RAJA RAM AND ORS. versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Citation: [1994] 2 S.C.R. 114 · Decided: 22-02-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.S. ANAND

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

., 
.\ 
RAJA RAM AND ORS. 
v. 
t 
STATE OF MADHYA PRADI~SH 
,. 
FEBRUARY 22, 1994 
B 
(DR. A.S. ANAND AND FAIZAN UDDIN, JJ.] 
I11dia11 Penal Code 1860-Sections302/149 and S.304 Part II/149-Dif-
~ 
fere11ce between-Accused ani,ed with deadly weapons-Not using the same 
to cause injuries to deceased-lnjwies caused by lathi on non-vital parts of 
c the body-No intention to cause de"th-Held: Offence falling u/s.304 Part II. 
Criminal Trial-Conviction and se11tence-Be11efit to the accused not 
prefening· appeaHfeld: could be extended if his case is identical to that of 
the appellants who are granted reli~f by this Court. 
D 
Appreciation of evidence-Courts to critically sift evidence-Not to lay 
too much emphasis 011 minor discripmieies and contradictions. 
' 
·' , 
Code of Criminal Procedure 1973-S.1541-FIR-Delay in filing 
of-Anxiety of relatives of victims in arrangi;.g first aid-FIR filed after First 
aid-Held: No delay. 
E 
The appellants alongwith two others were tried for offences u/s. 302 
r/ws.149 IPC and Sections 148 and 147 IPC. Some of them were also tried 
for offences under Sections 323, 3:25 and 436 IPC. All the accused were 
acquitted by the trial Court. Howe•ver, on appeal the High Court set aside 
F 
the acquittal and convicted and s·entenced the accused. Some of the ac-
• 
cosed were convicted for offences utnder Sections 323 and 325 IPC as well. 
> 
Aggrieved by the High Court's judgment, eight of the ten accused preferred 
the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal in part, this Court 
G 
HELD: I.A scrutiny of the evidence on record reveals that the 
prosecution has successfully estalillished the guilt against the accused, 
beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence of the eye witnesses is consistent 
and nothing has been suggested from which any doubt may be cast on their 
credibility. They have stood the test of cross-examination well. ·Two of the 
H eye witnesses are stamped witnesses being themselv~s injured. Indeed, the 
114 
RAJARAM v. STATEOFM.P. 
prosecution witnesses have tried to exaggerate to an extent the part played A 
by the accused in the assult but on that ground alone the entire prosecu· 
tion case cannot be thrown out. The trial court adoptetl the easy course of 
throwing out the entire prosecution case without critically sifting the 
evidence and laid too much emphasis on minor discrepancies and con· 
trndictions. The findings of the trial court are conjectural and based on B 
surmises. (117-F-H; 118·A) 
2.1. The adverse inference drawn by the trial court from the so called 
delay in the lodging of the FIR is not at all justified keeping in view the 
fact that the house had been set on fire and all the inmates suffered 
injuries. The anxiety of their relations was naturally to provide first aid to C 
them, rather than to rush to the police station to lodge the report. That 
apart, the lodging of the report at the Police Station at 3.30 P .M. in respect 
of occurrence which took place at about 11 A.M. cannot be said to be 
delayed lodging of the report. [118·B·CJ 
3. From the analysis of the evidence and particularly the trustworthy D 
statement s of PW 1 and PW 7, who were injured during the occurrence, 
the conviction and the sentence recorded against the appellants by the 
High Court for an offence under Section 325 in respect of injuries caused 
to PW 1 as well as the one under Section 323 IPC for causing injuries to 
PW 7 does not call for any interference. (118-C, DJ 
E 
4.1. From the medical evidence it is found that no injury whatsoever 
had been caused to the deceased either by ballam, pharse of even by an 
axe. So far as the injuries allegedly caused by the country made pistol 
below the knee near the left foot of the deceased are concerned, they also 
go to show that the accused party did hOt intend to cause the murder of F 
the deceased. 
[118-H, 119-AJ 
4.2. Keeping in view the ocular testimony and the medical evidence, 
it cannot be said that the appellants had intended to cause the injuries on 
the deceased which were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to G 
cause his death. Therefore, the case of the appellants does not fall within 
the ambit of any of the four clauses of the definition of murder contained 
In Section 300 IPC. (119-C] 
4.3. However, in causing the injuries the appellants must be at· 
tributed the knowledge that by their acts, they were likely to cause the H 
116 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1994] 2 S.C.R. 
A death or the deceased, though without any in

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