SH. MANI RAM AND ORS. versus THE STATE OF UITAR PRADESH

Citation: [1994] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 63 · Decided: 13-05-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.M. SAHAI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
SH. MANI RAM AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
THE STATE OF UITAR PRADESH 
MAY 13, 1994 
[R.M .. SAHA!, FAIZAN UDDIN AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.] 
B 
Indian Penal Code, I860: SectionsI47, 148, 149 and 302. 
Murder-l'rosecutio!t-Examination of interested witness-Withhold-
ing of independent witnesses--Conviction based on solitary interested wit-
ness-Held invalid. 
Indian Evidence Ac~ 1872 : 
c 
MurdeJ-Evidence of prosecution witness--lnconsistency with medical 
evidence-{}nless satisfactorily explained discredits not only evidence but also D 
entire prosecution case. 
In a murder trial the brother of the deceased deposed that on the 
date of occurrence when he along with bis brother was returning to his 
village after marketing the appellants armed with pistols and lathls, 
emerged from a sugarcane field and surrounded them. On being chal· E 
lenged by one of the appellants, his brother started running whereupon 
two of the appellants fired at .him from behind while he was running and 
rest of the appellants assaulted him with lathis which resulted in his death. 
He also deposed that his cries for help attracted the attention of three 
persons belonging to his village who reached the spot and saw the occur-
rence. But these persons who were independent witnesses were not ex· 
amined by the prosecution._ Moreover, the testimony of the brother of 
deceased was inconsistent with medical evidence which revealed that there 
was no gun shot injury either on the back or anywhere behind the shoulder 
of the deceased. 
Relying on the solitary evidence of the deceased's brother the trial 
court convicted the appellants holding that bis testimony was reliable and 
free from all taints. On appeal, the High Court affirmed the conviction . 
F 
G 
In appeal to this Court, it was contended on behalf of tlie appellants 
that the findings of the two Courts below suffer from serious infirmity and H 
63 
64 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 
A 
the conviction of the appellants could not be sustained becanse the tes· 
timony of the brother of the deceased who was an interested witness was 
not only inconsistent with medical evidence but also was without any 
corroboration from independent source. 
B 
c 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1. If the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is totally 
inconsistent with the ·medical evidence this is a most fnndamental defect 
in the prosecution case and unless this inconsistency is reasonably ex· 
plained it is sufficient not only to discredit the evidence but the entire case • 
. i 
[69-D-E] 
2. In the present case the evidence of the solitary witness Is wholly 
inconsistent with the medical evidence, because no injury was found on the 
back or back portion of the shoulder of the deceased to lend support to 
his evidence. Therefore, It is unsafe to accept him as an eye .witness to the 
D occurrence and base the conviction on his evidence. [69-E; Fl 
E 
F 
G 
3. Where the direct evidence is not supported by the expert evidence 
then the evidence is wanting in the most material part of the prosecution 
case and, therefore, it is difficult to convict the accused on the basis of 
such evidence. [69·C·D] 
4. None of the independent witnesses, who arrived at the place of 
occurrence just at the moment when the assault was being made on the 
deceased, has been examined by the prosecution. The prosecution withheld 
the independent witnesses and had only chosen to examine the interested 
witness who is the real brother of the deceased. There is no other evidence 
to support the prosecution case. Consequently the conviction of the appel· 
tauts is set aside. [68-E; 68-F; 69-F] 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 
238 of 1993. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 18.5.92 of the Allahabad High 
Court in Cr!. A. No. 2063 of 1979. 
M.S. Ganesh and Ms. S. J anani for the Appellants. 
H 
Anis Ahmed Khan and A.S. Pundir for the Respondents. 
• 
MANI RAM v. STATEOFU.P. (FAIZANUDDIN,J.] 
65 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
A 
FAIZAN UDDIN, J. The appellants Mani Ram, Agya Ram, Ram-
jiyawan, Kewal, Sant Ram, Siyaram and Janjali were charged and tried 
under Sections 147, 148. and 302/149 of the Penal Code for committing the 
murder of one Basdeo at about 4.00 PM on 27.1.1978. The learned IVth B 
Additional Sessions Judge, Basti in Sessions Trial No. 195/78 convicted the 
appellants Mani Ram and Agya Ram Under Sections 148 and 302 read 
with Section 149 of the Penal Code and sentenced the

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