LexRAM KUMAR AND ANR. ETC. versus STATE OF HARYANA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
RAM KUMAR AND ANR. ETC. A v. STATE OF HARYANA FEBRUARY 19, 1998 [G.T. NANAVATI AND V.N. KHARE, JJ.] B '' Indian Penal Code, 186~s 302, 307 and 324 read with Section 34- Murder-Digging of khal by accused brothers-Protest by deceased and PWs-Fire shots causing death-Conviction and sentence by Trial Court c placing reliance on evidence of PW7 and PW8-Ev1dence of PW 10 discarded-Confirmation by High Court-On appeal, Held, prosecution failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the accused-PWs not reliable witnesses and cannot be accepted without independent corroboration-Evidence of PW 10 wrongly discarded-Accused fired shots probably in self defence after being injured-Conviction and sentence set D aside . • The appellants were prosecuted for an offence under Section 302, 307 and 324 read with Section 34 IPC. The prosecution case was that the appellants namely R, RK, H & S who E were brothers went into the field of complainants 'B', PW 7 and 8 and deceased 'M' and started digging a 'Khal'. The complainants protested the digging and a quarrel broke out. Appellant 'R' attacked 'B' with an axe and injured his left arm. Appellant 'H' fired two shots hitting 'M' and PW 8. 'B' raised alarm and 'MP' and 'T' came running to their re.:icue. Thereupon the F appellants ran away. 'M' succumbed to his injuries and on the basis of statement of 'B' criminal case was registered and chargesheets were filed against the appellants. The prosecution examined PW 7, PW 8 and also PW 10, the patwari who deposed about the work done by him regarding the khal. Appellants R G and RK in their defence admitted their presence at the place of incident and claimed right to private defence. The trial Court relying on the evidence of ~ PW 7 and PW 8 and disbelieving the defence version, convicted the appellants which was confirmed by High Court. Appellants aggrieved by their conviction, preferred the present appeals. H 1017 1018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] l S.C.R. A The contention of appellants was that (i) the Courts below have not properly appreciated the evidence of PW 10 and discarded his evidence by misreading the documents on record which clearly showed that an order for demarcation was passed by Naib Tehsildar, (ii) PW 7 and PW 8 have not truely deposed about the manner in which the incident had happened and, B therefore, their evidence ought not to )lave been accepted without inde1iendent corroboration. Allowing the a1ipeals, this Court HELD : 1.1. The prosecution has failed to establish beyond reasonable C doubt that the ap1iellants were guilty of the offences for which they were tried. Thus, the appellants were acquitted of all the changes levelled against them. [1026-C) 1.2. PWs 7 & 8 protested against digging of the 'khal' and the incident took place at that time. The appellants had obtained an order for D demarcation and the patwari had done the demarcation. The High Court failed to appreciate that the appellants had no reason to take the law in their hands and attack deceased 'M' and PWs 7 & 8. 'M' and PWs 7 & 8 did not like the appellants digging the 'khal' on the portion of land in between their fields and, therefore, it was more likely that they had started the assault. According to PWs 7 and 8 they had not caused injuries to 'R' and 'RK' and E _that they were inflicted by 'MP' and 'T' after either of them would have dared to go near the appellants after deceased and they were injured. It is not believable that knowing that one of them had a revolver and he had already injured two persons by firing· the same. Neither PW 7 in his complaint nor PW 8 in his police ~1atement had mentioned about the in.iuries caused to the F appellants 'R' & 'RK' during the incident. It appears that appellant 'R' and 'RK' were injured before the two shots were fired and very probably in self defence. The defence version thus appears to be more probable than the version of PWs 7 and 8. [1025-E-H] 1.3. P.Ws 7 & 8 have not described the incident truly by suppressing the part played by them in assaulting 'R' and 'RK', and as they have also G changed the place the incident in order to make out a case of aggression by the appellants they cannot he regarded as reliable witn~es and their evidence cannot be accepted without independent corroboration. 'MP' and 'T', who were independent witnesses, were dropped as unnecessary witnesses. [1026-B] H 1.4. The version of PWs 7 & 8
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.