Back
1999 (2) JLJ 354
(SUPREME COURT)
K.T. Thomas and A.P. Misra, JJ.
Rammi @ Rameshwar v. State of M.P.
Cr. Appeal No. 61 of 1999; against the judgment of MP. High Court passed in
Cr. Appeal No. 626 of 1987; Decided on 21.9.1999.
(2) Evidence Act, 1872 -- S. 60 -- incongruities coming in the evidence of maker of FIR and another eye witness -- explanation not sought -- incongruities are immaterial. [Para 10]
(3) Evidence Act, 1872 -- S. 27 -- information by accused to the police -admissible to the extent a fact is discovered. [Para 11]
(4) Evidence Act, 1872 -- S. 27 -- information by accused pertaining to discovery a fact -- information should be given voluntarily. [Para 12]
(5) Evidence Act, 1872 -- S. 27 -- material discrepancy regarding time of arrest of accused persons -- recovery of weapons cannot be relied on. [Paras 14 & 15]
(6) Evidence Act, 1872 -- S. 138 -- very purpose of re-examination -- is to explain matters which have been brought down in cross-examination. [Para 16]
(7) Evidence Act, 1872 -- S. 138 -- re-examination -- is not confined to clarification of ambiguities brought down in cross-examination -- any question can be put to get explanation. [Para 17]
(8) Evidence Act, 1872 -- Ss. 60 and 155 -- eye witness examined at length -- it is quite possible for him to make some discrepancies. [Para 27]
(9) Evidence Act, 1872 -- S. 155 -- all inconsistent statements -- not sufficient to impeach credit of witness -- former statement seemingly inconsistent with the statement -- need not necessarily be sufficient to amount to contradiction. [Para 26]
(10) Criminal P.C., 1973 -- Ss. 162 and 161 -- S. 162 permits the cross-examiner to use previous statement recorded under S. 161 for limited purpose of contradiction. [Para 26]
(11) Evidence Act, 1872 -- S. 145 -- contradiction -- unless former statement has potency to discredit present statement -- it is not help full to contradict that witness. AIR 1959 SC 1012 relied on. [Para 27]
(12) Penal Code, 1860 -- S. 302 -- evidence of eyewitnesses found credible -- accused rightly punished. [Para 28]
¼1½ lk{; vf/kfu;e] 1872 && /kkjk 60 && izR;{kn‘khZ lk{kh }kjk gR;k dh ?kVuk ns[kk tkuk && ,sls lk{kh dk ?kVuk ds ckn dk vkpj.k && O;fDr ls O;fDr dk fHkUu gksrk gS && mlus iqfyl dks vFkok e`rd ds dqVqachtu dks bfÙkyk ugha dh && ;g mldk vlk/kkj.k vkpj.k ugha gSA ¿ iSjk 8 ¼2½ lk{; vf/kfu;e] 1872 && /kkjk 60 && izFke bfÙkyk fjiksVZ djus okys vkSj ,d vU; izR;{kn‘khZ lk{kh ds lk{; esa vlaxfr && Li"Vhdj.k dh bZIlk ugha dh xbZ && vlaxfr;k¡ egRoghu gSaA ¿ iSjk 10 ¼3½ lk{; vf/kfu;e] 1872 && /kkjk 27 && vfHk;qDr }kjk iqfyl dks bfÙkyk && dksbZ rF; izdV gksus ds foLrkj ,d xzkâ gSA ¿ iSjk 11 ¼4½ lk{; vf/kfu;e] 1872 && /kkjk 27 && vfHk;qDr }kjk bfÙkyk fjiksVZ dksbZ rF; izdV gksus ls lacaf/kr && bfÙkyk LosPN;k nh tkuk pkfg,A ¿ iSjk 12 ¼5½ lk{; vf/kfu;e] 1872 && /kkjk 27 && vfHk;qDr O;fDr;ksa dh fxjrkjh ds le; ds ckjs esa rkfRod QdZ && vk;q/kksa dh cjkenxh voyafcr ugha dh tk ldrhA ¿ iSjk 14 ,oa 15 ¼6½ lk{; vf/kfu;e] 1872 && /kkjk 138 && iqu%ijh{kk dk Bhd&Bhd iz;kstu && mu fo"k;ksa dk Li"Vhdj.k fd;k tkuk gS tks izfrijh{kk esa yk, x,A ¿ iSjk 16 ¼7½ lk{; vf/kfu;e] 1872 && /kkjk 138 && iqu%ijh{kk && izfrijh{kk esa ykbZ xbZ lafnX/kkFkZrk ds Li"Vhdj.k ek= rd lhfer ugha gS && Li"Vhdj.k izkIr djus ds fy, dksbZ Hkh iz‘u fd;k tk ldrk gSA ¿ iSjk 17 ¼8½ lk{; vf/kfu;e] 1872 && /kkjk 60 rFkk 155 && izR;{kn‘khZ dh ijh{kk foLrkj ls dh xbZ && mlds }kjk dqN QdZ gksuk fu‘p; gh laHko gSA ¿ iSjk 27 ¼9½ lk{; vf/kfu;e] 1872 && /kkjk 155 && lHkh vlaxr dFku && lk{kh dh fo‘oluh;rk dks pqukSrh nsus ds fy, i;kZIr ugha gSa && iwfoZd dFku izrh;ekur% dFku ls vlaxr && vko‘;d :i ls [kaMu dh dksfV dk gksus ds fy, i;kZIr ugha gksxkA ¿ iSjk 26 ¼10½ naM izfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 && /kkjk 162 rFkk 161 && /kkjk 161 ds v/khu vfHkfyf[kr iwfoZd dFku dk mi;ksx /kkjk 162 ds v/khu izfrijh{kd }kjk [kaMu ds lhfer iz;kstu ds fy, vuqKkr gSA ¿ iSjk 26 ¼11½ lk{; vf/kfu;e] 1872 && /kkjk 145 && [kaMu && tc rd iwfoZd dFku esa izLrqr dFku dks vfo‘oluh; cuk nsus dh lkeF;Z ugha gks && ml lk{kh dk [kaMu djus ds fy, lgk;d ugha gksxkA , vkb vkj 1959 ,l lh 1012 voyafcrA ¿ iSjk 27 ¼12½ naM lafgrk] 1860 && /kkjk 302 && izR;{kn‘khZ lkf{k;ksa dk lk{; fo‘oluh; && vfHk;qDr Bhd&gh nafMrA ¿ iSjk 28
