MANI RAM versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN

Citation: [1993] 2 S.C.R. 849 · Decided: 31-03-1993 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.S. ANAND · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

j 
MANI RAM 
A 
v. 
STATE OF RAJASTHAN 
r 
MARCH 31, 1993 
[DR. A.S. ANAND AND N.P. SINGH, JJ.] 
B 
-
Supreme Court (Enlargement of Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1970: Sec-
lion 2(a}-Appea~Appreciation of evidence-Whether conviction granted by 
High Court proper. 
Pana/ Code, 1860: Section 302 read with Section 27, Anns Act-Con· c 
·-\ 
viction-Appreciation of evidence-Semi-Digested food found in the stomach 
of deceased-Time of taking food-Deduction-Evidence of Wit· 
nesses-Validity of-Evidence relating to substitution of cartridges-Effect of 
The prosecution case was that about 20-22 days prior to the occur- D 
ftnce the appellant and his brother removed the fencing over the.field of 
the deceased. This resulted in a quarftl and created ill-feelings between 
the deceased an~ the appellant and his brother. 
On the date of occurrence, the deceased went to bis field. Later on 
bis wife, P.W.l and his son, PW2 went to the field carrying meals for the E 
deceased. The deceased took his meal and at about 12.30 p.m., all the. three 
-
weft returning to their village from the field, near at the water-course of 
the village, the appellant, who was coming from the village side, gave a 
'lalkara' to the deceased and he fiftd a shot from his pistol at the 
deceased. The appellant's brother exhorted him to kill the deceased. F 
A 
Theftupon the appellant fired thfte more shots from bis pistol. The 
deceased fell down and died at the spot. 
PW1 accompanied by one Ganpatram went to police station and 
lodged the first information report at about 3 p.m. and the police inves· 
ligation was commenced. 
G 
The appellant and his brother weft sent up for trial, charging the 
former under section 302 IPC and the latter under section 302/114 IPC. 
Both weft also charged under section 27 of the Arms Act. 
The Trial Court acquitted the appellant and his brother of all the H 
849 
850 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1993) 2 S.C.K. 
A charges, as it found that the prosecution was unable to prove the case 
against them. 
B 
The State's appeal was partly allowed by the High Court. The High 
Court set aside the acquittal of the appellant and convicted him for an 
offence under section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo life im-
prisonment. The High Court maintained the acquittal of the appellant's 
brother. 
Under section 2(a) of the Supreme Court (Enlargement of Appellate 
Jurisidistion) Act, 1970 the present appeal ""s filed, contending that the 
C judgment of the Trial Court could neither be styled as perverse nor even 
as unreasonable and that there was no other substantial and compelling 
reasons which could justify the setting aside of the order of acquittal and, 
therefore, the High Court should not have interferred with the order of 
acquittal; that the presence of undigested food in the stomach of the 
D deceased belied the prosecutioticffii'se and that the Trial Courl was right in 
holding that the deceased could not have taken the meals at the time 
stated by his llife PWI and his son, PW2 or murdered at 12.30 p.m., as 
alleged; that the inordinate d~lay in sending the empty cartridges to the 
ballistic expert went to show that the possibility that the same had been 
E 
subs$ituted by the investigating agency could not be ruled out and there-
fore the conviction of the appellant by the High Court was not justified. 
The State submitted that since it was an appeal under Section 2 of 
the Supreme Court (Enlargement of Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1970, this 
Court could itself appreciate the evidence to determine the guilt or other-
F 
wise of the appellant; that the findings recorded by the Trial Court were 
based on surmises and conjectures and the High Court was perfectly 
justified in reversing the order of acquittal; that the evidence of PWl and 
PW2 conclusively established that the crime had been committed by the 
appellant by his pistol and their testimony had received ample corrobora-
tion not only from the statement of the doctor, PW9, but also from the 
G evidence of PWll, the ballistic expert, who had opined that the four empty 
cartridges had been fired from the licenced pistol of the appellant and 
could not have been fired from any other weapon; that being rustic 
villagers much importance could not be attached to the time given by PWl 
and PW2 during their depositions about the exact time when the deceased 
H may have had his meals and therefore it could not be said that the medical 
'>·· 
j 
'r 
-
-
;. 
MANI RAM v. STATE OF 

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