RAM PRASAD AND OTHERS versus THE STATE OF U.P.

Citation: [1974] 1 S.C.R. 650 · Decided: 17-09-1973 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: HANS RAJ KHANNA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

650 
RAM PRASAD AND OTHERS 
v. 
THE STATE OF U.P. 
September 17, 1973 
[H. R. KHANNA AND A. ALAGIRISWAMI, JJ.] 
Indian Evidence Act-Whether every person who has seen_ the incident 
should be cited as a witness by prosecution in the criminal case-Duty of the 
prosecution to bring on· record full and material facts. 
The apPellants were convicted u/s 148 and 302 read JVith Sec. 149 of the 
l.P.C. 
The conviction was challenged in the Supreme CoUrt. inter alia, on 
the ground that besides the eye witnesses, the F.I.R. mentioned the names of 
three more persons who had seen the incident but they were not examined by 
the prosecution. In rejecting th: contention and dismissing the appeal. 
HELD : Non-examination ot 'some of the eye-witnesses mentioned in the 
F.I.R. does not introduce any fatal infirmity to the prosecution case. It is no 
doubt true that the prosecution is bound to produce witnesSes who are essential 
to' the unfolding of the narrative on which the 
prosecution is based. Apart 
front that, it cannot be laid down as a rule that if a large number of persons 
are present at the time of the occurrence,.. the prosecution is bound to call and 
examine each and every one of those persons. The answer to the question as 
to what is the effect of the non-examination of a particular 
witness would 
depenci upon the facts and circumstances of each case. In case enough number 
of witnesses have been examined with regard to the actual occurrence and 
the~r evidence is reliable and sufficient to base the conviction of the accused 
thereon, the prosecution may well decide t.o refrain from examining the other 
witnesses. 
Likewise, if any of the witnesses is won over by the accused party 
and as such is not likely to state the truth. thC prosecution would have a valid 
ground for not examining him in court. The prosecution would not, however, 
be justified in not examining a witness on the grouild tha_t his evidence even 
though not untrue would go in favour of the accused. It is as much the duty 
of the prosecutor as of the court to ensure that full and material facts 
a~ 
'brought on the record so that there may be no miscarriage of justice. 
The 
discharge of such a duty cannot be affected by the consideration that some of 
the facts if brought on the record would be favourable to the accused. In case 
the court finds that the prosecution has not examined witnesses for reasons not 
tenable or not proper, the court would -be justified in drawing an inference 
adverse to the prosecution. [654F] 
C!uM1NAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 52 of 
1970. 
Appeal from the Judgment and Order dated the 10th October, 
1969, of the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) Lucknow, in 
Criminal Appeal No. 48. of 1968). 
K. B. Rohatgi, for the appellants. 
0. P. Rana, for the respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
KHANNA, J. This is an appeal by special leave by Ram Prasad 
(65), his son Udit Narain (22) and their servant Sri Pal (22) against 
H 
the judgment of the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court 
affirming on appeal the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge 
Lucknow whereby the three appellants 
and three others, namely 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
ll 
RAM PRASAD V. U.P. STATE (Khanna,/.) 
651 
Sarju, Putti and J aganath had been convicted under section 148 and 
section 302 read with section 149 Indian Penal Code and had been 
senl/;lnced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 18 
months on the first count and imprisonment for life on the secornl 
count. 
The occurrence giving rise to the present case took place on 
March 31, 1967 at 2·30 p.m. in front of and inside the tarwaha of 
the house of J askaran, father of J agannath 
accused, in 
villag~ 
Gadarian Purwa at a 
distance of two miles from police 
station 
Mandiaon. The person murdered during the course of the occurrence. 
was Parmeshwar Din ( 35). The prosecuti011 case is that Parme.shwar 
Din deceased aJJ.d Sita Ram (PW 4) purchased two plots of land 
situated in the area of village Gadarian Purwa from Paggu 
and 
others for Rs. 3,000 as per sale deed dated December 23, 1966. 
The possession of these plots had been taken by the vendees about 
one or two months earlier when they paid Rs. 500 as earnest money. 
The vendees sowed wheat in those plots. Sarju and Putti accused, who 
are both brothers, laid claim to those plots. As Ram Prasad accused 
was an influential person, Sarju and PuUi sought his assistance in

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