LexSHRI RAM & ANOTHER versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
SHRI RAM & ANOTHER v. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH November 6, 1974 [Y. V. CHANDRACHUD AND P. N, BHAGWATI, JJ,] A Indian Penal Code, Section 107, third paragraph_:.Abetment, meaning of- B Proof that crime charged could not have been committed without the interposi· tion of alleged abettor, i/ sufficie111 compliance with the section. Crirrfinal Trial-Conduct of shouting by accused during the occurrence- Court 1101 justified in heaping on,e assumption 011 another ta particular conduct of accused a meaning it does not naturally bear. Code of Criminal Procedure, Section 342-Fai/ure of accused to explain her shout in her statement-Adverse inference, if could be drawn-Accused, if could C rubiected to cross-examination. Criminal Trial-Identification parade, a weak type of evidence-Oral testi· mony of prosecution witness, if should be corroborated by evidence of identifica- tiqn-Accused asking for an identification parade, a circumstance, in his favour. Three brothers by the name of Sia Ram, Shri Ram and Ram Chandra, a woman by the name of Vio1et, and her son Ramesh were tried by the learned Sessions Judge Farrukhabad, in connection· with the murder of one Kunwar D Singh. The learned Judge convicted Sia Ram under section 302, Penal Code and sentenced him to death. Violet was convicted under section 302 read with section I 09 and was sentenced to imprisonment for life. The remaining three accused were acquitted by th~ Sessions Court. . Sia Ram and Violet challenged their conviction by filing an appeal in the High Court while the State of U.P. filed an appeal against the acquittal of Shri Ram, Ram Chandra and Ramesh,. The High Court confirmed the conviction and sentence of Sia Ram and Violet. It dismissr.d the appeal filed by ·the State Government except in regard to Shri E Ram whom it convicted under section 302 read with section 109. He was sen· tenced to imprisonment for life. Shri Ram, Sia Ram and Violet have filed these appeals by special leave. Allowing the appeals by Sltri Ram and Violet and rejecting that of Sia Ram, HELD : ( i) The only part attributed to Violet is that on seeing the deceased Kunwar Singh, a practising lawyer, who was coming by cycle along with his two brother-lawyers, Brijendra Singh Yadav and Om Prakash Dubey, sbe shouted "The Vakil has come." The Sessions Court and the High Court have accepted the evidence that she did give the particular shout. In accordance with the prac- tice of this Court, no different view ought to be taken of these simple facts. [625A-C] (ii) In ordE!r to constitute ab1:tment, the abettor must be shown to have "intentionally" aided the commis11ion of the crime. Mere proof that the crime charged could not have been committed withour the interposition of the alleged abettor is not enough complianc1~ with the requirements of section W7. Inten· tional aid and therefore active complicity is the gist of' the offence of abetment under the third paragraph of sec. 107. [625E·F] (iii) Apart from the words attributed to Violet, there is nothing at all to show that she was aware of the nefarious design of Sia Ram and his associates. Violet who was working as a nurse with a doctor was friendly with Sia Ram who was his compounder but that may explain why, if at all, she agreed to do as directed. It is true that the assailants were carrying guns and hockey sticks. But on that account no fair inference can be drawn that she knew that they had all gathered to commit the m_urder of Kunwar Singh. The Court cannot heap one· assumption on another to give to Violet's conduct a meaning which it does not naturally F G H 'A . SHRI RAM v. U.P:.STATE (ChDndrachud, /.) 623 bear. The words of Violet are at best in the nature Of a · cirCumstance and they do not, without more, necessarily justify the inference that she was a party lo the murderous design. [6250-H] · (iv) The High Court found fault with Violet for not having offered any ex- . plana tion during the trial as to why she uttered the. particular words. This ap- , roach. is impermissible. The burden was on the prosecution to establish its case ti\~.··~.;· and no adverse inference could be-Yaised against Violet for her·failure to explain ,.. bet utterance. Besides, an acc\JSed cannot while being examined under section 34 2 of the Code of Crimin~! Procedure be subjected to cross-examination and a bald assertion to explain a piece of conduct almost always fails io convince. There
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.