LexSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH versus HET RAM & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
J
'"'
r
3 19
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
v.
HET RAM & ORS.
February 3, 1976
[R. S. SARKARIA AND P. N. SHINGHAL, JJ.J
Local irupection-"Anv place in which an offe11ce fa· {/llcged to ha\'e been
conunittcd or any other Place which it is in his opinion necessary to view for
!he purpose of properly appreciating the evidence", n1eans only the renue of
ofie11ce and no other p!ace..__code of Crbninal Procedure (Act 5), 1898-
Section 539 B, object of.
A
B
The respondents we_re convicted by the Sessions Judge for the offence under
s. 302/34, J.P.C. for committing the murder of one Rati Ram and sentenced
C
to rigorous imprisonment for life. They were also convicted under s. 307134
I.P.C. for causing grievous injury to Raja Ram (PW 2) with intent to commit
his murder and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years.
They were,
however, given the benefit of doubt and acquitted of the murder of Nainsuk
brother-in-Jaw of Rati Ram. The convictions were based on the dying declara-
tion and the seven incise wounds on Rati Ram and 26 incised wounds on
Raja Ram and also on the evidence of Raja Ram (PW 2) and Dwarika
(PW 3) who identified the respondents as the assailants.
The offence took
place in the early hours of 24th December 1971 (About 330 A.J\t) and it
D
was the admitted case that it was a dark night.
During the pendency of the appeal by the respondents, the learned Judges
of the High Court acting under s. 539B, Cr.P.C., 1,ve11t \\'ith the Government
Advocate and the respondents' counsel on 11-1-1974 to a place where there
\Vas no artificial light at about 7.30 p.m. for the purpose of appreciating the
veracity of the evidence of Ra_ia Ram (PW 2) and Dwarika (PW 3) tendered
at the trial in identifying the respondents in darkness. Finding that under the
E
circumstances noticed by them, it was difficult to recognise a person, the High
Court disbelieved the evidence of PW2 and PW3 and acquitted the respondents.
AJJowing the appeal by special leave, and remitting the case for rehearing,
the Court,
HELD : ( 1) Section 539B of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, con-
templates the lo:;al inspection of the topography of the place in which the offence
was alleged to have been committed or its local peculiarities for the purpose
F
of appreciating the evidence which was already on the record.
[322FJ
(2) Jn the instant case, the procedure adopted by the Judges in visiting
quite a different place, on a time unconnected with the time of the allep-Pt 1
inci~ent, f?r the purposes of dec~din.g whether the witnesses could identify the
assailants 1n the darkness was quite illegal and it was not permissible for them
to dispose of the case on the basis of their own findinp:s vdthout regard to
the evidence \Vhich \Vas already on record.
f324A-B]
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No, 79 of
l 975.
(Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and
1 5-1-1974 of the Allahabad High Court in
Criminal
2545/72).
0. P. Rana, for the appellant.
Order dated
Appeal
No.
YogeJhwar Prasad and Miss Rani Arora, for the respondent.
G
ll
320
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1976] 3 S.C.R.
A
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
SHINGHAL, J.-The Sessions Judge of Farukhabad convicted res-
pondents Het Ram, Sobran and Ram Pal of an offence under section
302/34 l.P.C. for committing the murder of Rati Ram, and sentenc-
ed them to rigorous imprisonment for life.
He also convicted them
of an offence under section 307 /34 I.P.C. for causing grievous injury
to Raja Ram (P.W. 2) with intent to commit his murder, and sen-
tenced them to rigorous imprisonment for ten years.
The respon-
dents were given benefit of doubt in regard to the murder of one
Nain Sukh, brother-in-law of Rati Ram, and were acquitted.
While
no appeal was preferred against the acquittal, the accused went up in
appeal to the High Coc1rt of Judicature at Allahabad, which took the
view that the prosecution had failed to establish the guilt beyond
reasonable doubt.
The High Court allowed the appeal by its judg-
ment dated January 15, 1974, and set aside the conviction and the
sentences of the accused.
The State of Uttar Pradesh has therefore
filed the present appeal by special leave.
The controversy in this Court centres round a short point but, in
order to appreciate it, it will be necessary to make a brief mention of
some of the facts.
It was alleged by the prosecution that there was a disputExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.