NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1712 OF 2008
Ram Singh …Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan …Respondent
J U D G M E N T
RANJAN GOGOI, J.
1. Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 08.08.2007 passed by the
High Court of Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench affirming the conviction of the
appellant under Section 302 IPC and the sentence of life imprisonment
imposed, this appeal has been filed upon grant of special leave by this
Court.
2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that at about 10.30 a.m.
on 13.09.2000, Hariram (PW-23), lodged a written complaint with the Police
Station at Baran stating that at about 10 a.m. of the same day he
alongwith his nephew Ramlal and some other family members were sitting on
the road in order to go to Baran. According to the complainant/first
informant there was an old enmity between him and one Ghasilal. In the
complaint filed it was specifically stated that while they were waiting to
go to Baran, Ghasilal along with his sons Ram Singh (appellant),
Ramswaroop, Ramshyam and son-in-law Akheraj came in a tractor armed with
different weapons including a firearm. Immediately on reaching the spot
accused-appellant Ram Singh fired from a gun at Rooplal as a result of
which the said person died on the spot. It was alleged that accused Ram
Singh had also fired at Surajmal, causing injuries on his hand. The other
accused persons had assaulted Satyanarayan (PW-7), Seokaran and Ramlal
with Kutia and Gandasia. It was further stated by the complainant that as
a result of the gun shot injury Rooplal died on the spot.
3. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, case No. 255/2000 (P.S.
Baran) was registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 307, 302 IPC. The
case was duly investigated and on completion of the investigation charge
sheet under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 307, 302 IPC was filed against
Ghasilal, Ramswaroop, Ramshyam and Ram Singh (accused Akheraj died while
the case was under investigation). Thereafter the case was committed for
trial to the court of Sessions at Baran where charges under the aforesaid
provisions of the Penal Code read with Section 149 IPC were framed against
all the accused including the accused-appellant. As the accused persons
claimed innocence and wanted to be tried, a regular trial was held in the
course of which the prosecution examined 23 witnesses and also exhibited a
large number of documents. Two witnesses were examined by the defence
including the accused Ghasilal. The statements of the accused persons were
recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, at the conclusion of the
trial, all the accused were convicted under Sections 148, 302/149,
307/149, 323/149, 324/149 IPC. Each of the accused persons was sentenced
to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for the offence under Section
302/149 IPC. For the offence under Section 323/149, 324/149 and 148 IPC
each of the accused persons were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for six
months and one year respectively. All the sentences were directed to run
concurrently.
4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of conviction and the sentences
imposed all the four accused moved the High Court of Rajasthan by filing
an appeal which was partially allowed by the impugned order dated
8.8.2007. While the conviction of the appellant was altered from Section
302/149 IPC to Section 302 IPC, the sentence of life imprisonment imposed
was maintained. The High Court, however, acquitted the other three accused
of the offence under Section 302/149 IPC while maintaining the conviction
under Section 323 IPC. In view of the fact that each of the said accused
had undergone confinement for a period of more than six months, the High
Court ordered for their release. It is against the aforesaid order of the
High Court convicting the appellant under section 302 IPC and the sentence
of life imprisonment imposed on him that the present appeal has been
filed.
5. We have heard Mr. Ramesh C.Kohli, learned counsel for the appellant
and Mr. Jasbir Singh Malik, learned AAG for the State of Rajasthan.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the conviction
of the accused-appellant under section 302 IPC is wholly untenable in law.
Learned counsel has placed before the Court the defence version of the
occurrence as revealed by the cross-examination by PWs 7, 22 and 23 and
also the evidence of DW 1 Narottam Lal (driver of the tractor) and DW 2,
Ghasilal. Learned counsel has specifically pointed out that while Ghasilal
and his sons were proceeding towards the temple they were attacked by the
party of the complainant and the deceased Rooplal has brought out a double
barrel gun from his house to eliminate Ghasilal. At that point of time the
accused-appellant intervened and in the melee the gun was taken hold of by
PW 7 Satyanarayan who fired two shots at Ghasilal but the same hit the
deceased Rooplal and injured Surajmal (PW 17). Learned counsel has
submitted that there is no material on record to disbelieve the aforesaid
version put forth by the defence. Furthermore, according to the learned
counsel, in the present case, the alleged weapon of offence had not been
seized/recovered and though four shots, according to the prosecution
witnesses, were filed in the course of the incident, only one empty
cartridge was recovered from the spot by PW 20, the Investigating Officer.
