LexRAMVIR & ORS. versus STATE OF U.P.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009) 10 S.C.R. 704 A RAMVIR & ORS. .. - v. STATE OF U.P. - (Criminal Appeal No. 1108 of 2007) B JULY 6, 2009 [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA AND DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, JJ.] .,, ~ Penal Code, 1860 - s.302 and s.302 rlw s.34 - Death c due to knife blow which pierced through the chest as also the lung - Allegation that while appellant nos. 2 and 3 embraced the deceased, appellant no. 1 inflicted the knife blow - Conviction of appellant no.1 under s.302 and appellant nos.2 and 3 under s.302 rlw s.34 - Challenge to - Held: On facts, D role ascribed to appellant nos.2 and 3 was unbelievable and their presence at the place of occurrence was doubtful - Their conviction accordingly set aside - However, gravity of the knife blow and dimension of injury caused clearly proves that appellant no. 1 had intention and knowledge of killing ·the E deceased, and therefore, used knife at the most vital part of body affecting chest and lung with the knowledge that such injury will definitely cause death in the ordinary course of nature - Hence, conviction of appellant no. 1 upheld. .. F In a murder case, the prosecution alleged that on account of previous enmity, the accused-appellants surrounded the deceased while he was going to his Gher, whereafter appellant nos. 2 and 3 embraced him, while appellant no.1 inflicted a knife blow on his chest which proved fatal. The Courts below convicted appellant ino.1 G under s.302 IPC and appellant nos. 2 and 3 under s.302 'rlw s.34 IPC. All the three appellants were sentenced to __.. ""~,. life imprisonment. In appeal to th_is Court, the appellants challenged H 704 ' " .le RAMVIR & ORS. v. STATE OF U.P. 705 their conviction on various grounds viz. that the FIR was A ante timed and that the time of incident was also changed by the prosecution to suit their purp'ose; that all the witnesses examined by prosecution as eye witnesses ·were chance witnesses; and that the semi-digested and digested food found in stomach of the deceased B indicated that he took food about 3-4 hours prior to time of the incident and therefore, the incident must have happened at about 11 p.m. in the night and not at 6.15 p.m. as alleged by the prosecution. Disposing of the appeal, the Court c HELD : 1. The FIR is not ante timed. According to the prosecution, the incident happened at about 6.15 p.m. and the same was reported to the police at 7.35 p.m. which was registered and therefore there was no D question of ante timing of the FIR. [Para 10] [710-F-G] 2. The eye-witnesses examined in the trial cannot be said to be chance witnesses as they were the residents of the same village and at about 6.15 p.m. these eye witnesses were moving around, some were going to their agricultural field while some were coming from their respective agricultural fields. The incident had happened near a sugarcane crop which is near to the agricultural field. The time 6.15 p.m., being broad day light, the presence of the eyewitnesses at the place of occurrence is quite natural. The witnesses being the residents of the locality, their presence at the place of occurrence could E F not be considered unnatural. They had no cause to give false evidence. Accordingly, their testimonies cannot be discarded. [Para 10] [710-G-H; 711-A-B] G 3. So far as stomach of the deceased containing semi-digested and digested food is concerned, no suggestion was put by the defense to prove or elicit the H 706 SUPREME COURT REPORTS . [2009] 10 S.C.R. A information regarding the exact time of taking the food by deceased. Even if it is assumed that the food was taken 3-4 hours prior to the time of incident, it would be somewhere around 2-3 p.m., when also food could have been taken by the deceased. The defense put up by all B the three accused that they were not present and they were present elsewhere is found to be baseless. There is no reason to take a different view from what was taken by both the trial court as well as the High Court. [Para 10] [711-B-E] c 4. The plea of the defense that the time of occurrence was solely to suit the purpose and interest of the prosecution could also have not been proved by leading any evidence to establish that the incident had happened during night. Therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve D the facts put up by the prosecution that the incident had happened at about 6.15 p.m. at the place of occurrence and deceased had died out of a knife b
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.