RAM ASREY versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

Citation: [1993] 3 S.C.R. 582 · Decided: 05-05-1993 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.S. ANAND · Disposal: Case Partly allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
RAMASREY 
v. 
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH 
MAY 5, 1993 
B 
[DR. A.S. ANAND AND N.P. SINGH, JJ.] 
0 
Indian Penal Code : SS. 34, 302 304 Parr-I-Injuries ajj1icred with 
Bankas-Accused persons having different imenrions-Appel/ant allribmedwirh 
the role of pressing down the victim/deceased before the other two accused 
C persons-,Resu/ting in death-Convicted under Section 304 Part-I read with 
Section 341.P.C. 
The appellant alongwith Radhey Shyam and Munni Lal were charged 
with the murder of Gokaran Prasad on 24.11.1975 at about 5 PM. The Trial 
Court on consideration of the evidence concluded that the prosecution has 
D failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubts and acquitted the accused 
persons. 
On appea.1, the High Court appreciating the facts and circumstances of 
the case convicted Munni Lal along with the· appellant for an offence under 
Section 302 read with 34 I.P.C. and sentenced each of them to undergo 
E 
rigorous imprisonment for life. During the pendency of the appeal the main 
accused Radhey Shyam died. 
F 
G 
H 
This appeal is against the High Court's Judgment under Section 379 of 
the code of Criminal Procedure. Allowing the Appeal in part, 
HELD: 1. The High Court has rightly pointed out that PW-6 was not 
connected with the prosecution party in any manner and there was no reason 
for him to depose falsely, claiming to be an eye-witness of the occurrence. As 
such, his evidence can be taken tnto consideration. to corroborate the 
evidence of the informant PW-I. (587-C) 
2. The occurrence took place at about 5 P.M. and the first information 
report was lodged at 6.45 P.M. within two hours, the Police Station being at 
the distance of four miles from the place of Qccurrence. In the first informa-
tion report the same version of the occurrence was disclosed, whic~ has been 
state,d in Court. Apart from naming himself, PW-1 also named PW-Sand PW-
582 
---
RAM ASREY v. STA TE OF UTf AR PRADESH 
583 
6 as eye-witness of the occurrence. The Investigating Officer reached the 
place of the occurrence at 9. P.M. the same evening. In such a situation there 
does not appear to be any scope for concoction of a false case to implicate the 
accused persons leaving out the real culprits. PW-1 being the brother of the 
deceased, his going to the Court of Tehsildar at Sitapur and returning to 
village with the deceased is most natural. His evidence cannot be rejech;d 
merely on the ground that he happened to be the brother of the victim. It has 
been repeatedly pointed out ~y this Court that near relations will be the last 
persons to Jeave out the real culprits and to implicate those who have not 
participated in the crime. Taking all facts and circumstances into consider-
ation, the prosecution has been able to prove the case as disclosed in FIR 
against the accused persons. (587-E-G) 
3. The appellant was a school student and there was no reason on his part 
A 
B 
c 
to share the common intention of committing the murder of the victim. By 
merely press!ng down the victim before the other two accused persons, 
assaulted him, it cannot be held that appellant had shared the common 
intenti~n of causing the death of the victim. In the facts and circumstances of D 
the case it has to be held. that he shared only the common intention of culpable 
homicide not amounting to murder. He can be attributed with the intention 
that the injuries, which were being caused by the other two accused persons, 
were likely to cause the death of the victim. (588-E-F) 
· 4; The conviction of the appellant under Section 302 read with 34 I.P.C. 
E 
as well as his sentence to imprisonment for life is set aside. He is convicted 
under Section 304, Part-I, read with Section 34 of the Penal Code sentenced 
to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years. (588-G) 
CRIMINAL AP PELLA TE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 618 of 
1985. 
From the Judgment ·and Order dated 17 .5.1984 of the Allahabad High Court 
in Criminal Appeal No. 564of1977. 
R.L. Kohli, and C.P. Lal for the Appellant. 
S.P. Pandey and A.S. Pundir for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
F 
G 
H 
584 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[I 993) 3 S.C.R. 
A 
N.P. SINGH, J. The appellant along with Radhey Shayam and Munni Lal. 
B 
c 
was put on trial for an offence under Section 302 read with Section ~4 of the Penal 
Code, for having committed the murder of Gokaran Prasad on 24.11.1975 at about 
5.00P.M. 
It is the case of the prosecution that the deceased along w
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.