Thomas, J. -- 1. A manslaughter in an automobile in locomotion is the subject matter of this case. The slaughtered man was a Home Guard personnel, by name Sardar Singh Thakur. When he boarded the bus destined to Naseerabad on the evening of 20.7.1985, he had no foreboding that it was his last journey alive. Before the bus could reach its terminus he was finished by armed assailants inside the vehicle while it was in motion. Appellants (Rammi alias Rameshwar and Bhura alias Sajjan Kumar) were two of the three persons arraigned before the Sessions Court. Though the Sessions Judge acquitted all of them a Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh convicted the two appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC and sentenced them to imprisonment for life. The third accused (Suresh alias Chhigga) died before the appeal was decided by the High Court. These appeals were filed by the two convicted persons as of right under Section 379 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Code') and under Section 2 of the Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1970.
2. The story of the prosecution, as revealed through evidence, can be summarised like this :
One Channa Babu (brother of appellant Rammi and late Chhigga) was murdered for which the police charge-sheeted Sardar Singh Thakur the deceased in this case) and his brother Shyam Singh (PW 3 in this case) and a few others. From then on these accused were thirsting for revenge for the murder of Channa Babu. They were prowling for an opportune, opportunity to strike back In such a background accused came to know that Sardar Singh Thakur was travelling in a bus. Accused wanted to avail themselves of that opportunity and boarded the bus on the way. After the vehicle moved for some distance the assailants mounted the attack on the deceased with chopper and knives.
3. The assailants inflicted as many as 12 incised injuries on Sardar Singh Thakur. Those who tried to intervene were told by the assailants to mind their own business as the attack was intended for a revenge. After accomplishing the object all the assailants alighted from the vehicle and escaped from the scene. The passengers of the bus became frightened and most of them jumped out of the vehicle and ran helter-skelter.
4. The Stage carriage was then driven towards the police station by its driver (PW -12 Jabbar Khan). Ext. P-12-First Information Statement was lodged at the police station by the conductor of the vehicle (PW-8 Ramashray). The accused were arrested and after interrogation the weapons used for the murder were recovered by PW-13-Investigating Officer from hidden places on the basis of informations elicited from the accused.
5. There is no doubt that deceased Sardar Singh Thakur was murdered inside the said bus at about 5 p.m. while the bus was in motion. In fact that part of the case is not controverted by the appellants. The dispute now centers round the identity of the assailants. PW-8 Ramashray and PW-12 Jabbar Khan supported the case of the prosecution regarding the identity of the assailants, besides one of the passengers of the bus (PW-9 Ram Dulare). But the trial Court was not impressed by their evidence. Nor •did the trial Court place any reliance on the evidence relating to the recovery of weapons which the prosecution adduced as per Section 27 of the Evidence Act. But the Division Bench of the High Court made complete reversal of the findings of the trial judge and made a scathing observation in the penultimate paragraph of the judgment under appeal, as under:
"Before parting with this appeal, we cannot resist from observing that the perverse reasoning and conclusions given by the trial judge in appreciating the evidence in the instant case cannot be supported. Such unrealistic approach in appreciating evidence in a criminal case shakes the confidence of the society in the legal system itself and our interference, therefore, is urgently called for."
6. Shri
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
