STATE OF U.P. versus RAM KUMAR & ORS.

Citation: [2017] 7 S.C.R. 850 · Decided: 20-07-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. SIKRI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
[2017} 7 S.C.R. 850 
STATE OF U.P. 
v. 
RAM KUMAR & ORS. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1584 of2010) 
JULY20,2017 
[A. K. SIKRI AND ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860 - s. 302 - Murder - Prosecution case that 
week before the incident altercation between informant and his step 
brothers-accused person - On the fatefiil day, accused person with 
the common intention of murdering the informant came and ii?iured 
the informant, killed his wife by using firearms and caused death of 
one, and two children by putting the whole house to fire - Award of 
capital punishment by trial court - However, acquittal by High 
Court, since prosecution failed to prove the guilt of accused - On 
appeal, held: High Court relied on small inconsistencies and 
untenable grounds to set aside the well considered judgment of the 
trial court - Evidence of PWJ and PW2 regarding incident and 
identity of the accused rightly believed by trial court - Burning of 
lantern being fidly proved, the High Court erred in holding that 
lantern was not burning and that the accused could not have been 
identified - Also, FIR was not ante timed and ante dated - Thus, 
order passed by the High Court set aside - Capital punishment 
reduced to life imprisonment. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. It is clear that the High Court concluded that 
lantern was not burning since, had the lantern been burning, there 
would have certainly been blackening on the peg and on the wall 
near to it. The trial court noticed the evidence and gave reason 
for holding that blackening on the wall was not there since the 
lantern was burning and hanging on a peg which was a long one. 
PW.1 stated that lantern was hanging on the peg in the midst of 
two doors. He stated that wall was never blackened since the 
peg was one hand long and thick; and that lantern was covered 
hence, no blackening was on the wall. [Para 26] [864-G-H; 865-
A] 
850 
STATE OF U.P. v. RAM KUMAR & ORS. 
851 
2. The trial court believed the statement of PW.1 and held 
A 
that the statement of PW.1 that there would not have been any 
blackening on the wall due to the long peg is correct. The High 
Court, thus, without any valid and cogent reason disbelieved the 
burning of lantern at the relevant time which was proved source 
of light. As regards a question put in the cross-examination to · B 
PW.1 that light of lantern cannot go beyond 8 feet, the trial court 
returned finding that accused were at a distance of only 7 to 8 
feet from the witness and were recognized in the lantern light by 
the PW.I. Further, it has come on the evidence that the IO when 
visited the scene of occurrence at 12.30 a.m. in the night itself 
lantern was shown by 'P' another son of informant and the lantern 
C 
was given in the superdagi of 'P'. The High Court noted the 
statement of IO in regard to the lantern. The statement of the IO 
was not to the effect that there was no blackening on the wall. 
Statement was that he does not recollect as to whether there was 
blackening on the wall or on the peg or not. The High Court 
proceeded on the premises that it was stated that there was no 
blackening on the wall. The very premise of the High Court, thus, 
D 
to reject the burning of the lantern is fallacious and is the result 
of the misreading of the statement of the IO. [Paras 27-30] [865-
B-G] 
3. Accused were all family members and well known to the 
witnesses. 'RP' was step brother of informant, his sons and 
nephew were with him. Informant also stated that 'RP' exhorted 
the accused to kill 'ML'. There cannot be any mistake regarding 
identification of the family mem hers who apart from being family 
members are residing in the nearby houses. The evidence of 
PW.2 regarding identification of the accused was also rightly 
believed by the trial court. PW.2 stated that when he along with 
other family members bolted themselves in his Kothari, the 
accused came and asked him to open the door. They told PW.2 to 
open the door, they will not kill'. He further stated that when he 
did not open the door, they put the house on fire. PW.2 further 
stated that he had seen the accused from 'Jhiri' of the door. He 
further stated that he recognised them by their voices and also 
when the house was lit on fire, in its light he recognised the 
accused. There was sufficient evidence on the record which was 
E 
F 
G 
H 
852 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 7 S.C.R. 
A 
rightly believed by the trial court that all the accus

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