RAM SINGH Vs STATE OF RAJASTHAN
Bench: P. SATHASIVAM,RANJAN GOGOI
Case number: Crl.A. No.-001712-001712 / 2008
Diary number: 36105 / 2007
Advocates: JAIL PETITION Vs
MILIND KUMAR
Page 1
NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1712 OF 2008
Ram Singh …Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan …Respondent
J U D G M E N T
RANJAN GOGOI, J.
1. Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 08.08.2007
passed by the High Court of Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench affirming
the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC and the
sentence of life imprisonment imposed, this appeal has been filed
upon grant of special leave by this Court.
2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that at about 10.30
a.m. on 13.09.2000, Hariram (PW-23), lodged a written complaint
with the Police Station at Baran stating that at about 10 a.m. of
the same day he alongwith his nephew Ramlal and some other
family members were sitting on the road in order to go to Baran.
Page 2
According to the complainant/first informant there was an old
enmity between him and one Ghasilal. In the complaint filed it
was specifically stated that while they were waiting to go to
Baran, Ghasilal along with his sons Ram Singh (appellant),
Ramswaroop, Ramshyam and son-in-law Akheraj came in a
tractor armed with different weapons including a firearm.
Immediately on reaching the spot accused-appellant Ram Singh
fired from a gun at Rooplal as a result of which the said person
died on the spot. It was alleged that accused Ram Singh had also
fired at Surajmal, causing injuries on his hand. The other
accused persons had assaulted Satyanarayan (PW-7), Seokaran
and Ramlal with Kutia and Gandasia. It was further stated by the
complainant that as a result of the gun shot injury Rooplal died
on the spot.
3. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, case No.
255/2000 (P.S. Baran) was registered under Sections 147, 148,
149, 341, 307, 302 IPC. The case was duly investigated and on
completion of the investigation charge sheet under Sections 147,
148, 149, 341, 307, 302 IPC was filed against Ghasilal,
Ramswaroop, Ramshyam and Ram Singh (accused Akheraj died
while the case was under investigation). Thereafter the case was
2
Page 3
committed for trial to the court of Sessions at Baran where
charges under the aforesaid provisions of the Penal Code read
with Section 149 IPC were framed against all the accused
including the accused-appellant. As the accused persons claimed
innocence and wanted to be tried, a regular trial was held in the
course of which the prosecution examined 23 witnesses and also
exhibited a large number of documents. Two witnesses were
examined by the defence including the accused Ghasilal. The
statements of the accused persons were recorded under section
313 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, at the conclusion of the trial, all the
accused were convicted under Sections 148, 302/149, 307/149,
323/149, 324/149 IPC. Each of the accused persons was
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for the
offence under Section 302/149 IPC. For the offence under Section
323/149, 324/149 and 148 IPC each of the accused persons
were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for six months and one
year respectively. All the sentences were directed to run
concurrently.
4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of conviction and the
sentences imposed all the four accused moved the High Court of
Rajasthan by filing an appeal which was partially allowed by the
3
Page 4
impugned order dated 8.8.2007. While the conviction of the
appellant was altered from Section 302/149 IPC to Section 302
IPC, the sentence of life imprisonment imposed was maintained.
The High Court, however, acquitted the other three accused of
the offence under Section 302/149 IPC while maintaining the
conviction under Section 323 IPC. In view of the fact that each of
the said accused had undergone confinement for a period of more
than six months, the High Court ordered for their release. It is
against the aforesaid order of the High Court convicting the
appellant under section 302 IPC and the sentence of life
imprisonment imposed on him that the present appeal has been
filed.
5. We have heard Mr. Ramesh C.Kohli, learned counsel for
the appellant and Mr. Jasbir Singh Malik, learned AAG for the
State of Rajasthan.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the
conviction of the accused-appellant under section 302 IPC is
wholly untenable in law. Learned counsel has placed before the
Court the defence version of the occurrence as revealed by the
cross-examination by PWs 7, 22 and 23 and also the evidence of
4
Page 5
DW 1 Narottam Lal (driver of the tractor) and DW 2, Ghasilal.
