Back
2007 Supreme(All) 1963
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
S.K.Jain, K.S.Rakhra
RAM CHANDRA
Versus
STATE O
Decided On : 20 July 2007
Criminal Appeal No. 785 of 1982
The reliability of consistent eyewitness testimonies and corroborating evidence is crucial in establishing guilt in criminal cases.
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code - Murder - Section 302 - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for the murder of the deceased, who was shot in an agricultural field. The witnesses' testimonies and medical evidence corroborated the events leading to the murder.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the appellant guilty based on consistent eyewitness testimonies and medical evidence, concluding that the murder was committed by the appellant, who was the deceased's real brother.
Issues: The issues revolved around the reliability of witness testimonies, the distance from which the appellant fired the shot, and the appellant's motive for the murder.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the consistency of eyewitness testimonies, the lack of reason for false implication, and the absence of steps taken by the appellant to report the murder of his brother as key factors in reaching its decision.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant's conviction under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and the sentence of imprisonment for life were confirmed.
This Criminal appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 3. 3. 1982 passed by the learned Session Judge, Pilibhit in Session Trial No. 207/81 whereby the appellant Ram Chandra has been convicted under section 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life.
2. The brief facts mentioned in the F. I. R. lodged by Sukhlal at P. S. Barkhera, District Pilibhit on 25. 7. 1981 at 9. 30 a. m. are that on that day he along with the deceased Suresh who was his labourer, had gone to his agricultural field to uproot the saplings. Nearby, in the field of Moolchand, the son-in-law of Mool Chand Ram Bharosey was sowing the sapling. At a little distance there from Dod Raj was ploughing his field. Appellant Ram Chandra had also gone there to plough his field. The appellant after sometime went back to his house. At about 8. 30 a. m. the appellant armed with his licensed gun came to the agricultural field of the first informant Sukhlal. The appellant asked Suresh as to why he had cut his mend. The deceased Suresh replied he did not cut the mend why he was being tortured. During this quarrel, the deceased went towards the east to take cover behind the tank of tube well. The appellant called the deceased and said come here show me the mend. As soon as the deceased came towards the mend, the appellant fired at the deceased. The deceased received gun shot injuries on his chest and fell down in the agricultural field of Mool Chand and died. The appellant along with his gun went towards west north. The occurrence was witnessed by the first informant, Sukhlal and Ram Bharosey. Hearing the gun shot, Dod Raj and others came who saw the appellant going away armed with gun.
3. Head Moharrir on the basis of written report Ex. Ka -1 prepared the check report Ex. Ka-2, made entries in the G. D. as per Ex. Ka-3. S. I. Megh Singh, P. W. 4 took up the investigation. He interrogated the complainant and head Moharrir and proceeded to the place of occurrence. He found the dead body of Suresh lying near the mend. He appointed the Panch and prepare inquest report. Photo Lash and Chalan Lash Ex. Ka-4 to Ex-Ka-6. After sealing the dead body he sent the same for post-mortem through constable Sumer Singh whose affidavit is Ex-Ka-12. He recorded the statement of Ram Bharosey Lal and on his pointing out prepared the site plan Ex. Ka-7. He also found an empty cartridge on the spot. He took the same into possession, sealed the same and prepared its recovery memo Ex. Ka-8. He also took into possession the blood stained and ordinary earth from the place of occurrence and prepared its recovery memo. After recording the statement of Dod Raj and recovering the gun of the appellant from a gun shop in, Tilhar, he sent the gun and cartridge to ballistic expert. The report of the ballistic expert is Ex. Ka-13. The cartridge could not be matched with gun as firing pin of the gun was found tampered. After completing investigation, he remitted charge-sheet against the appellant which is Ex. Ka-10.
4. Dr. K. P. Dube, Medical Officer, District Hospital Pilibhit, PW. 5 conducted the post-mortem of the dead body of Suresh on 26. 7. 1981 at 2. 30 p. m. He found the following ante-mortem injuries:
1. Gun shot wound of entry 3 cm x 3 cm. rounded in shape, over the right side of chest 3 cm medial to right nipple at 3 O clock position. Blackening, tattooing " present, edges are inverted:
2. Abrasion 2 cm. x 1 cm over the left side chest 4 cm. medial to left nipple at 8 O Clock position.
3. Abrasion 3 cm. x 2 cm. Over the left side front of chest. On the internal examination, third and fourth ribs were found fractured, right lung was lacerated through and through and one liter of blood was found in the pleural cavity.
5. In the opinion "of Doctor the death was due to shock and haemorrhage and the deceased could have died at 8. 30 a. m. on 25. 7. 1981. He further opined that the injury No. 1 was caused from a distance of four feet. The prosecution examin
