Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(SC) 148

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ABHAY S. OKA, UJJAL BHUYAN, JJ.
Ram Singh – Appellant
Versus
The State of U.P. – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 206 of 2024
Decided On : 21-02-2024

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Pradeep Kumar Mathur, AOR Mr. Chiranjeev Johri, Adv. Mr. Chandra Nand Jha, Adv. Mr. M.K. Tiwari, Adv. Mr. Sitesh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Arvind Kumar, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Rana Mukherjee, Sr. Adv. Mr. Samarth Mohanty, Adv. Mr. Ankit Goel, AOR

IMPORTANT POINTS
1) When there is similar or identical evidence of eyewitnesses against two accused by ascribing them same or similar role, court cannot convict one accused and acquit other.
(2) In cases where injuries are caused by firearms, opinion of ballistic expert becomes very important to connect crime cartridge recovered during investigation to firearm used by accused with crime.

Headnote:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 301/302 and 307 – Murder and attempt to murder – Life sentence – Weapon of offence i.e. country made pistol used by accused in offence, could not be recovered by police and not exhibited – There is no ballistic report on the basis of which it could be said for sure that pellets found outside body and from within body could be traceable to cartridge which in turn could be traced to country made pistol from which shot was allegedly fired by appellant – There are glaring inconsistencies in prosecution version which have been magnified by absence of testimony of material witnesses and ballistic report coupled with non-recovery of weapon of crime – In cases where injuries are caused by firearms, opinion of ballistic expert becomes very important to connect crime cartridge recovered during investigation to firearm used by accused with crime – Failure to produce expert opinion in such cases affects creditworthiness of prosecution case to a great extent – When there is direct eye witness account which is found to be credible, omission to obtain ballistic report and non-examination of ballistic expert may not be fatal to prosecution case – But if evidence tendered including that of eyewitnesses do not inspire confidence or suffer from glaring inconsistencies coupled with omission to examine material witnesses, omission to seek ballistic opinion and examination of ballistic expert may be fatal to prosecution case – That apart, material witnesses have not been examined – On same set of evidence, trial court gave benefit of doubt to other accused – Appellant should be given benefit of doubt – Conviction and sentence set aside. (Paras 21, 22, 25.1, 29, 30, 33 and 34)
Facts of the case:
In sessions trial, appellant Ram Singh was convicted under Section 301 read with Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. He was also convicted under Section 307 IPC. For offence under Section 301/302 IPC, appellant was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and for offence under Section 307 IPC, appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years, both the sentences to run concurrently. Present appeal is directed against judgment and order dated 05.02.2018 passed by High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Appeal No. 1611 of 1983, confirming conviction and sentence imposed on appellant by Trial Judge.
Findings of Court:
Any lingering doubt about involvement of an accused in crime he is accused of committing, must weigh on the mind of court and in such a situation, benefit of doubt must be given to accused. This is more so when co-accused is acquitted by trial court on same set of evidence.
Result : Appeal allowed.

JUDGMENT :

UJJAL BHUYAN, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 05.02.2018 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Appeal No. 1611 of 1983, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant by the Additional Sessions Judge, Non-metropolitan Area, Kanpur in Sessions Trial No. 297 of 1982.

2. In the sessions trial, appellant Ram Singh was convicted under Section 301 read with Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). He was also convicted under Section 307 IPC. For the offence under Section 301/302 IPC, appellant was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and for the offence under Section 307 IPC, appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years, both the sentences to run concurrently.

2.1. As noticed above, the appeal filed by the appellant before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (‘High Court’ for short) was dismissed. Consequently, the conviction and sentence of the appellant imposed by the Sessions Court was confirmed by the High Court.

Prosecution Case

3. PW-1 Shri Radhey Lal lodged a first information before the Bhognipur Police Station in the District of Kanpur (U.P.) on 19.08.1982 at midnight stating that he and his brother Desh Raj were sitting in the open space in front of the entrance door of his house during the evening hours. His mother Dulli was sitting close by on a cot. On another cot, neighbours Lala Ram i.e. PW-3 and Man Singh i.e. PW-2 were sitting. They were chatting under a glowing lantern hanging on the roof-side of his residence. According to the informant, at about 08:00 PM, appellant Ram Singh accompanied by one Lala Ram came to his residence. He stated that both of them were residents of his village. Ram Singh was holding a country made pistol in his right hand. As per version in the first information, Lala Ram had instigated Ram Singh by loudly saying that these people were creating disturbances; so kill them. Ram Singh fired on the informant but he slipped below the cot. The bullet hit the left breast of his mother Dulli who cried aloud saying that she was dead. According to the informant, they also cried. Ram Singh and Lala Ram ran away towards the north. Mother died immediately due to the gunshot wound. Informant stated that the incident was seen by his brother Desh Raj and by his neighbours Lala Ram and Man Singh in the light of the lantern. On hearing the firing, many people living nearby came. They had seen the accused running. The mother was lying dead on bed. The informant further stated that about one and a half months back, there was a scuffle betfween his son Baan Singh and the appellant Ram Singh which matter was duly reported to the local police station. Lala Ram and Ram Singh belongs to the same party. Because of this, they came to the door of his residence when on the instigation of Lala Ram, Ram Singh fired a shot due to which his mother Dulli died.

3.1. The first information as dictated by the informant, was reduced to writing by the scribe Sunder Lal, another brother of PW-1. The said first information was registered as FIR bearing No. 252/1982.

4. Police investigated the crime and on completion of the investigation submitted charge-sheet charging appellant Ram Singh of having committed offence under Sections 301 and 302 of the IPC as well as under Section 307/34 IPC. On the other hand, the co-accused Lala Ram was charged of having committed offence under Section 307/34 IPC.

4.1. To prove its case, prosecution examined six witnesses. After considering the evidence and materials on record, the Sessions Court convicted the appellant under Section 301 read with Section 302 IPC and also under Section 307 IPC. However, the other accused Lala Ram was given the benefit of doubt and accordingly was acquitted.

4.2. At this stage, we may mention that there are two Lala Ram in this case. One is Lala Ram, son of Prahalad Singh who is PW-3 and the other is Lala Ram, son of Dhanna Ram Yadav who was na