LexRAMESH AND ANR versus STATE OF U.P.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 562 A RAMESH AND ANR ~· "' v. STATE OF U.P. (Criminal Appeal No. 184 of 2005) B AUGUST 25, 2009 [V.S. SIRPURKAR AND DEEPAK VERMA, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860- s.302 rlw s.149 - Murder caused by unlawful assembly with common object - Death due to gun- c shots from country made pistol - Autopsy report indicated that all 3 injuries on deceased were sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death - Prosecution case based on two eye-witnesses PWs 4 and 5 - Conviction of accused- appellants - Challenge to - Contention raised that PW-4 and D PW-5 were interested witnesses and other witnesses not examined by prosecution - Held: PW4 and PW5~were rightly believed by Courts below - Both witnesses gave graphical description of the whole incident - Due to enmity between the parties, no other witness came forward to give testimony, E hence no fault of Investigating Officer - Prosecution proved its case to the hilt - Courts below right in convicting the appellants. According to the prosecution, the appellants and four F others dragged PW1 's brother and pulled him to a spot near the village tube-well and caused his death by firing gun-shots at him from a country made pistol. PW2, who performed the autopsy, confirmed that all three injuries on the deceased were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. There was enmity between the G accused party and the complainant party. The Trial Court convicted the appellants under s.302 r.w. ss.149, 147 and ~ ... 148 of IPC. The conviction was upheld by the High Court. - The conviction of the appellants was challenged H 562 RAMESH AND ANR v. STATE OF U.P. 563 before this Court inter alia on grounds that the A .... • prosecution case was based on evidence tendered by interested witnesses PW-4 and PW-5 and that two other witnesses who were admittedly present at the place of occurrence were not examined by the prosecution. Dismissing the appeals, the Court B HELD: 1.1. The eye-witnesses PW4 and PW5 are truthful and were rightly believed by the High Court. Both the witnesses have given the graphical description of the whole incident [Para 7] [569-D-E] c 1.2. Merely because PW-4 was not from the same village, it cannot be said that he had no business in the village. It has come in the evidence clearly that the distance between the village of PW-4 and the village D r _.. where the incident took place is hardly about 1.5 km. Therefore, his coming to the village for purchasing the seeds cannot be viewed with a suspicion. It is also not necessary that PW-4 should have straightaway gone only to the shop of the seeds and purchased the seeds. After E all, PW-4 knew the deceased and in fact, PW-4 was cross- examined in that direction. If PW-4 already knew deceased and if he went just to visit him, this by itself, would not be reason to disbelieve his testimony. In villages, the people do normally go to each other's house. Again the F criticism that PW-4 had no business to go and accompany deceased to his field, is also of no consequence, as PW-4 might have walked alongwith deceased hardly for 20-25 paces. In fact, the distance between the house of deceased and his tubewell is hardly about 100-125 paces, which has come in the G ....... evidence. Therefore, even if PW-4 walked alongwith deceased, that by itself, does not make his version suspicious in any manner. The cross-examination is lacklustre and nothing has been brought in the same. Ordinarily the deceased would not have gone alongwith H 564 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. A his enemy just by walking and his being dragged or being pulled would be only a natural thing, which the witnesses supported. [Para 8) [569-G-H; 570-A-G] 1.3. Though the defence severely criticized the 8 prosecution on not collecting any evidence, it can be understood as to why the other witnesses were not examined. The enmity between the two parties was known, there was also murders and counter murders. Under such circumstances, if the witne_sses do not C become available, it is not the fault of the investigating agency. This is apart from the fact that the Investigating Officer was not asked about the aspect of witnesses being available. This Court does not, therefore, find fault · with the judgment of conviction recorded by the Sessions Judge and the High Court. The argument that the D evidence fell short of proof beyond
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.