STATE OF RAJASTHAN versus CHANDGI RAM & ORS.

Citation: [2014] 13 S.C.R. 1121 · Decided: 09-09-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: F.M. IBRAHIM KALIFULLA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2014] 13 S.C.R. 1121 
STATE OF RAJASTHAN 
V. 
CHANDGI RAM & ORS. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 937 of 2008) 
SEPTEMBER 09, 2014 
[FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRFAHIM KALIFULLA AND . 
SHIVA KIRTI S_INGH, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Penal Code, 1860 -
s. 302 r/w 34 and s. 452 - c 
Prosecution case that victim beaten mercilessly with iron rod, 
iron pipe and lathis by each of the accused, resulting in his 
death - Incident took place in the night in a remote vii/Age 
where sufferers of the incident were widow and her two minor 
children - Conviction and sentence uls. 302134 ands. 452-
0 
Set aside by High Court - On appeal, held: High Court not 
justified in interfering with the order of conviction - Eye 
witnesses account of the witnesses-wife, minor children and 
others, convincing and corroborative as regards the 
occurrence- Testimony of the said witnesses should not be E 
discarded solely on the ground that they were related to the 
deceased - Recoveries of the weapons, medical evidence 
and FSL reports supported the prosecution case -
Furthermore, the plea that there was delay in lodging of the 
FIR cannot be accepted - Thus, the judgment of the High 
Court is set aside and that of the trial court is restored -
-F 
Evidence - Witnesses. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 The reasoning of the Division Bench in 
concluding that the offence was not made out, was G 
mainly on the ground thatthere was delay in the lodging 
of the FIR and the conduct of the witnesses as spoken 
to by them did not inspire confidence. When the High 
Court interfered with the conviction imposed by the trial 
court, it ought to have examined the evidence H 
1121 
1122· 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014] 13 S.C.R. 
A meticulously and expressed cogent and convincing 
reasons as to why· the detailed cbnsideration of the 
evidence did not inspire confidence in order to interfere 
with the conclusion of the trial court. The High Court 
miserablyfailed'to carry out the said exercise and without 
B assigning reasons, much less convincing reasons, 
chose to interfere with the conviction imposed by the 
trial court in a light hearted manner. [Para 28][1139-F-H; 
1140-A-B] 
1.2 The eye witnesses account of the concerned 
C witnesses PW-1-wife of deceased, PW-3-daughter of 
deceased aged 7 % years, PW-15-son of deceased aged 
6 years and PW-8 and PW-12 were all convincing and 
were corroborative in every minute aspect of the 
occurrence, the involvement of each one of the accused, 
D the weapons used by them in that process and the 
ultimate death of the d_eceased after such severe beating 
with the weapons used. The evidence of the witnesses 
. should' not be discarded solely on the ground that the 
·said witnesses are related to the deceased. Their version 
E was natural and there was nothing to suspect their 
version in narrating the occurrence. The defence version 
was rightly. rejected by the trial court as the same was 
wholly unreliable. Apart from eye witnesses account, it 
· is found thatthe recoveries of the weapons, the medical 
F evidence and the FSL reports fully supported the case 
of the prosecution. The judgment of the trial court ought 
not to have been interfered by the High Court. Therefore,. 
the judgment of the High Court is set aside and that of 
G 
H 
the trial court is restored. [Para 29, 30][1140-~-F] 
Surinder Singh v. State of Punjab 1989 Supp. (2) 
SCC 21 ; Lahu Kamlakar Patil and Another v. State 
of Maharashtra 2012 (9) SCR 1173 : (2013) 6 
. sec 417 - distinguised. 
STATE OF RAJASTHANv. CHANDGI RAM &ORS. 
1123 
. State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ramesh and another 
A 
2011 (5) scR 1 : (2011) 4 sec 786 ; 
Shivasharanappa and others v. State of Karnataka 
2013 (5) SCR 1104: (2013) 5 SCC 705; Mano 
Dutt and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh 2012 
(3 ) SCR 686 : (2012) 4 SCC 79 ; Dinesh Kumar 
B 
v. State of Rajasthan 2008 (11) SCR 843: (2008) 
· 8 SCC 270 ; · Yeshwant and others The State of 
Maharashtra 1973 (1) SCR 291 : (1972) 3 SCC 
639 ; Kansa Behera v. State of Orissa 1987 (2) 
SCR 1096 : (1987) 3 SCC 480 ; Raghunath v. 
C 
State of Haryana and another 2002 (4) Suppl. 
SCR 130 : (2003) 1 SCC 398 ; Din Dayal v. Raj 
Kumar alias Raju and Others (1999) SCC (Crl.) 
892 ; Mahtab Singh and Another v. State of Uttar 
Pradesh 2009 (5) SCR 848: (2009) 13 SCC 670 
D 
- referred to. 
CASE LAW REFERENCE 
1973 (1) SCR 291 
referred to 
Para 7 
j987 (2) SCR 1096 
referred to 
Para 7, 27 
E 
(1999) sec (Crl.) 892 
referred to 
Para 7, 25 
2002 (4) Suppl. SCR 130 referr
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.