RAM NIWAS versus STATE OF HARYANA

Citation: [2010] 9 S.C.R. 112 · Decided: 28-07-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: H.S. BEDI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2010] 9 S.C.R. 112 
RAM NIWAS 
v. 
STATE OF HARYANA 
(Criminal Appeal No. 115 of 2007) 
JULY 28, 2010 
[HARJIT SINGH BEDI AND C.K. PRASAD, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860: 
c 
ss. 302 and 307 - Prosecution of five accused for murder 
and attempt to murder - Conviction of one - HELO: Courts 
below have rightly assessed the evidence and held that the 
convict and another accused who died during trial, had 
committed the offences - Courts below, being cognizant of the 
0 
strained relations between the parties and the possibility of 
false implication of others, have accordingly given the benefit 
of doubt to two of the accused - No interference with the 
conviction and the sentence is thus called for - Criminal Law 
- Motive. 
E 
Evidence - A part of evidence of witness disbelieved -
Effect of. 
The appellant along with his brother and three uncles 
was prosecuted for attempt to murder PW-6 and for the 
F 
murder of his brother 'SS'. During the trial, two of the 
accused died. The trial court convicted the appellant u/ 
ss 302 and 307 IPC and acquitted the remaining two 
accused giving them benefit of doubt. The High Court 
affirmed the judgment. 
G 
H 
In the appeal filed by the convict, it was contended 
for the appellant that the prosecution story given by PW-
7, the mother of the deceased, with respect to 
involvement of two of the accused having been 
112 
RAM NIWAS v. STATE OF HARYANA 
113 
disbelieved, there was no justification for conviction of A 
the appellant for the murder; and that there being 
animosity between the parties due to conviction of the 
father of the complainant and the deceased in the earlier 
case of murder of the uncle of the appellant, the accused 
were falsely implicated in the instant case and, therefore, 
B 
the evidence of two witnesses, namely PW-7, the mother, 
and PW-8, the brother of the injured and the deceased, 
could not be relied upon. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The trial court observed that no positive act 
towards the murder had been attributed to accused 'BR' 
(who died during trial), 'YR' and 'RS' for the injury to PW-
c 
6 or the murder of his brother and there was no evidence 
whatsoever of a prior meeting of minds among all the D 
accused so as to show their common object or common 
intention. On the contrary, the trial court observed, that 
the evidence of PW-6 and PW-7 with respect to the 
in"~:vement of the appellant and 'PK' (who died during 
trial) was categorical that it was these two, who had E 
committed the murder of the brother of PW-6, and caused 
injuries to him. The judgment of the High Court shows 
that this aspect has been carefully examined and the 
findings have been affirmed. [para 8] [117-F-H; 118-A] 
2. It is true, that the relations between the two parties 
F 
were extremely strained on account of the earlier murder 
case. While this fact could, undoubtedly, be a reason for 
false implication of the accused, but on the contrary, it 
could also be a motive for the commission of the crime. 
However, in the light of the fact that the FIR was recorded G 
within a reasonable time of the incident and the medical 
evidence fully supports the ocular version and, 
additionally, the trial court has given the benefit of doubt 
to some of the accused, as they had no active role to play, 
H 
114 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2010] 9 S.C.R. 
A the possibility of false implication has also been examined 
and dealt with. The courts below have rightly assessed 
the evidence, and being cognizant of the strained 
relations between the parties and the possibility of false 
implication, have accordingly given the benefit of doubt 
s to two of the accused. No interference with the conviction 
and the sentence is called for. [para 9] (118-B-D] 
CRIMINAL AP PELLA TE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal 
No. 115 of 2007. 
C 
From the Judgment & Order dated 18.01.2006 of the High 
D 
Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal 
l\lo. 352-DB of 1997. 
Sarvesh Bisari and Anil Nag for the Appellant. 
Kamal Mohan Gupta, Gaurav Teotia and Reeta Choudhary 
for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
E 
HARJIT SINGH BEDI, J. 1. This appeal is directed 
against the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court 
dated 18th January 2006 whereby the appellant's appeal has 
been dismissed. 
2. As per the prosecution story Chanda PW.6 was working 
F 
as a Chowkidar in the Nuna Girls High School, which was 
being run under the aegis of the Panchaya

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