LexRAMJI SINGH & ORS. versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B C D E F G H 253 RAMJI SINGH & ORS. v. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH (Criminal Appeal No. 1397 of 2014) DECEMBER 11, 2019 [MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR AND DEEPAK GUPTA, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860 – ss.147, 149, 452, 449 and 302 – Murder – Prosecution case that six persons (A-1, A-2, A-3, A-4, A-5 and A- 6) who were heavily armed, two of them with guns, killed victim in broad daylight between 12 and 12:30 p.m. – Earlier, when PW-1 heard some noises he reached the house and saw victim and the accused – In the meantime PW-2 also reached the spot – They both (PW-1 and PW-2) were standing at the entrance of house when the occurrence took place – A written complaint was prepared by PW- 1 and was scribed by PW-4 and same was given in the police station – On basis of which police registered FIR – Trial court acquitted all the accused – During the pendency of the appeal in the High Court, three accused A-1, A-3 and A-6 died and the appeal abated qua them – High Court set aside the judgment of the Trial court and A- 2, A-4 and A-5 were found guilty of having committed offences punishable u/ss.147, 148, 302/149 of the IPC – On appeal before the Supreme Court, the appellants contended that reliance cannot be placed on the statement of the eye-witnesses (PW-1 and PW-2) – Held: The statements of these witnesses (PW-1 and PW-2) were almost identical and there were no major cosntradictions between them – According to PW-1, he was present at the place of incidence and immediately after occurrence dictated the complaint to PW-4 and according to PW-4, he reached the spot at about 12:45 p.m.– Thereafter, PW-1 was sent to police station – The version of PW-1 and PW-2 was corroborated by the version of PW-4, who though not an eye-witness reached the spot at about 12:45 p.m. and then scribed the complaint – Further, medical evidence fully corroborated the prosecution story – According to both the eye-witnesses (PW-1 and PW-2) accused A-2 and A-3 had fired three times each – There [2019] 14 S.C.R. 253 253 A B C D E F G H 254 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 14 S.C.R. were corresponding 6 fire arm entry wounds as per medical report – The Doctor opined that death occurred between 12 and 12:30 p.m. which also supports the prosecution version – The other injuries mentioned by doctor were also relatable – Therefore, the medical evidence fully supported the version of the two eye-witnesses with regard to the injuries caused by firearms and sharp-edged weapons – The evidence of witnesses were corroborated on all counts – No merit in the appeals. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD : 1. The main question which arises for consideration is whether reliance should be placed on the statement of the eye- witnesses (PW-1 and PW-2). As far as the statements of these witnesses recorded in the case are concerned, they are almost identical and there are no major contradictions between them. A lot of emphasis has been placed by the appellants on the fact that many things stated by PW-1 in his examination in court have not been mentioned in the FIR. As far as this aspect is concerned, according to PW-1, he was present at the place of incidence itself and immediately after the occurrence dictated the complaint to PW-4, who states that Exh.P.1 is in his handwriting and he had written whatever was dictated to him by PW-1. Thereafter, he and PW-1 had both signed the said complaint (Exh.P.1). From the signature of PW-1 appearing on Exh.P.1 it is apparent that he is barely literate and cannot write. PW-4 is a teacher and the suggestion put to him in cross examination was that there is some litigation between his uncle and some persons connected with the accused, but he said that he was not aware of the same. He clearly states that he is not a party to any party politics. With regard to the complaint the only suggestion put to him was that he had not prepared any complaint in the village and that the complaint was written at the police station. There was no examination with regard to the contents of the complaint. Even with regard to time this witness clearly states that he reached the spot at about 12.45 PM and wrote the complaint and, thereafter, PW-1 was sent to the police station. He further states that the investigating officer reached the place of occurrence at about 3 and 3.45 PM. According to him he remained at the place A B C D E F G H 255 of occurrence for about 4½ hours and the panchayatnama of the dead body was prepared in his presence and he has signed
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.