RAM KUMAR versus THE STATE OF HARYANA

Citation: [1994] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 335 · Decided: 07-10-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.S. ANAND · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

RAM KUMAR 
A 
v. 
THE STATE OF HARYANA 
OCTOBER 7, 1994 
[DR. A.S. ANAND AND FAIZAN UDDIN, JJ.] 
B 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 : Sections 378 and 379. 
Appeal against acquittal-f'ower of High Court to reassess evidence--
Rule of prudence requires that High Court should give proper weight to Trial C 
Court's view-But High Court can examine whether Trial Court's conclusions 
are proper and justified or illegal and perverse-Where acquittal by Trial Court 
was wholly unjustified and against the weight of evidence, reversal of same 
by High· Court held justified. 
Section 154-FIR-'-Delay in filing of-Satisfactory explanation given by D 
prosecution should be taken into account. 
Section 157-'-Delay in sending the report to the Magistrate-Where 
delay has caused no prejudice to the accused, it is of no consequence. 
Indian Penal Code, 1860 : Sections 302/34 and 307/34-Conviction 
under-Validity of 
The appellant and the o\ber three co-accused namely N, H and S 
were prosecuted under sections 302/34 and 307 /34 of the Indian Penal 
Code, 1860. According ta the prosecution the motive to commit crime was 
to grab a piece of land which came under the cultivation of the com-
plainant, K, who was the daughter-in-law of the accused N. It was further 
E 
F 
the case of the prosecution that on the date of occurrence i.e. on 23rd 
December, 1983, K hired a tractor for ploughing her land and went to the 
land alongwith her two minor sons. 0, who was working with her as a G 
labourer bad also gone with them while the tractor was driven by one M. 
After ploughing the field when they were returning to the village in the 
evening and when they reached the boundary of the field the complainant 
K saw in the tractor light that the appellant and the co-accused were 
standing there armed with pistols and guns. Thereafter N raised a lalkara 
that be would teach the complainant a lesson for getting the land cultivated H 
335 
336 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1994) SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A · by others. Saying so, he fired shot from a point blank distance at O who 
fell down from the tractor and died. Thereafter M took the tractor towards 
another field and left it there and they hid themselves in the cotton crops 
standing there when three shots were fired towards them but no one was 
hit. After a shorr··hile, they rushed towards the bus stand of the village 
B 
c 
but the accused N, Sand the appellant chased them and fired three shots 
at them. M was hit by a bullet and succumbed to injury on the spot. PW 
4, the minor son of K sustained a bullet injury at his left foot while K 
herself received the bullet injury on the left side of back of her chest as a 
result of which she fell down. Thereafter the accused persons ran away 
while K managed to get up and she alongwith her two sons went to a nearby 
house of one C where she took shelter during the night. Next morning she 
hired a jeep and proceeded to Adampur Hospital where she and her 
injured son were medically examined. In response to the intimation sent 
by the doctor the Investigation Officer arrived at the hospital and recorded 
the statement of K on the basis of which First Information Report was 
D registered, inquest report was prepared and empty cartridges near the 
dead bodies were recovered. On evaluation of the entire evidence and the 
material on record the trial court held that prosecution had failed to bring 
home the guilt against any of the accused persons and accordingly ac· 
quitted them all from the offences they were charged with. 
E 
F 
G 
The Trial Judge rejected the FIR by holding that it was unduly 
delayed and ante-timed on the ground that though the maker of the report, 
K, did not know that 0 and M had died as she had made no enquiries as 
to what had happened to them after the firing and whether they were dead 
or alive, yet she stated in her reply that 0 and M had died. Further while 
taking shelter in the night in the house of C she did not ascertain the 
condition of 0 and M and had not established any contact with them 
before making the report yet she made a statement in her report that they 
were dead and this, according to the trial Judge, was indicative of the fact 
that the report was ante-timed. 
The Trial Court also rejected the testimony of PWs 3 and 4, K and 
her son, mainly on the ground that these two eye-witnesses were not sure 
about their assailants because neither she herself nor through C in whose 
house she took shelter informed the Sarpanch of the

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