DAYA RAM & ORS. versus STATE OF HARYANA

Citation: [2015] 9 S.C.R. 1141 · Decided: 02-07-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: PRAFULLA C. PANT · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2015) 9 S.C.R. 1141 
. 
DAYARAM&ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF HARYANA 
(Criminal Appeal No.1590 of 2011) 
JULY02, 2015 
[PRAFULLA C. PANT AND AMITAVA ROY, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Penal Code, 1860: s.302 r/w s.34 - Double murder-
Previous enmity- Threat on previous night- Informant was c 
an eyewitness to the incident of series of assault on victims-
deceased - Incident took place at night in the field - Out of 
fear, informant hid himself in.bushes - In the morning found 
the dead bodies- Reported matter to police thereafter- Trial 
court convicted the appellants u/s.302 r/w s.34- Three other D 
accused acquitted on benefit of doubt - High Court upheld 
conviction of appellants - On appeal, held: The weapons of 
assault were recovered on the basis of disclosure statements 
made by appellants - The ocular account of the incident 
presented by the PW 3 was in graphic details - He did not E 
vacillate in identifying the appellants - He also could relate 
the weapons of assault used by them- The injuries sustained 
by deceased in the course of incident and those detected in 
the post-mortem examination were compatible with each other 
- The evidence of informant was reliable and consistent -
F 
Conviction upheld. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The case witnesses an incident of double G 
murder of which PW 3 has been cited to be the only eye-
witness. The deceased persons were the brothers of 
informant PW 3. The courts below on a correct 
assessment of his evidence concluded that he indeed 
1141 
H 
1142 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 9 S.C.R. 
A was present at the place of occurrence at the time of the 
incident. Though the participation of the three of the 
acquitted accused persons was not accepted due to 
absence of any blood mark in the lathis said to have 
been wielded by them, in the face of the overwhelming 
B and impregnable testimony of this witness and the 
entirety of the events relatable to the incident, it is not 
possible to extend any benefit of doubt to the appellants 
on that count. The ocular account of the incident 
presented by the PW 3 was in graphic details. He did 
C not vacillate in identifying the appellants. He also could 
relate the weapons of assault used by them. The injuries 
sustained by the deceased in course of the incident and 
those detected in the post-mortem examination were 
0 
compatible with each other. The seizure of the weapons 
of assault vis-a-vis the appellants based on their 
statements of disclosure and the report of the Forensic 
Science Laboratory, also established their irrefutable 
nexus with the crime. The plea of the decomposition of 
E the dead bodies to nihilate the medical opinion also lack 
persuasion. Noticeably, as per the testimony of the 
doctor performing the post-mortem examination, the time 
of death tallied with the one of the incident. [Para 16] 
[1153-C-H] 
F 
2. The testimony of PW 3 cannot be rejected on the 
ground that his conduct was unusual at the place of the 
occurrence, he having kept himself aloof therefrom 
instead of attempting to save his brothers who were 
G under murderous attack by a group of assailants. As 
rightly observed by the courts below that, on being 
confronted with such an unforeseen and sudden 
situation, it is quite likely that individuals would react 
differently and if the PW 3, being petrified by such 
H unexpected turn of events, being in the grip of fear and 
DAYA RAM v. STATE OF HARYANA 
1143 
alarm, as a matter of reflex hid himself from the assailants, A 
his version of the episode, is not liable to be discarded 
as a whole as the same is otherwise cogent, coherent 
and compact. The participation in the gory brutal attack 
of the appellants with the lethal weapons resulting in 
death of two persons is proved beyond reasonable B 
doubt not only by the testimony of PW 3, the eyewitness, 
but also by other evidence collected in course of the 
investigation and adduced at the trial. [Paras 17, 18] 
[1154-A-C, E-F] 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal 
Appeal No. 1590 of 2011. 
From the Final Judgment and Order dated 28.07.2010 
c 
in Crl.Appeal No. 261-DB of2003 of the Punjab and Haryana D 
High Court at Chandigarh. 
P. N. Kush, Rameshwar Prasad Goyal for the Appellant. 
Arun Kumar, Rajiv Kr. Singh, Kamal Mohan Gupta for 
the Respondent. 
E 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
AMITAVA ROY, J. 1. Having failed to secure redress 
against their conviction under section 302 of the Indian Penal 
F 
Code (for short hereina

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.