LexKISHAN RAM & ORS. versus STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2013] 10 S.C.R. 405 KISHAN RAM & ORS. v. STATE OF UTIARAKHAND (Criminal Appeal No. 1196 of 2007) OCTOBER 1, 2013 [A.K. PATNAIK AND RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, JJ.] A B Penal Code, 1860 - s. 302 rlw s. 149 and s. 147 - Murder - Assault with lathis and dandas leading to death - Five accused including the three appellants - Conviction of C appellants by Courts below - Justification - Held: On facts, justified -Evidence of the three eye-witnesses (PWs1, 2 and 6) as corroborated by the statement of PW-1 in the FIR within four hours of the incident clearly establish that the five accused persons including the three appellants had D assaulted the deceased with lathis and dandas when the hands and legs of the deceased were tied with a rope - PW- 3, PW-4 and PW-7 supported the prosecution case - Delay of four hours in lodging the FIR was sufficiently explained - Oral testimony of the eye-witnesses, the recovery of rope from E the spot and the medical evidence establish beyond reasonable doubt that the five accused persons tied the hands and legs of the deceased and gave him jointly 27 injuries with /athis and dandas - Hence, the common object of the assembly was to commit the offence u/s.302, /PC - Trial court F and the High Court, therefore, rightly held the appellants guilty of the offence of murder uls.302 rlw s.149, /PC. The prosecution story as given eut by PW-1, PW-2 and PW-6 was that the five accused including the three appellants assaulted the husband of PW1 with lathis and G dandas while his hands and legs were tied up with a rope, which led to his death. The trial court convicted the five accused persons under Section 147 and Section 302 rfw Section 149 of IPC and sentenced them to life 405 H 401;> SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 10 S.C.R. A imprisonment. The conviction and sentence was confirmed by the High Court. The appellants challenged their conviction before this Court contending that 1) PW-1 was not able to 8 identify the assailants of the deceased; 2) that there was inordinate delay in lodging of the FIR; and 3) that even if the evidence of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-6 are to be believed, the appellants could not be convicted for the offence of murder under Section 302, IPC, read with Section 149, IPC, ·since the common object of the appellants was not C to commit the offence of murder and, therefore, they were not liable for the sentence of imprisonment for life. The appellants submitted that this was at best a case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304, IPC, read with Section 149, IPC. D Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. The evidence of the three eye-witnesses (PWs1, 2 and 6) as corroborated by the statement of PW- E 1 In the FIR within four hours of the incident clearly . establish that the five accused persons including the , three appellants had assaulted the deceased with lathis and dandas when the hands and legs of the deceased were tied with a rope. [Para 11] [414-D-E] F 2. PW-3, PW-4 and PW-7 supported the prosecution case that the deceased had been assaulted when his hands and legs were tied but they did not name the persons who had assaulted the deceased perhaps because they had arrived at the scene of occurrence only after the incident G had taken place. [Para 12] [415-A·B] 3. It is true that the incident took place at about .7.30 p.m. on 03.07.1986 and the FIR was lodged about four hours thereafter at 11.50 p.m. on the same day, but this H delay of four hours has been sufficiently explained by the KISHAN RAM & ORS. v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND 407 evidence of PW-1 and PW-6. PW-1 has stated that she A first rushed to village Roorkee and informed PW-6 and then PW-1, PW-2 and PW-6 came back to Chilkiya Temple and saw that the deceased had died and the accused persons were present there and then they went to the Patwari of village Pandey to give the . information of the B incident but there was a lock on the door and only thereafter they went to Police Chowki Kotabagh and handed over the report of the incident to the Chowki after it was scribed by PW-6. PW-6 has corroborated what PW- 1 has stated. The delay of four hours from 7.30 p.m. to c 11.50 p.m. in lodging the FIR is, thus, sufficiently explained and does not make the prosecution case doubtful. [Para 13] [415-C-E, G] 4. The autopsy report (Ext.A-1) read with the statement of CW-1 Dr. S.C. Pant discloses as many as 27 D injuries on the body
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.