SHEELAM RAMESH AND ANR. versus STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

Citation: [1999] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 589 · Decided: 12-10-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.T. NANAVATI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

SHEELAM RAMESH AND ANR. 
A 
v 
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH 
OCTOBER 12, 1999 
[G.T. NANAVATI AND S.N. PHUKAN, JJ.] 
B 
Criminal Trial: 
Murde~Identification of accused-Source of light-Sufficiency 
of-Accused members of Peoples War Group firing at one of the ex-members C 
of the said Groui:r-Accused already known to the eye witnesses-Eye wit-
nesses deposing that they could identify the accused due to street lights and 
lights coming from the neighbouring shops-Held, there was sufficient light 
for identification of accused. 
Criminal Procedure Code, 197~Section 154-FlR-Filing of-Mur-
D 
der-l'olice Station at a short distance-FIR-Delay in lodging -Effect 
of-Accused members of PWG am1ed with weapons firing at one of three 
ex-members of the said Group-One of the eye witnesses rushing to the police 
station at a distance-Injured taken to hospital where he succumbed to his 
injuries 55 minutes after the incident-Inf onnant returning to police station E 
and logding FIR after 5 minutes-Held, it is natural human conduct for an 
inf onnant to run first to the hospital and ensure that injured gets medical 
heli:r-Thus, there is no delay in lodging the FIR-Penal Code, 1860, S.302 
r/w S.34-Anns Act, 1959-S.27-Tmorist and Disruptive Activities (Preven-
tion) Act, 1987 Ss.3(2) (i) (ii) and 5. 
Penal Code, 1860-Ss.302 and 34-Murde~ommon intention-/'re-
a"anged plan to cause death-Use of fire anns established-Held, conviction 
sustainable. 
F 
Evidence Act, 1872---Witnesses-Examination of eye witnesse~o in-
G 
dependent witnesses examined-Effect of-Held, non-examination of inde-
pendent witnesses, cannot be a ground to discard the eye witness---Conviction 
can be based on sole evidence of a witness if it inspires confidence-Courts 
concerned with quality and not quantity of evidence. 
Accused-appellants were prosecuted for offences under S.302 IPC H 
589 
590 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A read with S.34 IPC, S.27 of the Arms Act, 1959 and Ss.3(2) (i) (ii) and 5 
of Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987. According 
to the prosecution, accused- appellants were members of Peoples War 
Group (PWG). According to the prosecution, on the fateful day, while 'R' 
PWs 1 and 2, all ex-members of PWG were siting in front of a Hair Cutting 
B Saloon, accused appellants armed with pistol and tamanchas came and 
fired at 'R'. PW-1 rushed to the police station at a distance, brought the 
police and took the injured to the hospital. 'R' succumbed to his injuries 
in the hospital 55 minutes after the incident. Thereafter, PW! returned 
to the police station and lodged FIR after 5 minutes. Trial Court relying 
upon the evidence of PWs 1 to 4 convicted and sentenced the accused. 
C Hence the present appeal. 
On behalf of accused-appellants it was contended that there was a 
delay of one hour in filing the FIR though the police station was at a 
distance of 200 ft. from the place of occurrence; that there was no suffi-
D dent light for identification of accused and that no independent witnesses, 
though present at the time of occurrence were examined by the prosecu-
tion. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
E 
HELD : 1. There was no delay in filing the FIR. The evidence shows 
that the offence took place at 7 .00 p.m. and PW 1 rushed to the police station 
and came back to the place of occurrence with police. It was natural human 
conduct for the informant PW 1 to run towards the police station as the 
deceased had suffered injuries. His first duty, in addition to his safety, was 
to bring police to the place of occurrence and to ensure that medical help was 
F given to the deceased. He came back to the place of occurrence with police 
and the deceased was taken to the hospital where he succumbed to his in-
juries at 7.55 p.m. Immediately, thereafter, within 5 minutes PW 1 returned 
to the police station and lodged the formal FIR. 
[593-D; E 594-A; BJ 
. 
G 
2. It cannot be accepted that there was no sufficient light for identifica-
tion of the accused by PWs 1 and2. PWs 1 and2 were the ex-members of PWG 
and therefore, accused persons were known to them. In cross-examination of 
PW 1, it was brought out that he could identify the accused due to street 
lights and lights coming from the neighbouring shops. PW 2 has deposed 
that he knew the accused even before the incident and he was able to identify 
H them in the light. It is true that this fact was not stated by PW 2 in his 
SHEELAM RAMESH v. STATE 
591 
stateme

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