LexTHE STATE OF PUNJAB versus SURJA RAM
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c THE STATE OF PUNJAB v. SURJA RAM AUGUST 9, 1995 [M.K. MUKHERJEE AND G.T. NANAVATI, JJ.) Criminal Law : Indian Penal Code, 1860 : S.302 read with s.3~urder--Triaf-Conviction by trial Court-Ac- quittal by High Court-Appeal against acquittal-Held in appeal against acquittal recorded by High Court. Supreme Court does not ordinarily interfere, but if relevant and reliable evidence on record found to have been ignored or brnshed aside for reasons wholly unsustainable, the Court will not only justify D but it will be its duty to interfere with acquittal and make amends for failure of justice--Findings recorded by High Court not sustainable-Trial Court justified in convicting accused on evidence on record-Order of acquittal recorded by High Court set aside and order of conviction and sentence of life imprisonment passed by trial Court restored. E F Respondent no. 1 and his three sons were charged for offences under s.302 read with Section 34 IPC. The prosecution case was that the accused party and the victims were members of one family. On a family partition, a dispute arose between the parties with regard to share in standing crops. On 18.4.1982, at about 5 p.m., when the brother of respondent no. 1 was sitting outside his house, respondent no. 1 accompanied by his three sons reached there. Respondent no. 1 was armed with a spear, respondent no. 2 was armed with a pistol and the remaining two were armed with a kirpan and a soti respectively. Respondent no. 1 shouted at his brother that he should be taught a lesson for not giving the share of the crops. The latter G tried to rush into his house, when respondent no. 2 fired at him, as a result of which he fell down. Respondent no. 1 inflicted a spear blow on his chest. The victim died at the spot. PW .2, daughter of the deceased, and PW .3 raised an alarm. All the four assailants then ran towards the field shouting that they would not spare the sons of the deceased. PW .2 and PW .3 also ran towards the field where the sons of the deceased were working. On H seeing the accused- party, one of the sons of the deceased fled away but the 590 '·· STATE v. SURJARAM 591 other could not succeed in his attempt as respondent No. 2 fired three A shots at him resulting in his instantaneous death. Finding her brother dead; P.W.2 returned home and sent P.W. 3 to inform her maternal uncle in the nearby village. After P.W. 12 and P.W. 13, maternal uncles of PW2, and PW3 reached there, PW 2 and PW 13 left for the Police Station where PW 2 lodged the First Information Report which was recorded by the Sub-Inspector (PW 18). PW 18 commenced the investigation which cul- minated in trial of the four assailants. B The trial Court found the evidence of the two eye-witnesses, namely, PW2 and PW 3, reliable so far as it related to the first murder i.e. the murder of the father of PW 2, and convicted respondents no. 1 and 2 of C the offence under s.302, read with s.34 IPC and sentence each of them to suffer imprisonment for life. However, the trial Court did not believe the prosecution case with regard to the second murder i.e. the murder of the brother of PW 2, and acquitted all the four accused of the charge. The two respondents, who were convicted and sentenced for the first murder, filed an appeal before the High Court, which allowed the appeal, holding that D the FIR was not a genuine document as the same was prepared at the behest of the Investigating Officer; there was no satisfactory explanation for the delay in lodging the FIR; PW 3 was merely a chance witness; and the prosecution case that PW 2 and PW 3 followed the assailants after the first murder and witnessed the second murder was not reliable from the· E angle of natural course of human conduct and probabilities. Aggrieved, the State Govt. and the complainant filed the appeal by special leave against acquittal of the respondents. Allowing the appeals, setting aside the judgment of the High Court and restoring the order of conviction and sentence passed against the two respondents by the Trial Court, this Court F HELD : 1. It is trite that while dealing with an appeal against an acquittal recorded by the High Court this Court does not ordinarily interfere with it but if it is found that relevant and reliable evidence on G record has been lost sight of, ignored or brushed aside for reasons which are wholly unsustainable this Court will not only be justified, bu
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.