RAM PAL AND ANR . versus STATE OF U.P.

Citation: [2007] 13 S.C.R. 789 · Decided: 14-12-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

,.., 
RAM PAL AND ANR . 
A 
• 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. 
DECEMBER 14, 2007 
B 
[S.B. SINHA AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.) 
Penal Code, 1860 - s. 302 rlw s.149-Murder-Caused by gun 
shots-Two accused-Acquittal of accused by Trial Court-Set aside 
by High Court-On appeal, held: PW-I clearly stated as to the manner c 
in which the incident had happened-His statement finds full support 
from PW3-No reason to disbelieve presence of PWs I and 3, more 
so as the FIR had been promptly lodged-Facts that the cartridge case 
had been left by assailants at the spot and that the shots had been 
fired from a shotgun and a pistol mentioned in the FIR-Post-mortem D 
" 
report confirmed PWI 's statement with regard to the range from 
which gunshots were fired-Recovery of 22 pellets from the dead body 
fitted in with the prosecution story-Conviction accordingly 
confirmed. 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 19 7 3-ss. 3 7 8, 386-Appeal against E 
acquittal-High Court should be slow to interfere on a finding of 
acquittal recorded by Trial court-If the view taken by Trial Court is 
possible on the evidence, High Court should not set it aside on the 
' 
premise that it was of a different opinion though it is permissible for 
,J,. 
F 
it to re-evaluate the entire evidence. 
Appellants were charged for offences punishable under 
Sections 302/149 I.P .C. They allegedly fired gunshots attheir uncle 
resulting in his instantaneous death. 
Trial Court found the evidence of all the three eye-witnesses, G 
'f 
PWl, 2 and 3 unreliable and held that that the deceased had been 
• 
shot while easing himself. Examining the Forensic evidence, the Trial 
Court held that there was no explanation for the presence of an 
789 
H 
790 SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 13 (Addi.) S.C.R. 
r 
A empty cartridge at the spot as only one shot had been fired from each 
.. 
of the two weapons and there was no need for a re-loading of the 
weapons in that situation. The Court further observed that the time 
of recovery of weapon being 26 hours after the incident, the 
Inspector's note about the smell of the gun powder from the right 
B barrel of the gun could not be believed as the smell could not have 
been present after such a long time. Having held so, Trial Court 
acquitted the accused-Appellants. High Court reversed the findings 
of the Trial Court and convicted the Appellants under Sections 302/ 
341.P.C and sentenced them to life imprisonment. 
c 
The conviction of Appellants was challenged before this Court 
inter alia on grounds, that the eyewitnesses' account suffered from 
various infirmities and that as PWlO SHO in his cross-examination 
had testified that there were about 7-8 small shots in a .12 bore 
cartridge, the recovery of 22 pellets from the dead body and the 
D Inspector's note regarding the smell of gun powder from the barrel 
of the gun, falsified the prosecution story. 
J.; 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The High Court should be slow to interfere on a 
E finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court and if the view taken 
by that Court is possible on the evidence, the High Court should not 
set it aside on the premise that it was of a different opinion though 
it is permissible for it to re-evaluate the entire evidence. 
[Para 6] [795-E] 
·-
2.1. P'V-1 is the son of the deceased. It is clear from his 
... 
F 
testimony that the relations between the parties were acrimonious 
and that there had been several bouts of litigation between them. 
PWl has clearly stated as to the manner in which the incident had 
happened. His statement finds full support from PW3. The Trial 
G Judge had disbelieved PW3 on the ground that he was a friend of 
PWl and had also been a witness to another murder. The matter has 
.. 
been dealt with by the High Court in extenso and there is no reason 
whatsoever to differ from the opinion expressed by it with regard to 
the presence of PWl and PW3. [Para 10] [799-E-G] 
H 
2.2. Even assuming therefore that there is some doubt as to the 
RAMPALv. STATE 
791 
"". 
presence of PW2, there is absolutely no reason to disbelieve the A 
.. 
presence of the other two eye witnesses, more so as the FIR had 
• 
been lodged within two hours of the incident in the police station at 
' 
a distance of six miles from the place of incident. 
[Para 11) [800-A-B) 
3.1. The facts that the cartridge case had been left by assailants B 
at the spot and that the shots had been fired from a shotgun and a 
pistol find mention in the FIR. It is also clea

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