STATE OF H.P. versus RAM KRISHAN

Citation: [2009] 1 S.C.R. 132 · Decided: 12-01-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009) 1 S.C.R. 132 
A 
STATE OF H.P. 
v. 
RAM KRISHAN 
(Criminal Appeal No. 553 of 2002) 
B 
JANUARY 12, 2009 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM 
SHARMA, JJ] 
Penal code, 1860: s. 302 - Accused hit deceased with a 
'tr 
c stone on left side of his head and as a result deceased 
dropped dead and slipped down the hill - Trial Court 
convicted accused under s. 302 - High Court ordered 
acquittal giving finding that before the stone hit, he had 
slipped and rolled down - Held: The finding of High Court is 
D based on surmises and conjectures - Evidence was that death 
was due to head injury and not due to fall - Order of trial court 
restored. 
Prosecution case was that respondent-accused and 
E co-accused were drunk and came to the business 
premises of the deceased and asked for eatables. When 
deceased objected, they quarreled with him and slapped 
him and started throwing goods at his business 
premises. 
F 
The deceased went to the house of PW-5 and brother 
of co-accused to inform about the incident who came 
there and requested them not to create such mischief. 
However, accused persons asked them to get lost. The 
deceased then went to the house of PW-1 and informed 
G him and PW-2, PW-3 and PW-6, present in the house 
about the incident. They inquired from accused about 
their conduct, where after accused stepped out of 
business premises of deceased and hit a stone on the 
~ 
left side of his head. As a consequence, deceased 
H 
132 
STATE OF H.P. v. RAM KRISHAN 
133 
dropped dead at the site and rolled down the hill side 
A 
upto a distance of 50 feet. The accused persons 
thereafter pelted stones on the other persons present 
there, thereby causing hurt to them. The post mortem of 
the dead body of the deceased was conducted and the 
report stated that deceased died due to injuries to brain 
B 
caused by head injury. 
The trial court convicted the accused persons under 
s.302 IPC and ordered acquittal under ss. 452, 427 and 
323 IPC. High Court affirmed the order of acquittal as done 
C 
by trial court and also directed acquittal under s.302 IPC. 
Hence the present appeal. 
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. There is no dispute that the deceased o 
died out of a head injury. PWs 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 were eye 
witnesses and all of them stated that the accused-
respondent hit the deceased on the left side of the head 
with the stone and he rolled down. Thus, there was no 
material before the High Court to come to a conclusion 
E 
that the death occurred due to fall. The High Court came 
to a peculiar finding that it might be possible that before 
the stone hit the head of the deceased, he slipped and 
rolled down. There was no material on record in this 
regard~ [Para 5] [137-B-D] 
1.2. The High Court's conclusion is that no one 
examined the body of the deceased before it rolled down 
F 
to ascertain whether he was alive or dead. It is relevant 
that all the eye witnesses stated about the assault of the 
head of the deceased by the accused with the stone. At G 
least five of the injuries were on the head, which can be 
related to the assault by the stone and more particularly 
injury No. 9 viz. the fracture in the left temporal region 
which was described as the fatal injury. Since the High 
Court's order is based on surmises and conjectures, it 
H 
134 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 1 S.C.R. 
A cannot be sustained and is set aside and the order of 
conviction recorded by the trial court stands restored. 
[Para 6] [137-E-F] 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
8 No. 553 of 2002. 
From the final Judgment and Order dated 2.8.2001 of the 
High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in Criminal Appeal 
No. 532 of 1999. 
c 
Naresh K. Sharma (for J.S. Attri) for the Appellant. 
K. Sarada Devi for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
D 
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is 
to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Himachal Pradesh 
High Court directing acquittal of the respondent. The Division 
Bench had disposed of two appeals, one by the accused and 
the other by the State, both questioning correctness of the 
E judgment passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mandi. 
As noted above, while the accused questioned his conviction 
for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, the State's 
appeal was against the acquittal in respect of offences 
punishable under Sections 452, 427 and 323 IPC so far as 
F Respondent Ram Krishan is concerned and 

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