LexRAM LOCHAN AHIR versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
1962 Dectmbtr, JO. 852 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963) SUPP. RAM LOCHAN AHIR "· STATE OF WEST BENGAL (S.J. IMAM, K. SUBBA RAO, N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR and J. R. MUDHOLKAR, JJ.) Criminal Trial-M urder-Jdentification-A.dmisaibility of euper-impoaed photograph to utablish identity of skeleton-Mie- direction to jury-Interference with 116rdid of jury on hypotheti- tal considerationa-Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), ••. 9, 27. The appellant was tried by the jury for kidnapping and committing the murder of one Pancham Sukla. The jury returned a verdict of guilty against him under ss. 364 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The Sessions Judge accepted the verdict and sentenced him to death under s. 302 and to rigor- ous imprisonment for life under s. 364. The High Court acquitted appellant of the offence of kidnapping under s. 364, but while confll'IIling his conviction under s. 302, reduced the sentence to imprisonment for life. The appellant came to this Court on a certificate granted by the High Court. Jn this Court, the appellant challenged the identification of the skeleton produced in the case as that of the deceased. His other con- tentions were that the super-imposed photograph was not ad- missible under any section of the Evidence Act, there was mis- direction to the jury in setting out the statement of the accused to the police which led to the discovery of the skeleton and that he had no intention of killing deceased and killing must have taken place as a result of some quarrel between him and the deceased. The super-imposed photograph was admissible in evi- dence under s. 9 of the Evidence Act. That photograph was not any trick photograph seeking to make something appear difl'erent from what it was in reality. There was no distortion of truth involved in it or attempted by it. A superimposed photograph is really two photographs merged into one or rather one photograph seen beneath the other. Both the photo- graphs are of existing things and they are supcrimpo<ed or brought into the same plane enlarged to the same size for the purpose of comparison. Both the photographs would be ad- missible in evidence and . no objection could be taken to their being examined together. - 2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 853 'fhcrc was no misdirection to the jury in setting out the statement of the accused to the police which led to the dis- covery of the skeleton. There was no substuncc in the contention of the appeM Hant that killing must have taken place as a result of some quarrel. The jury had held appellant guilty of murder. This Court is not concerned with the correctness of the acquittal of the appellant by the High Court under s. 364 of Indian Penal Code. No suggestion has been made before this Court that there was misdirection by the Sessions Judge in his charge to the jury. There is no scope for the argument that verdict of the jury should be interfered with or the conviction based on it altered on hypothetical considerations not founded on any facts on record. Kotayyav. Em1>eror, A. I. R. 194-7 P. C.67 and State of U. P. v. Deoman Upadhyaya, (19611 IS. C.R. 14, relied on. CRIMINAL APrELLATEjURISDICTlON: Criminal Appeal No. 134 of 1961. Appeal from the judgment and order elated March 28/29, 1961, of the Calcutta High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 769 of 1960. D. N. 11fukherjee, for the appellant. P. K. Chakravarti and P. K. Bose, for the respondent. 1962. December 10. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by AYYANGAR, J.-This is an appeal on a certi- ficate under Art. 134 (1) (c) against the conviction of -the appellant under s, 302, .Indian Penal Code and the sentence for imprisonment for life passed against him for the said offence. One Pancham Sukla was an employee under the Calcutta Port Commissioner where also the 1962 Ram Lcrha11 Af1ir v. State of H ·eJl Bengal 1962 R,1m l .• ml1ar1 A.hit v. State of I Vest Bengal . l.J~l'angar, J. 854 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [H!6l!] SUPP. appellant was employed. Pancham attended office last on the 10th of March, 1960 and at about 5.30 that evening he was seen in the company of the appellant. That was the last time he was seen alive and since then he has not been found. Pancham not having returned to his house, his brother-in-law and another lodged a report with the police stating that l'aucham had been missing for the previous two days and in the said report gave a description of the miss- i
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.