LexRAM BHAROSEY versus STATE OF U.P.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
948
SUPREMEr.pGUf3T.·~E_p.._OB.T,SJ20,09]:,15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
.:A
produced three witnesse·s: the!HightCourt discussed the
evidence of relevant witnesses. The judgment rendered by
the High Court further' makes if ver)?clear that the advocate
for the appe1fa1ft 'anet=others f'iad'raisecf tliree points for
consideration o.!f.l:Hgh :C.o~r.t.1The.said points were
1~8 effectively discussed and dealt with.byJhe High.Court.,The
'l.L
l.u~··
~· t \I... ••.• '
I q, .l
.
: I.
. .. ·~~:~1"1...:.~\..l'.J\,#
.---~1
two arguments' a.ppealed to the High ·court anct ttle three
~~tssu~~.~.J ~h..,~/!Nere ... c_orwJcte~t l!f s. 302 ~With, the· aid ·of s. 34
.. lf?.~,'!f~I.e. a.c.~Hlt!,~~· .. 1.~e;~.C~IJ.i~al.9f_thc;!~h_ree a~cused itself
Jnsl.i~a"~~.e:PP.!i9.~~\!9n.;ofcfT!ind.,_by._the,J1_igh ,CQurt1to·,the
·. :c Leyi~"'~!lE~-:.,~f1rr~f9rd:y[~~r:~17Jd955-C:-Gl. ' .. ~, '1 ;;· "-
•: <~hh.\
l)nr:., 11 ~3iiln the:memgrandu'm•of•appeal ·or.revisioni several<
grounds rarei~takf;!n/plead·ed.~buh
0ati1the
1 •.time ~of the)
'arguments· t~e 1advbcate would"c6nfine himself. to<few·
poin~which·he:considers.fo be·best'and press or11y.those1
rQ
•points~to .be considered 1by the rCourt.' In the memorandurri)
~of ·SLP.. ;no,grievan~e~is rriade by: the ap·pellant thaVcertaiii1
points-.were'turged ~but;,were:not ·considered iby .theLHigft)
':Court '-As the~advocate<for, thei appellant1 and ··others,'.haa\
emphasized three pointsibefore,:thetHigh Court, thetHigh·
E
Q~~~~iVf.~SJ~~!!fL~~htn1C!_<?'lSJ~~_tir)g ittloseJJ>Oin~ and· not
~~~~r~.~i!9+t~;~!! !~-~.:P..PLQt§tvth_i~h-w~re raised inst~~ ..
!n~IJl~r'!r~.l!f!l <?~ ~PP..elt!·):_hJs. i~:ll~t a,~~se1vyhe!e the1'7figh;
Court has confirm~~: ~Q!1.YL<;~~o~: _9f_ jhe.!appelJant by1·an;
indifferent process Rlir~ef~!Jn~;:.~~~ei~,e!tr.~~~ 1ey~d~'!~~ on
a uniform assumption that the tlefence evidence is always
F
;··~ '..,· ~·.1 i1
~,,..
-~·
.;
~~~r:, ..... _.~ ~ ..... .-..: .... 1...,ia l
, .... ;:f"!~ .,
1·
.• ·t, ... 4,-~.
false.· On apprec1~t1on·of evidence ·adduced by _the parties,_
tnE{Higt1
1 'co~rt:has dra'wri'its<owt1r~on
1
cfusions:· Except:
rri'eritionin'gthat
1ea~chipfece tlf
1eviden~e w~·s·n'ot ~a'tefuily'
aria1yse·d.; as~S'e's's~rahtF1c11s'tos533; ihe
1 iollh~~1qior::th~
9
appellant cotiid ;ntit' s>i>int'>a~h 't7{ttli~ c~liFt Itr~, t6°vJ'tiit~ 0
G eVidence:wa!;:not analy~ea;i ass.essed '.Of 'cfiscussid h..;' the
High -court; :f urther/this•coufi had permitted ·ttfe;c~unse'1t
fonthe" appellant to urge!those points:before"this'?CoLrt~•
which ac'cordirig-jto~t1hn werEf."re1e·vant ·buf not conside~eH 3
by;the:High'Couft.i=Thereu-pon,·the~ counsel advanced three;:
H contentions for consideration of this Court, which are
-~
RAM BHAROSEY v. STATE OF U.P.
949
considered by the Court and dealt with. [Para 7] (955-G-
A
-
__. H; 956-A-G]
....
1.4. The prosecution never approached the Court with
a case that the accused had pre-meditated the murder of
the deceased after hatching a conspiracy. The simple case
of the prosecution is that when 8-first informant and father
B
of the deceased and others reached near the octori barrier,
they saw the four accused standing there and the accused
~ challenged P and fired shots at him. While proving this
_,,
case, it was not obligatory at all for the prosecution to
adduce evidence to establish that the accused had
C
knowledge that deceased P was to come to petrol pump
with his father at a particular time. No direct evidence of
knowledge on the part of an accused that he knew that the
deceased was to come at a particular place can be led in
a criminal trial. It is only from the proved circumstances of o
a particular case that the Court would attribute such a
knowledge to an accused. It may be that the accused
persons had come to the place 'S' in connection with their
work and when they saw their target, they decided to do
away with him. The case of the prosecution is that out of E
the four, two accused had fired arms and had used the
same to murder the deceased. To prove the same, direct
evidence was tendered by the prosecution. Therefore, so
called failure of the prosecution to adduce evidence to
- ,. establish that accused had knowledge that the deceased
was to come to the petrol pump at the specified time, is of
no consequence. [Para 8] [~57-A-F]
F
1.5. Neither the first inlormant B who is examined as ·
P.W.1 nor eye witness PS examined as P.W.3 could be
branded as an interested witExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.