LexRAM SINGH versus THE STATE OF U.P.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
* Author [2024] 2 S.C.R. 668 : 2024 INSC 128 Ram Singh v. The State of U.P. (Criminal Appeal No. 206 of 2024) 21 February 2024 [Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan,* JJ.] Issue for Consideration As per PW-1-informant (son of the deceased), on the fateful evening when he and his brother were sitting in the open space in front of the entrance door of his house, his mother was sitting close by on a cot and some neighbours were also sitting on another cot, the appellant came along with co-accused on whose instigation he fired on PW-1 but he slipped below the cot and the bullet hit his mother who died immediately. While the co-accused was acquitted on the same set of evidence, whether the conviction of the appellant u/s.301 r/w 302, u/s.307 IPC and his sentence were justified when there was no recovery of the weapon of crime, non- examination of ballistic expert. Headnotes Evidence – Non-recovery of the weapon of crime – Non- obtaining of ballistic opinion and non-examination of ballistic expert – When fatal: Held: Non-recovery of the weapon of crime by itself would not be fatal to the prosecution case – When there is such non-recovery, there would be no question of linking the empty cartridges and pellets seized during investigation with the weapon allegedly used in the crime – Obtaining of ballistic report and examination of the ballistic expert is not an inflexible rule – When there is direct eye witness account which is found to be credible, omission to obtain ballistic report and non-examination of ballistic expert may not be fatal to the prosecution case but if the evidence tendered including that of eye witnesses do not inspire confidence or suffer from glaring inconsistencies coupled with omission to examine material witnesses, the omission to seek ballistic opinion and examination of the ballistic expert may be fatal – In the present case, the evidence of the eyewitnesses suffer from serious lacunae and cannot be said to be credible – That apart, material witnesses were not examined [2024] 2 S.C.R. 669 Ram Singh v. The State of U.P. – Thus, the evidence tendered on behalf of the prosecution cannot be said to be full proof so much so that non-recovery of the main material evidence i.e., weapon of offence, non-obtaining of ballistic opinion and non-examination of ballistic expert would be immaterial – Prosecution did not prove the accusation against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt – Also, on the same set of evidence, the trial court gave the benefit of doubt to the co-accused primarily on the ground that there was a grudge between the accused and PW-1 – Appellant given benefit of doubt – Conviction and sentence set aside – Order of the trial Court and the High Court quashed. [Paras 29, 30, 33 and 34] Evidence – Same set of evidence – Conviction of one accused and acquital of the other – Impermissibility: Held: When there is similar or identical evidence of eyewitnesses against two accused by ascribing them the same or similar role, the court cannot convict one accused and acquit the other – Any lingering doubt about the involvement of an accused in the crime he is accused of committing, must weigh on the mind of the court and in such a situation, the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused – This is more so when the co-accused is acquitted by the trial court on the same set of evidence. [Paras 32, 33] Case Law Cited Javed Shaukat Ali Qureshi Vs. State of Gujarat, [2023] 12 SCR 220 : (2023) 9 SCC 164; Munna Lal Vs. State of U.P., [2023] 3 SCR 224 : (2023) SCC Online SC 80; Gurucharan Singh Vs. State of Punjab, [1963] 3 SCR 585 : AIR 1963 SC 340; Sukhwant Singh Vs. State of Punjab, [1995] 2 SCR 1190 : (1995) 3 SCC 367; State of Punjab Vs. Jugraj Singh, [2002] 1 SCR 998 : (2002) 3 SCC 234; Gulab Vs. State of U.P., [2021] 9 SCR 678 : (2022) 12 SCC 677; Pritinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab, [2023] 10 SCR 1033 : (2023) 7 SCC 727 – relied on. List of Acts Penal Code, 1860. List of Keywords Non-recovery of weapon of crime; Non-examination of ballistic expert; Ballistic opinion; Non-obtaining of ballistic opinion; 670 [2024] 2 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports Gunshot injury; Not proved beyond reasonable doubt; Glaring inconsistencies; Evidence of eyewitnesses not credible; Material witnesses; Same set of evidence; Benefit of doubt. Case Arising From CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 206 of 2024 From the Judgment and Order dated 0
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.