LexSHEESH RAM AND ORS. versus THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2014] 2 S.C.R. 155 SHEESH RAM AND ORS. v. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN (Criminal Appeal No. 191 of 2004) JANUARY 29, 2014 [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA AND RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, JJ.] A B Penal Code, 1860: s. 302 rlw s. 34 - Murder - Brutal murder and serious injury to one - Conviction by courts below c - On appeal, held: The injured witness narrated the incident and defence could not point out any dent in his evidence - The prosecution witnesses corroborated the evidence of injured witnesses - There was strong motive to commit murder as there was previous enmity between the complainant party D and the accused persons - Evidence of eye witnesses was not discrepant on the material aspect of the prosecution case and therefore reliance rightly placed on them by courts below - No interference called for with the conviction. Witness: Related/Interested witness - Evidentiary value E of - Held: Evidence of interested witness is not always a suspect - It has to be scrutinized with caution and can be accepted if it is found reliable. Evidence: Exaggeration in - Held: If the exaggeration does not change the prosecution story or convert it into an a/together new story, allowance can be made for it - If evidence of a witness is to be disbelieved merely because he has made some improvement in his evidence, there would hardly be any witness on whom reliance can be placed by the courts. Maxim: 'falsus in uno fa/sus in omnibus' - Held: Has no application in India - It is merely a rule of caution. 155 F G H 156 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 2 S.C.R. A The prosecution case was that appellant and complainant party were on inimical terms due to land disputes and an earlier murder case. On fateful day, complainant was standing with his sons on road side. At that time the offenders were going on a tractor. Seeing 13 the complainant party, they stopped the tractor and got down and attacked them. The complainant and one of his son ran towards the village. The accused gravely assaulted the elder son of the complainant and killed him. They then ran after the other son of the complainant PW- C 5 and inflicted injuries on him and considering him dead all the accused left the place. The trial court found all the · accused guilty and convicted them under Sections 148, 302 r/w Section 149 and Section 307 r/w section 149 IPC. On appeal, the High Court acquitted four accused of all the offences. The High Court further acquitted appellant- D SR of offence Sections 148, 302, 307 IPC and instead convicted him under Section 302 r/w Section 34 IPC and Section 307 r/w section 149 IPC; acquitted appellant-RM of the charges under Sections 148, 307 and 302 r/w Section 149, IPC and instead, convicted him under· E Section 302 r/w Section 34 and Section 307 r/w Section 34 of the IPC; and acquitted Appellant-R of charges under Sections 148, 302 and 307 r/w Section 149 of the IPC and instead, convicted him under Section 302 r/w Section 34 and Section 307 r/w Section 34 of the IPC. The instant F appeal was filed against the order of the High Court. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. The deceased was most brutally murdered. According to the doctor PW-12, the cause of death was haemorrhage and shock due to head injury leading to injury to brain and injury to carotid artery in neck. PW-5 was also brutally attacked. He received four incised wounds. He suffered a fracture of left parietal bone. Being an injured witness, he was the most important witness SHEESH RAM AND ORS. v. THE STATE OF 157 RAJASTHAN in the case. He described the incident in question. The A defence could not find any dent in his evidence. In fact, in the cross-examination, he gave more details about the incident in question, which were consistent with what he had stated in the examination-in-chief. He stated that Accused-B was armed with an axe, appellant-R with an axe, appellant-SR with a sword, appellant-RM with a dhariya and others were having lathis. They encircled PW- B 5, his father and brothers. His father and brother ran towards the village. Accused-R caught hold of his deceased-brother and dealt an axe blow on his head. The c deceased fell down. Appellant-SR dealt an axe blow on - the deceased when he had fallen down. Accused-RM dealt a blow with a dhariya on the right hand of the deceased. According to PW-5, thereafter, appellant-SR caught hold of him and appellant-RM hit on his left temple 0 wit
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.