STATE OF U.P. versus PUSSU @ RAM KISHORE

Citation: [1983] 3 S.C.R. 294 · Decided: 02-06-1983 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: E.S. VENKATARAMIAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A-
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
294 
' 
STATE OF U.P. 
v. 
PUSSU @ RAM KISHORB 
June 2, 1983 
[B.S. VENKATARAMIAH AND V. BALAKRISHNA ERADI, JJ.] 
' 
Penal Code-Section 302-HiCh Court-If could conduct a mock sc,ene of· 
occurrence in the Court. 
Right of self-defence-Aggressor-If could claim right. 
I 
.Acquittal of one of two. accused-If would bar conviction of the s~cond. 
The prosecution case against the accllsed-re5pondent was -that when the 
deceased and his wife were returnillg home from their field, he and thi~ co-
accused armed with a gun and a country-made pistol fired at the. deceased 
causing him injuries,_ that some passersby, including the two eye witnesses, 
overpowered the respondent but that he escaped· from tlreir hold and ran 
towards the co-accused who then was standing· at son1e distance, snatched the 
pistol from his hand and fired at the d.eceased while he was being ca1Tied 
towards the village. 
As a result of this shot the deceased was killed instanta-
neously a
0nd one of the witnesses sustained injuries. 
' 
The defence version, on the other hand, was that on the date and time 
of the occurrence when the two accused were going out of the vilJage the 
deceased, his servant and the injured witness assaulted them and on hearing 
their cries, the respohdenfs father-fired at the deceased in self-defence and that 
this had resulted in the death.of the decease~ and injury to the witness. 
The trial court found him guilty of the offence punishable under section 
302 .r.P .C. and sentenced him to de9-th and the co-accused with imprisonment 
for Jife. 
Before the High Court the argument for the respondent was that since 
the injuries on the person of the witness were superficial, he could ha, e been 
fired at only from a long distance and being an aged man Of 60 years, he 
could ·not have run and caught hold of the respondent before the respondent 
could reload his gun. To test the capacity of the witness to run and to asses~ 
the time taken in reloading a gun, the High Court conducied an experiment 
by asking the witness, v;•ho was·present in the court, to n1ove briskly to a certain 
distance. 
A young lawyer rresent in the Court was asked to unload and 
reload a gun exactly of the san1e n1ake as the gun used by the respondent. 
OP the basis of this experiment the High Court came to the conCiusion that 
• 
< 
• 
._, 
U.P. STATE V. PUSSU. 
295 
even if the witness, after receiving gun shot. injuries had run some distance 
towards the respondent; he could neither have caught hold of him nor could 
A 
he have prevented him from reloading his gun. Disbelieving the prosecution 
story, the High Court acquitted both the accused. 
The State's Special Leave Petition against the judgment of the High 
Court was granted only with respect to the respondent. 
On the question whether the High Court was correct .in conducting the 
experiment that it did and in coming to the concluiion that the respondent 
was not guilty of the offence of murder. 
Allowing the appeal, -
HELD : . The procedure of conducting an experiment in Court two 
years after the incident with the aid of a yoU:ng lawyer (about whose proficiency 
in handling a gun there is no authentic evidence) who was asked to handle 
a diffefent gun altogether and using the conclusion based on that experiment 
to reject the truth of the evidence of the eye witness, was .highly irregular. 
The High Court has not addressed itself to the degree of efficiency-or ineffici-
ency-of the respondent in handling a gun. The time taken by any person to 
reload a gun depends upon several factors, including the condition of the gun 
and the surcharged atmosphere created by the firing bout which may ·have 
preceded the time of reloading the gun. (301 F-H] 
Ordinarily, this Court would not interfere ·with the judgtnent of acquittal 
on mere reappreciation of evidence. But if there are glaring infirmities in the 
judgment of the High Court 2resulting in miscarriage of justice it is the duty 
of this Court to interfere. [309 F-GJ 
In the instant case· the High Court was wrong in conducting the experi· 
ment caL\fied out by it at the hearing of the appeal. Hilving been imPressed 
by its result it first rcjf.cted the evidence of the eye witness on trivial omissions 
which wouid not affect tt.e credibility Of the prosecution version on imaginary 
grounds. From the evidence it is obviOus that the two accused were armed. 
with fire arm; aµd were the aggressors. On a careful reading of the evid
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.