LexBADRU RAM & ORS. versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2015] 2 S.C.R. 678 BADRU RAM & ORS. v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN (Criminal Appeal No. 806 of 2009) FEBRUARY 26, 2015. [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA AND A B R.F. NARIMAN, JJ.] C Penal Code, 1860 - s. 302 - Prosecution under - Ten accused convicted by trial court - High Court acquitted six of the accused and convicted the appellants-accused - On appeal, held: conviction of appellants-accused was justified o - The evidence of two injured eye-witnesses is reliable - The accused also cannot be acquitted on parity with the six acquitted accused. Motive -Absence -Affect of- Held: Mere absence of motive E does not bring lesser charge. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. The two injured eye witnesses i.e. PW3 and PW4 not only corroborated their respective F accounts but were not shaken in cross-examination. It is clear from a reading of the examination-in-chief as well as the cross-examination that short of PW.3 not being able to tell the Court as to how many injuries were G received by the deceased and with what weapons, the factum of their being beaten up by the persons who were named, is not shaken. It is obvious that in the night it is very difficult to make out who hit whom and with what. The Doctor PW.8 - testified that the deaths were homicidal H 678 679 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 2 S.C.R. A in nature. PW. 7 ~nd the Investigating Officer deposed as to the recovery of the weapons that were used in the incident. [Paras 5 and 7] [683-H; 685-C-E] 2. The appellants-accused also cannot be acquitted on B the Doctrine of parity. The reasons for acquittal of the six other accused by the High Court was only because they were not named by PW3 the injured eye-witness. The Doctrine of parity cannot replace the substantive evidence of the two injured eye-witnesses namely PW3 C and PW4, who have been believed concurrently by the courts below. [Para 9] [687-8-D] 3. It is not correct to say that this is a case which ought to be converted into a case of culpable homicide not D amounting to m~rder under Section 304 (Part-II) IPC on the ground that the incident might have occurred on sudden provocation, there being no reason or motive. The evidence of the two injured eye-witnesses is clear- this is not a case of sudden provocation and the mere E absence of motive does not bring home the lesser charge. [Para 1 O] [686-E-F] F G H CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 806 of 2009 From the Judgment and Order dated 29.11.2007 of the High Court of Rajasthan at Jaipur in DBCRL No. 833 of 2006. Vidya DharGaur (A.C.), GS. Mani (A.C.) for the Appellants. Shovan Mishra, Milind Kumar, George Thomas, Harsha Vinoy for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by BADRU RAM & ORS. v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN 680 R. F. NARIMAN, J. 1. This is an appeal by four persons A who have been convicted and sentenced under Section 302 read with 149 IPC, each of whom are to suffer life imprisonment and fine of Rs.500/- together with various other lesser offences all of which were ordered to run concurrently. Two persons Kamal Kumar and Om Prakash lost their lives in an incident B which took place on 11th November, 1999. 11 persons were charge-sheeted, one of whom, Shiv Lal, died during trial. The learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2 Jhunjhunu convicted the other 10 accused of the murder of C Kamal Kumar and Om Prakash and sentenced all of them to life imprisonment. In the judgment impugned in this appeal, six persons were acquitted as they were not named. by the star witness Radhey Shyam - PW.3 in the pancha bayan. 4 persons, namely, Badru Ram, Sita Ram, Ramavtar and o Lakshman were, however, found guilty by the High Court and were sentenced under Section 302 IPC to life im"prisonment. 2. Heard Mr. Vidya Dhar Gaur and Mr. G.S. Mani, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellants and Mr. Shovan Mishra, E learned counsel for the State. 3. The complainant Rad hey Shyam - PW.3, made a complaint on 12th November, 1999 that he was one offour brothers, two of whom were murdered in the incident which took place at F 11.15 p.m. on the previous day, i.e., on 11th November, 1999. In his evidence, he stated: "It was around 11.15 pm on 11th November 1999. We were four brothers, I Radhey Shyam was the eldest, Om Prakash was younger to me, Kamal Kumar was younger to Om Prakash and Matu Ram was the youngest. Bhagwana Ram is my elder Uncle. Bhagwana Ram
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.