RAMRATAN AND OTHERS versus THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN

Citation: [1962] 3 S.C.R. 590 · Decided: 13-09-1961 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.N. WANCHOO · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
//IQl 
5!JO 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
RAMRATAN AND OTHERS 
v. 
THE STATE OF. RAJASTIIAN 
(1962j 
(K. N. \VANonoo, ICC. DAs GUPTA and 
J. c. SHAH, JJ.) 
Ei·ititnu~SiNJk witn~s-Corroborafion-lndian Evirltftca 
!let, 1872(1of1872), s.157. 
The appellant• were convicted on a charge of murder on 
the sole testimony of one \4/itness. 
A not her prosecution witness 
deposed that the former witness told him immediately after 
tbe incident that the appellants were responsible for the murder. 
The question \vhich arose \Vas 'vhether it \vas necessary for the 
former witness also to depose in Court tlrat he had told the 
names of the murderers to the other witness immediately after 
the occurrence or \vhcrher his former statement be proved under 
s.157 of the Indian Evidence Act to corroborate his testimony 
without his deposing a bout it in Court. 
lleld, that it was 
not necessary under s. 157 of the 
Evidence Act that the witness to be corroborated must also say 
in his testimony in court that he had made the former statement 
to 
the witness who was corroborating him. 
What s.157 
required was that the witness to be corroborated must give 
evidence in court of some fact and if that was done his testi• 
mony in court -relating to that fact could be corroborated by 
any former statement made by him relating to the same fact. 
Mt. Misri v. 
Emperor, A.LR. 1934 Sind 100 and 
Nazar Singh v. The State, A.LR. 1951 Pepsu 65, held as 
wrongly decided. 
As a grneral rule a court may act on the testimony of a 
single witness, though ui:corroborate~ and the question whether 
corroboration of the test1n1ony of a single \vHness \\.'a3 or \Yas 
not necessary must depend on the circumstances of each case. 
Vemireddy Satyanarayan Reddy v. The Stale oj llyderabad, 
(1956) S.C.R. 247, di,tinguished. 
Vedivelu Thevar v. The State of Madras, (1957) S.C.R. 
981, follnwed. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JuRrsmcTIO:); : Criminal 
Appeal No. 2'18 of 1960. 
Appeal by special leave from the jutlgmenta.nd 
order datt>tl October 31, 1960, of the Raj-istha.n High 
Court in D. B. Criminal Appeal No. 290 of 1960 and 
p, J3. Criµli.Jjal Murcjcf Referc!!OC No. 7 of 1960, 
-
-
...... 
3S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
• 
I 
• 
~ 
• • 
• 
.591 
R. L. Anand, O. L. Sareen and R. L. Kohli, for 
the appellants. 
S. K. Kapur and T. M. Sen, for the respondent. 
1961. September 13. The Judgment of the. 
Court was delivered by 
WANcHoo,J.-This is an appeal by special 
leave from the judgment of the Hajasthan High 
Court. It arises out of an incident in which 
Bhimsen was murdered on l\fay 8, 1959 at Mandi 
Pili Bangali shortly bofore 3 P .11r. 
The prosecution 
story briefly was that there was bad blood between 
Ramratan appellant and the members of the family 
of Bhimsen on account of panchayat elections in 
which they had supported rival candidates. Another 
cause for enmity was that some time before the 
occurrence, Ramratan appellant was prosecuted 
under s. 307 of the Indian Penal Code and Bhimsen 
was cited as a prosecution witness in that case and 
Ramratan did not like that. 
Bhimsen and his father brought some gram 
for sale on the night between l\fay 7 /8, 1959, to 
Pili Bangan. Bhimsen returned to the village to 
bring more gram and came back at about 10/11 A.M. 
on the . 8th on his tractor-trolly along. with his 
brother Ram Partap. The gram was to be s'Jld 
through Roopram and was stacked in front of his 
shop in the mandi. Ram Partap was apparently 
not interested in the sale and had wandered away 
leaving his father Jawanaram and his brother 
Bhimsen at the shop. · Shortly before 3 P.llr. while 
the gram was being weighed by Lekhram weigh-
man, the three appellants and two others (namely, 
Moman and Ramsingh) came up there armed with 
guns. Ramratan shouted that the enem} should 
not be allowed to escape as Bhimsen was tryinir to 
enter the shop of Roopram to save himself on 
seeing these persons. Before, however, Bhimsen 
could enter the shop of Roopram, Ramra.tan came 
in bet)f(Jelf 11<!f4 fireil !lot 4inl. froJll .fl<' distance .of 
1961 
~ 
11.,,.;aw. 
. ": v.·--. 
The SI,,,,~ 
R,iJas/hn 
Wanchoa J, 
.. -~''" -
'fi-o/"' 
v. 
· 
'/YwStot#Oj 
. l!.,;..tllmi 
W.w""' J. 
• 
.. 
592 
SuPR!ME COURT ma>ORTS 
(1962] 
about 5 feet, 
Bhimsen got injured and fell down 
and died soon after. Jawanaram raised his hands 
and asked tb0 assailants not to' kill Bhimscn but 
Hansraj appellant fired at him causing a wound on 
his left hand, which resulted in a compound 
fracture.

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