STATE OF U.P. versus RAJA RAM AND ORS.

Citation: [2007] 7 S.C.R. 1085 · Decided: 20-06-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

--J 
STATEOFU.P. 
A 
v. 
RAJA RAM AND ORS. 
JUNE 20, 2007 
[DR. ARIJIT PASA YAT AND D.K. JAIN, JJ.] 
B 
Penal Code, 1860-s. 302 rlw s. 34-Assault by six accused-On 
exhortation by one accused other accused assaulted the victim-Conviction 
under s. 302 rlw s. 147, 148 and 149-High Court altering conviction of C 
three accused to s. 302 r/w"s. 34 and acquitted the other three-Acquittal 
challenged-Held: Order of High Court justified since prosecution case 
against the three accused was not free from doubt and that the evidence of 
prosecution witnesses was not cogent with regard to these -rccused 
According to the prosecution, on the fateful day respondents surrounded D 
YC in the field, RR and RN were armed with spears and others were armed 
with la this. On exhortation of accused RP, RR and RN assaulted YP with spear 
and others assaulted YP with the arms which subsequently resulted in his 
death. Victim raised alarm and PW 1, 2 and 3 came to the place of incident 
and thereafter, accused persons ran away. FIR was lodged. Investigation was 
carried out. Respondents were convicted under s. 302 read with ss. 149, 148 E 
and 147 IPC. Respondents filed appeal. High Court set aside the co_nviction 
and sentence of respondents 4 to 6. However, the conviction of RR, RN and 
RP was altered to section 302 read with section 34 IPC. Hence the present 
appeal 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
F 
HELD: 1.1. High Court has noted that prosecution case against D, CL 
and S is not free from doubt. They were alleged to be armed with lathi. In the 
FIR there was a clear statement that these respondents also assaulted the 
deceased with lathi. PW-1 in his examination in chief also stated that all the G 
assailants having lathi were continuously hitting the deceased with lathis. 
However, PWs 2 and 3, in their deposition made an improvement and developed 
---<-
the case that only RP respondents struck a lathi blow on the head of the 
deceased, but the acquitted three simply waved their lathis to thwart away the 
1085 
H 
1086 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007) 7 S.C.R. 
A witnesses. It appears that since deceased had only one blunt object injury 
which is specifically attributed to RP alone, the prosecutor did not hesitate to 
develop the case through the evidence of PWs 2 and 3 that these respondents 
did not strike any blow of lathi on the deceased but they simply threatened 
the witnesses by brandishing lathis. No such case was put forward in the FIR 
B or at the investigation stage. Therefore, High Court, extended benefit of doubt 
to D, CL and Sand acquitted them of the offences charged for. (Para 8] 
I 1088-E, F, G, HI 
1.2. The reasoning of the High Court does not suffer from any infirmity. 
The High Court rightly observed that PWs 2 and 3 tried to introduce different 
C versions from what has been stated during investigation. Their version .was 
altered to be in line with medical evidence. Therefore, the High Court has 
rightly held that the evidence is not cogent so far as they were concerned. 
(Para 9] (1089-A, Bl 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 1362 of 
D 2002. 
From the Judgment and Order dated of the 23.2.2001 of the High Court 
of Judicature at Allahabad in Cr!. A. No. 838 of 1985. 
Sahciev Singh and Mohd. Fuzail Khan (for Anuvrat Sharma) for the 
Appellant. 
K. Sarada Devi for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
F 
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. I. The State ofU.P. is in appeal against the 
judgment of the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court directing acquittal 
of the present respondents 4 to 6 while 
1Jpholding the conviction of 
respondents 1 to 3 namely, Raja Ram, Ram Nath, and Ram Prasad, with the 
alteration that they were convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of 
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'IPC'), instead of Section 302 read with 
G Section 149 IPC. Conviction for c-ffences punishable under Sections 147 and 
148 IPC was set aside. The High Court set aside the conviction of Devender, 
Chhotey Lal and Subhash who are respondents 4 and 6 in this appeal. 
2. Respondents faced trial for alleged commission of offence punishable 
unC:<!r Section 302 read with Sections 149, 148 and 147 of the Indian Penal 
H Code, 1860 (in short 'IPC'). The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ballia 
STATEOFU.P. v. RAJA RAM [PASAYAT,J.) 
1087 
found the accused persons guilty and sentenced each to undergo imprisonment A 
for life and one year respectively in respect of three of
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.