STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. SAMPAT RAM & ORS.
Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)
Appeal (Crl.), 2082 of 2008, Judgment Date: Apr 10, 2015
Non-Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2082 of 2008
State of Rajasthan .... Appellant
Versus
Sampat Ram and others .... Respondents
J U D G M E N T
Uday Umesh Lalit, J.
1. This appeal by special leave seeks to challenge the judgment and
order dated 11.02.2008 in DB-Criminal Appeal No.338 of 1983 passed by the
High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur acquitting the
respondents of the offences punishable under Sections 147, 302 read with
Section 149 IPC.
2. The matter arises out of reporting made by PW3 Lalaram at 11.30 pm on
21.05.1982 that at about 8.30 pm while returning from his field he had
stayed at piao of Padmaji for having water and smoke. That time he saw
Bhagirath, resident of Tausar ploughing his field with a tractor driven by
PW4 Ramkaran. He also saw "one child" sitting on the tractor, whose name
he did not know. While so sitting at piao he saw that the respondents-
accused and one more person armed with lathis and kassies had formed an
unlawful assembly and entered into the field of Bhagirath. As per
reporting, he was able to identify them all in the light of the tractor and
he had seen accused-respondent Manglaram stopping the tractor whereupon
Bhagirath came down from the tractor. Accused Sampat Ram then allegedly
inflicted a kassi blow on the head of Bhagirath who fell down. Treating
him to be dead all the accused ran away. PW3 Lalaram went to the spot,
remained there for about an hour and since nobody appeared he left the dead
body of Bhagirath there itself.
3. On this reporting a case was initially registered against the
respondents and one Bheenvraj. After investigation charge-sheet was filed
against the respondents and Bheenvraj under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 and
120B IPC. The prosecution examined sixteen witnesses. The informant PW3
Lalaram turned hostile and could not identify the assailants. PW4
Ramkaran, driver of the tractor could identify all the accused and stated
that respondent Sampat Ram had dealt kassi blow on the head of Bhagirath
while the others with their lathis had given blows to him. He further
stated that immediately after the incident he had left the place of
occurrence with his tractor to his house. The person who was referred to
as "one child" in the initial reporting, according to the prosecution was
PW5 Ramratan. As a matter of fact, PW5 Ramratan was aged about 22 years
and a stout person. He could identify only one accused i.e. respondent
Sampat Ram, who allegedly was carrying a kassi and had given a blow on the
head of Bhagirath. PW11 Dr. Shankarlal had conducted post-mortem on the
dead body of Bhagirath deposed about the injuries and his opinion was as
under:
"a lacerated wound of size 2" x " x deep muscle on the head of deceased,
another lacerated wound of size " x " was over head. Apart from these
injuries were also found over back and right arm. Upon opening the skull,
bone fracture was found over left parietal bone and on the joint of
parietal bones. There were other brain injuries also found. The cause of
death of deceased was shock arisen due to brain injuries and internal
bleeding. Several bones of skull found fractured. .............. These
injuries were ante mortem in nature and were sufficient to cause death in
the ordinary course of nature and the same could have been caused by the
opposite side of kassi."
The recovery of kassi Article 1 was proved by PW6 Ganpath on the
basis of disclosure information Ext.P-19 given by Sampat Ram. However,
upon chemical examination no blood was found on it.
4. After considering the material on record the trial court found that
the case was established as against the present respondents. It however
gave benefit of doubt to Bheenvraj and acquitted him of all the charges.
Accused Sampat Ram was convicted under Section 147 IPC and was sentenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and payment of fine of Rs.100/-
, in default whereof to suffer RI for one month and under Section 302 IPC
to sentence of life imprisonment and fine of Rs.100/-, in default whereof
to suffer RI for one month. The other respondents-accused were convicted
under Section 302 IPC with the aid of Section 149 IPC and awarded similar
sentence.
