RAM NARESH versus STATE OF U.P.

Citation: [2010] 11 S.C.R. 433 · Decided: 09-09-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: H.S. BEDI, C.K. PRASAD · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2010] 11 S.C.R. 433 
RAM NARESH 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 231 of 2004) 
SEPTEMBER 9, 2010 
[HARJIT SINGH BEDI AND CHANDRAMAULI KR. 
PRASAD, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860: 
s. 307 - Attempt to murder - Accused shot at the victim 
- Conviction and sentence .of five years RI - Pleas of delay 
in lodging the FIR and related witnesses - Rejected - HELD: 
A 
B 
c 
There is no substantial delay in lodging the FIR - Incident 
happened late in the evening in a village about 9 km away 0 
from the police station and it would have been difficult for the 
complainant living in a backward area to rush to the police 
station immediately - There is also no reason to disregard 
the evidence of PWs - It must also be borne in mind that the 
incident happened in the year 1978 and the evidence was 
E 
recorded i[I the year 1986 -
Some discrepancies are, 
therefore, bound to appear in the ocular evidence as memory 
fades with the passage of time - Though the doctor has 
deposed that from a look at the injury it could not be said with 
certainty that it was a fire arm injury, in the light of ocular 
evidence, howe:ter, the opinion of the doctor cannot stand in 
F 
the way of the prosecution - However, keeping in view the fact 
that the incident had happened 32 years ago, the sentence 
is reduced from five years to three years - Delay in lodging 
FIR - Evidence -
Variance in medical evidence and oral 
testimony - Sentence/Sentencing. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
No. 231 of 2004. 
433 
G 
H 
434 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2010] 11 S.C.R. 
A 
From the Judgment & Order dated 19.11.2002 of the High 
Gour of Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow in Criminal 
Appeal No. 529 of 1989. 
Anurag Kishore, Somna Dhown and Vishwajit Singh for 
B the Appellant. 
c 
Sandeep Singh. G.V. Rao, lrshad Ahmad, Abhishek 
Choudhury and Manoj Kumar Dwivedi for the Respondent. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered 
ORDER 
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order 
of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad whereby the 
appellant stands convicted for an offence punishable under 
D Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to 
rigorous imprisonment for five years. 
2. The facts of the case are as under: 
2.1On11th August, 1978, as Ram Vilas PW 1, and his 
E brother Shiv Vilas were returning home after visiting the temple 
about half a kilometre away from the village, they were waylaid 
by the appellant Ram Naresh and his father Jagannath (since 
expired). Jagannath was carrying a country made revolver 
whereas the appellant was armed with a single barrel shot gun. 
F Jaganath exhorted the appellant that as Shiv Vilas was always 
coming in their way he should be killed. The appellant 
thereupon fired one shot at Ram Vilas which hit him on the 
head. The firing also attracted P.Ws2 and 3 to the spot. The 
next morning Ram Vilas along with the injured Shiv Vilas went 
G to Police Station, Makhi and a First Information Report was 
lodged for an offence punishale under Sections 307/34 IPC. 
On the completion of the investigation the accused were 
charged for the above offences. The trial court and the High 
Court have relied on the evidence of Ram Vilas P.W. 1 and 
H 
RAM NARESH v. STATE OF U.P. 
435 
Lalu P.W. 3 as eye witnesses of the occurrence, Shiv Vilas, in 
A 
. the meanwhile, having been murdered in some other incident. 
3. Before the trial court as well the High Court, the primary 
argument made on behalf of the accused was that there was 
an inordinate and unexplained delay in the lodging of the FIR, 
that the evidence of the eye witnesses who were closely related 
to the injured was discrepant in material particulars, and that 
B 
the medical evidence did not support the ocular evidence. 
These submissions have been rejected by both the courts 
below. Before us, today, Mr. Anurag Kishore, the learned 
C 
counsel for the appellant has reiterated the same arguments. 
We find from a reading of the evidence that there is no 
substantial delay in the lodging of the FIR. The incident 
happened in a village about 9 kms. away from the police station 
late in the evening and it would have been difficult for the 
complainant living in rustic and backward area to rush to the 
D 
police station immediately. We also find no reason to disregard 
the evidence of Ram Vilas and Lalu, PWs. Admittedly, Ram 
Vilas was a brother of Shiv Vilas, the injured and Lalu was a 
close relative and also a party man. It must also be

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