular evidence is direct and clear and fully supported by medical evidence, negligence of investigation team cannot be used by defence in support of their case – Appeal dismissed. (Paras 9, 11, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22)
(B) Criminal Law – Appreciation of evidence – Site plan is prepared on the basis of information given by witnesses – Site plan only gives a general idea and is not a true to scale map. (Para 15)
Facts of the case:
Murder case. prosecution examined a number of witnesses. The case of accused persons was of denial. Main question which arises for consideration is whether reliance should be placed on the statement of the eye witnesses.
Findings of Court:
Appellants are right when they urge that when report of the ballistic experts have not been proved and all bullets recovered from the spot have not been sent to ballistic expert, guns seized cannot be connected with offence. Even if that be true, we cannot discredit testimony of the eyewitnesses that two of the accused used guns. The guns seized may or may not be the guns used. However, when ocular evidence is direct and clear in this regard, and this ocular evidence is fully supported by the medical evidence, negligence of the investigation team cannot be used by defence in support of their case.
Result : Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Deepak Gupta, J.
Babu Ram (PW-1) lodged a written complaint (Exh.P.1) with the Police Station Churkhi to the effect that he had been informed by his nephew Sarman Singh (deceased) that when he-Sarman Singh was ploughing his field in the morning of 17.06.1982, accused Lakhan Singh (A-1) reached there and hurled abuses at Sarman Singh. Lakhan Singh told Sarman Singh that he should not till the plot otherwise he would be killed. Sarman Singh retorted that the plot does not belong to Lakhan’s father and that though Lakhan Singh had been cultivating the plot by force, now Sarman Singh would not permit him to do so. Heated altercation took place between the two and both of them abused each other. Thereafter, Lakhan Singh went to his house. Sarman Singh after completing the ploughing came home and mentioned about this incident to Babu Ram (PW-1.) In the FIR it is also reported that the relations between the two were strained and Lakhan Singh belonged to a different group in the elections for the post of Village Pradhan. Sarman Singh had fought the election against Lakhan Singh. Lakhan Singh had won the election.
2. Immediately, after informing Babu Ram of the incident, Sarman Singh went to get his agricultural implement (datuwa) repaired from the carpenter and the informant Babu Ram (PW-1) also accompanied him. It was about noon. As soon as they were crossing the house of Dasharath Singh, Sarman Singh told Babu Ram (PW-1) that Babu Ram should get the datuwa repaired from the carpenter while he (Sarman Singh) went to collect the price of the bullocks from Dasharath Singh. Sarman Singh entered the courtyard of the house of Dasharath Singh and sat on a cot.
Informant Babu Ram (PW-1) went towards the house of the carpenter. He had just reached the house of the carpenter when he heard some noise. He immediately ran and reached the house of Dasharath Singh where he saw accused Lakhan Singh (A-1), armed with lathi, Ramji Singh (A-2) and Krishna Autar (A-3), armed with guns and Laxman Singh (A-4), son of Lakhan Singh, and Lala Ram (A-5), armed with axes and Virendra Singh (A-6) with kanta pitchfork. They were outside the house of Dasharath Singh and Lakhan Singh pointed out that Sarman Singh is a big gunda, he should not be permitted to escape and he should be killed. Ramji Singh(A-2) and Krishna Autar (A-3) fired three times each from their weapons from the entrance of the house of Dasharath Singh. Laxman Singh (A-4) and Lala Ram(A-5) gave blows with their axes, and Virendra Singh(A-6), attacked him with the pitchfork on his face and hands. Sarman Singh died on the spot itself. In the meantime, Nand Kishore (PW-2), Gaya Prasad, Takhta Singh and Dasharath Singh’s wife Bhagwanta, and other villagers reached the spot. The accused threatened all the persons present there that if anybody interfered, he would kill them and, thereafter the accused ran away from the spot.
3. A written complaint in this behalf was prepared by Babu Ram (PW-1) and was scribed by Ram Lakhan (PW-4). Thereafter Babu Ram (PW-1) went to the police station which is about 8 miles from the village and handed over the written complaint. Crime No.66/82 was recorded under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC for short), against the aforesaid 6 accused. Thereafter, investigation was done and the dead body of the deceased Sarman Singh was sent for postmortem examination. After completion of the investigation charge sheet under Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.PC for short) was filed against all the 6 accused. The Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions. The Sessions Judge charged Lakhan Singh under Sections 147, 449, 302/149 of the IPC whereas Ramji Singh, Krishna Autar, Laxman Singh, Lala Ram, and Virendra Singh were charged for having committed offence punishable under Sections 148, 302/149, 449 of the IPC.
4. The prosecution examined a number of witnesses. The case of the accused persons was of den
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
