STATE OF U.P. versus RAM BAHADUR SINGH AND ORS.

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 1139 · Decided: 29-10-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.G. BALAKRISHNAN · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

STATE OF U.P. 
A 
v. 
RAM BAHADUR SINGH AND ORS. 
OCTOBER 29, 2003 
[K.G. BALAKRISHNAN AND B.N. AGRAWAL, JJ.] 
B 
Penal Code, I 860 : 
S. 302 read withs. 34-Serious infirmities in prosecution case-Effect 
of-Property dispute between complainant party and accused persons- C 
Prosecution case that wordy altercation followed by two gun shots fired 
by one of the accused hitting one of the complainant party causing his 
death on the spot-Trial court convicting the accused who was alleged to 
have fired gunshots u/s 302134-Acquittal by High Court noticing serious 
infirmities in prosecution case-Held, oral evide11ce inconsistent with D 
medical evidence-Serious injuries caused to accused-All these not 
satisfactorily explained by prosecution-This creates suspicion-Under 
the circumstances, High Court took a plausible view-Not a fit case to 
interfere with in exercise of jurisdiction u.'1der Article I 36 of the 
Constitution-Constitution of India-Article I 36. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 
1787 of 1996. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 15.2.96 of the Allahabad High 
Court in Crl. A. No. 457 of 1979. 
WITH 
Cr!. A. No. 1358 of 2003. 
E 
F 
R.K. Singh, J.K. Bhatia for Pramod Swamp, P.K. Jain for the G 
Appellant. 
S.C. Maheshwari, Ms. Sandhya Goswami and M.P.S. Tomar for the 
Respondents. 
The Order of the Court was delivered : 
1139 
H 
1140 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A 
Leave granted in SLP (CRL) No. 1064/1996. 
Criminal Appeal No. 1787/1996 has been preferred by the State of 
U.P. against the judgment of the High Court of Judicature of Allahabad 
at Lucknow in Criminal Appeal No. 457 of 1979. Against the very same 
B _judgment one private party has also filed a Criminal Appeal by way of 
Special leave. In both these appeals the acquittal of four accused persons 
is challenged. Accused were tried by the 5th Additional Sessions Judge·, 
Barabanki alleging that they caused the death of Onkar Nath Singh. The 
incident occurred on 6.12.1974 at 4.30 p.m. There was property dispute 
between Onkar Nath Singh on the one hand and the accused persons. On 
C the date of the incident, PW-4 Jagdish Baksh Singh was ploughing his field 
with a tractor. The accused persons raised objections to the ploughing of 
the field by Jagdish Baksh Singh. It seems that there was wordy alterc~tion. 
Accused Bhanu Pratap Singh, who was armed with a gun, fired a shot and 
hit on the chest of Onkar Nath Singh. Onkar Nath Singh tried to run away 
D from the place, then he was shot again. Onkar Nath Singh fell on the ground 
after running few paces. PW-I Bikram Shah Singh and PW.-4 Jagdish 
Baksh Singh snatched the gun from Bhanu Pratap Singh. Onkar Nath Singh 
died-on the spot. First information statement was given by PW-1 at about 
7.15 P.M. on the same day and PW-8 recorded the same and started 
E investigation of the case. 
PW-3 Dr. V.N. Agarwal examined the dead body of Onkar Nath 
Singh and prepared Ext. Ka-3 post-mortem report. There were two injuries 
on the body of deceased Onkar Nath Singh. One gun shot wound of entry 
6 cm. x 4 cm. tissue deep on front of left side chest upper part and other 
F exit injury of I cm. x I cm. tissue deep on right side back lower part with 
direction fmward and upward. Doctor opined death was due to shock and 
haemorrhage. The Sessions Judge found all the four accused persons guilty 
of murder. Bhanu Pratap Singh was convicted for the offence under section 
302 simplicitor and the other tliree accused persons were convicted for the 
G offence under section 302 read with section 34. 
In the appeal preferred by the accused persons, the High Court found 
that there were serious infirmities in the prosecution case. It is found that 
oral evidence given by the eye witnesses was inconsistent with the medical 
H evidence given by PW-3. As per the oral evidence, the accused Bhanu 
• 
STATE v. RAM BAHADUR SINGH AND ORS. 
1141 
Pratap Singh was standing at a distance of 18 to 20 feet away from the A 
deceased Onkar Nath Singh when he fired. Oral evid~nce to the effect that 
tatooning and scorching was present on the adjoining skin, that could have 
been caused only ifthe firing had been done from a distance of four feet. 
Reason given by the High Court cannot be said to be perverse or 
unreasonable. It may also be noted that the accused Bhanu Pratap Singh B 
had sustained serious injuries on his body. He was examined by Dr. PW-
l A.P. Mahanti. One injury was incised wound on the
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.