RAMESH CHAND versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

Citation: [1985] 2 S.C.R. 573 · Decided: 17-01-1985 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.D. TULZAPURKAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

573 
RAMESH CHAND 
v. 
... 
I. 
.,, 
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH 
.. 
January 17, 1985 
I V.D. TULZAPURKAR, RANGANATH MISRA AND v. KHALID, JJ.) 
Jndian Er/deuce Act, l872-Circun1stantial Evidence-Req14ir1ne11t.~ lo be 
satisfied for basing conclusions on circurnstantial el'l·ndence. 
Constitution of India, 1950-Art.136-Scope of-Power o[Supre111e 
Court to reapreciate evide1;ce-Whe11 can be exercised. 
The appellant was charged with the murder of one Om Prakash. The 
prosecution story was (i) that at about 10 p.m. in the night, at a place where 
there was no light and which was about 2 furlongs away from the guard room at 
Hindon Bridge towards Ghaziabad, the appellant along with two others killed 
the deceased by stabbing with knife ; (ii) that three police personnal posted at the 
guard room, one of whom had a torch, ran to the spot on being informed by 
some passerby and caught hold of the appellant who had a knife stained with 
blood; (iii) that the other two assailants managed to escape. The appe11ant 
pleaded (1) that he was a taxi driver in which the three passengers including the 
deceased were travelling; (2) that after crossing the Bridge the passengers started 
quarre1ling among themselves, with the result his attention was diverted resulting 
in a cyclist being dashed against (3) that when the car stopped, the three passen-
gers got down, went a little away from the road and started assaulting the deceas-
ed with a knife (4) that he went there to rescue the det.:eased and in that process 
his wearing apparel got blood soaked ; (5) that the assailants ran away after 
assaulting the deceased; and (6) · that no blood staintd knife was received from 
him. Out of the six eye witnessess examined, four did not support the prosecu-
tion story and were declared hostile. One of the remaining two police witnesses 
denied the fact of seeing the appellant giving any knife blow while the other bad 
made a firm statement that he did see the act of giving the knife blow. 
The trial court convicted the appellant u/s. 302/34 IPC and sentenced 
him to imprisonment for life. In appeal, the High Court discarded the evidence in 
regard to the infliction of the blows, but, affirmed the conviction on circumsta i· I 
"d 
h" h 
rd" 
n ia 
ev1 ence w 1c _acco 
ing to the High Court was : (1) an attempt b; the appeUant 
to escape and h1s arrest after a chase ; (ii) he being found to be 1·0 
· 
f 
possession o 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
574 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1985] 2 s.c-R. · 
the blood stained knife ; (iii) his clothes having become blood· stained; (iv) if the 
appellant was trying to rescue the deceased, he would have received injuries in the 
scuffle; and (v) if the appellant had really tried to intervene in the \Vay he claims, 
he being a well built man could have saved the life of the deceased. 
Allowing the appeal by the appellant, 
HELD : (l) There is no evidence as to whether apart from the torchlight 
which the police witnesses focussed, if any other light was available. We agree 
with the trial Court as also the High Court that the two police witnesses were 
present at the spot and in the manner indicated by them. But the evidence regardw 
ing the directions to which the three persons r3.n away is discrepant. Chase by 
itself does not seem to be an important feature particularly when the total distance 
for which chase is said to have been made was about 22-2.5 feet. It is conceivable 
that he had not moved but the police witnesses. ran to reach him because they 
were anxious to catch hold of any one from the group who was available. 
[576H; 577 AB;] 
(2) The appellant's stand that in the process of rescuing the deceased his 
wearing apparel were soaked with human blood is a sufficient explanation. The 
fact that no injuries have been sustained by him while trying to rescue the deceased 
by itself is ncit an implicating circumstance becau.se the assailants having no 
reason to inujre him may not have assaulted him. By sheer chance as well the 
appellant may have escaped injuries. 
[577E; F and G) 
(3) The evidence regarding the appellant holding the knife in the dark 
night is not impressive and does not arouse confidence as it is against human 
conduct and no one would keep holding such an incriminating material as a 
blood stained knife. Moreover, there is no justification to discard the evidence of 
PW. 2, the cyclist who was injured by the appellant's car. 
(577E and 576G] 
(4) In a case of 1.:ircumstant

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