It is therefore urged that in the above fact situation it cannot be said
that the defence version lacks authenticity and that the prosecution has
established its case beyond all reasonable doubt so as to warrant the
conviction of the accused.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has pointed out
that PW 7, Satyanarayan, PW 22 Bachibai and PW 23 Hariram are the eye
witnesses to the occurrence. The evidence of the aforesaid witnesses
clearly brings out the details of the incident and the sequence of events
that had taken place. From the testimony of the aforesaid witnesses it is
clear that it is the accused-appellant, Ram Singh, who was armed with a
.12 bore double barrel gun had fired first at Surajmal causing injuries on
him and, thereafter, had fired twice at the deceased Rooplal, first on the
chest and, thereafter, in the stomach. According to the aforesaid
witnesses accused Ram Singh had fired a fourth shot in the air. The three
eye-witnesses are clear and consistent in narrating the aforesaid facts
and nothing has been elucidated in their cross-examination to discredit
their statements. Learned State Counsel has also submitted that the
defence version is inherently incredible as the tractor in which the
accused persons were traveling, which was subsequently impounded, belonged
to one Prembai and not to the accused party. If that is so, according to
learned counsel the starting point of the defence version that they had
gone to the temple to seek divine blessings on the occasion of the
purchase of a new tractor, has been proved to be incorrect. It is also
pointed out by the learned State counsel that the defence version does not
find support from any independent witness though many such persons were
reportedly present at the time of the incident. The failure of the
prosecution to recover the weapon of assault or all the four empty
cartridges from the place of occurrence, according to learned State
counsel, is not fatal to the prosecution case.
8. We have considered the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties.
We have also perused the evidence of PW 7, 22 and 23 as well as DW 1 and
DW 2. On such consideration we find that the eye witnesses examined by the
prosecution i.e. PWs 7, 22 and 23 have been clear and consistent while
describing the sequence of events that had taken place on the day of the
occurrence. There is no material discrepancy or contradiction in the
statement of the said witness who had clearly identified the accused-
appellant Ram Singh as being the person who had fired four shots from the
.12 bore barrel gun that he was carrying with him. The eye witnesses have
also been categorical in stating that the accused-appellant had first
fired at Surajmal (PW 17) and thereafter he had fired twice at the
deceased Rooplal hitting him on the chest and the stomach. The fourth
shot, according to the eye witnesses, was fired in the air. The elaborate
cross-examination of the eye-witnesses on behalf of the accused has failed
to discredit their testimony in any manner whatsoever. All the aforesaid
witnesses have also categorically denied the defence version which was put
to them in their cross-examination.
9. As against the above, what we find is a relatively weak and somewhat
unacceptable defence version which remains unsubstantiated in the absence
of any acceptable evidence. According to the defence, Ghasilal alongwith
his sons were proceeding in a tractor to the temple to seek divine
blessings on the purchase of a new tractor by the family. On the way they
were accosted by Rooplal, Surajmal and others who had assaulted Ghasilal.
The defence version is to the further effect that deceased Rooplal brought
out a double barrel gun from his house to kill Ghasilal at which point of
time the accused-appellant, Ram Singh, had grabbed Rooplal. In the scuffle
and melee that had ensued PW 7, Satyanarayan is reported to have taken the
fire arm and had fired two shots at Ghasilal which shots, however, hit
Rooplal and Surajmal as a result of which Rooplal died and Surajmal was
injured. The aforesaid version remains unsubstantiated. On the contrary
the materials on record show that the tractor which was impounded for
being involved in the incident belonged to one Prembai and not to the
party of the accused. Besides, DW1, Narottam Lal who was driving the
tractor was an employee of Prembai and not of the accused. The above facts
clearly demonstrate the falsity of the defence version. Also in the
examination of the accused-appellant under Section 313 CrPC the above
defence has not been specifically taken. Though several independent
persons were reportedly available none of them have been examined in order
to lend credence to the defence story. On the other hand PW 19 Rajesh, who
is not related to either side and had reportedly come out of his house on
hearing the commotion had supported the prosecution case against the
accused appellant. All the three eye witnesses examined by the
prosecution, as already noted, have clearly and unequivocally deposed with
regard to the involvement of the present accused-appellant in the death of
Rooplal.
10. In view of the above, we have no difficulty in reaching the
conclusion that the conviction of the accused-appellant Ram Singh under
Section 302 IPC and the sentence imposed thereunder is fully justified.
We, therefore, dismiss the appeal and affirm the conviction and sentence
imposed on the accused-appellant.
...…………………………J.
[P. SATHASIVAM]
.........……………………J.
[RANJAN GOGOI]
New Delhi,
November 22, 2012.
-----------------------
7