5. The respondents appealed against their conviction and sentence by
filing DB Criminal Appeal No.338 of 1983 in the High Court. It was
submitted that PW3 Lalaram having turned hostile his evidence could not be
relied upon and that the very basis for initiation of prosecution was
completely shaken. The person who was referred to as "one child" and not
named in the FIR was now turning out to be PW5 Ramratan, a stout person
which was again extremely doubtful. It was further submitted that soon
after the incident PW4 Ramkaran had straightaway gone to his house on the
tractor and never reported the matter to anyone and as such his behaviour
was beyond normal course of conduct.
6. The High Court observed that the time and occurrence was between 8 to
9 pm, the night was dark, the accused were strangers to the witnesses and
no test identification was conducted during the investigation. It was
further observed that according to PW4 Ramkaran, the accused persons were
not in the front of the tractor or in the light of the tractor. His
behaviour in leaving the place of occurrence and not reporting the matter
to anyone was found to be against normal human behaviour. As regards PW5
Ramratan who was a total stranger and whose very presence was doubtful,
material contradictions were also found in his statement. On the overall
analysis of the matter the prosecution witnesses who claimed to be eye-
witnesses were found to be unreliable and untrustworthy by the High Court.
The High Court, thus, allowed the appeal and acquitted the respondents-
accused of all the charges.
7. The aforesaid view of the High Court is challenged by the State in
this appeal by special leave. During the pendency of this appeal, two
respondents-accused viz. Ramdhan and Sardar Ram have expired and as such
the appeal against them stands abated. Appearing in support of the appeal,
Mr. S.S. Shamshery, Additional Advocate General submitted that PW4 Ramkaran
being driver of the tractor would be expected to have been visiting the
adjoining villages as well and as such identification of the accused by
such witness is not unnatural. Evidence on part of PW5 Ramratan and the
medical evidence was sought to be relied upon to corroborate the version
of PW4 Ramkaran. Mr. V.J. Francis, learned advocate appearing for the
respondents submitted that the behaviour of PW4 Ramkaran was extremely
unnatural, that in the darkness and specially without the lights of the
tractor he could not have identified the assailants, who were from a
different village.
8. We have gone though the record and considered the rival submissions.
PW3 Lalaram, having turned hostile, the matter completely hinges on the
testimony of PW4 Ramkaran. His behaviour in leaving the place of
occurrence and not reporting the matter to any one is extremely unnatural.
The incident having occurred in the darkness and as accepted by PW4
Ramkaran it was not in front of the tractor, the chance and opportunity for
him to have sufficiently identified the assailants is also doubtful. There
is nothing on record as to how "one child" who was on the tractor, has
after investigation been found to be none other than PW5 Ramratan, aged
about 22 years and a stout person.
9. In the circumstances, the view that has weighed with the High Court
in reversing the order of conviction and acquitting the respondents-accused
is definitely a possible view. In this appeal against acquittal, we do not
see any justification to upset such view taken by the High Court.
Consequently, this appeal fails and is dismissed.
.................................J.
(Pinaki Chandra Ghose)
.. ..............................J.
(Uday Umesh Lalit)
New Delhi,
April 10, 2015
ITEM NO.1A COURT NO.13 SECTION II
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Criminal Appeal No(s). 2082/2008
STATE OF RAJASTHAN Appellant(s)
VERSUS
SAMPAT RAM & ORS. Respondent(s)
Date : 10/04/2015 This appeal was called on for pronouncement of
judgment today.
For Appellant(s) Mr. S.S. Shamshery, AAG, Rajasthan
Mr. Amit Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Sandeep Singh, Adv.
Mr. Ajay Chaudhary, Adv.
Mr. Irshad Ahmad, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. V. J. Francis, Adv.
Mr. Anupam Mishra, Adv.
Mr. Simanta Kumar, Adv.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Uday Umesh Lalit pronounced the non-reportable
judgment of the Bench comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pinaki Chandra Ghose
and His Lordship.
The appeal is dismissed in terms of the signed non-reportable
judgment.
(R.NATARAJAN) (SNEH LATA SHARMA)
Court Master Court Master
(Signed non-reportable judgment is placed on the file)
For the Latest Updates
Join Now