Learned counsel has specifically pointed out that while Ghasilal
and his sons were proceeding towards the temple they were
attacked by the party of the complainant and the deceased
Rooplal has brought out a double barrel gun from his house to
eliminate Ghasilal. At that point of time the accused-appellant
intervened and in the melee the gun was taken hold of by PW 7
Satyanarayan who fired two shots at Ghasilal but the same hit
the deceased Rooplal and injured Surajmal (PW 17). Learned
counsel has submitted that there is no material on record to
disbelieve the aforesaid version put forth by the defence.
Furthermore, according to the learned counsel, in the present
case, the alleged weapon of offence had not been seized/recovered
and though four shots, according to the prosecution witnesses,
were filed in the course of the incident, only one empty cartridge
was recovered from the spot by PW 20, the Investigating Officer.
It is therefore urged that in the above fact situation it cannot be
said that the defence version lacks authenticity and that the
prosecution has established its case beyond all reasonable doubt
so as to warrant the conviction of the accused.
5
Page 6
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has
pointed out that PW 7, Satyanarayan, PW 22 Bachibai and PW 23
Hariram are the eye witnesses to the occurrence. The evidence of
the aforesaid witnesses clearly brings out the details of the
incident and the sequence of events that had taken place. From
the testimony of the aforesaid witnesses it is clear that it is the
accused-appellant, Ram Singh, who was armed with a .12 bore
double barrel gun had fired first at Surajmal causing injuries on
him and, thereafter, had fired twice at the deceased Rooplal, first
on the chest and, thereafter, in the stomach. According to the
aforesaid witnesses accused Ram Singh had fired a fourth shot in
the air. The three eye-witnesses are clear and consistent in
narrating the aforesaid facts and nothing has been elucidated in
their cross-examination to discredit their statements. Learned
State Counsel has also submitted that the defence version is
inherently incredible as the tractor in which the accused persons
were traveling, which was subsequently impounded, belonged to
one Prembai and not to the accused party. If that is so, according
to learned counsel the starting point of the defence version that
they had gone to the temple to seek divine blessings on the
occasion of the purchase of a new tractor, has been proved to be
6
Page 7
incorrect. It is also pointed out by the learned State counsel that
the defence version does not find support from any independent
witness though many such persons were reportedly present at
the time of the incident. The failure of the prosecution to recover
the weapon of assault or all the four empty cartridges from the
place of occurrence, according to learned State counsel, is not
fatal to the prosecution case.
8. We have considered the arguments advanced on behalf of
the parties. We have also perused the evidence of PW 7, 22 and
23 as well as DW 1 and DW 2. On such consideration we find
that the eye witnesses examined by the prosecution i.e. PWs 7, 22
and 23 have been clear and consistent while describing the
sequence of events that had taken place on the day of the
occurrence. There is no material discrepancy or contradiction in
the statement of the said witness who had clearly identified the
accused-appellant Ram Singh as being the person who had fired
four shots from the .12 bore barrel gun that he was carrying with
him. The eye witnesses have also been categorical in stating that
the accused-appellant had first fired at Surajmal (PW 17) and
thereafter he had fired twice at the deceased Rooplal hitting him
on the chest and the stomach. The fourth shot, according to the
7
Page 8
eye witnesses, was fired in the air. The elaborate cross-
examination of the eye-witnesses on behalf of the accused has
failed to discredit their testimony in any manner whatsoever. All
the aforesaid witnesses have also categorically denied the defence
version which was put to them in their cross-examination.
9. As against the above, what we find is a relatively weak and
somewhat unacceptable defence version which remains
unsubstantiated in the absence of any acceptable evidence.
According to the defence, Ghasilal alongwith his sons were
proceeding in a tractor to the temple to seek divine blessings on
the purchase of a new tractor by the family. On the way they were
accosted by Rooplal, Surajmal and others who had assaulted
Ghasilal. The defence version is to the further effect that
deceased Rooplal brought out a double barrel gun from his house
to kill Ghasilal at which point of time the accused-appellant, Ram
Singh, had grabbed Rooplal. In the scuffle and melee that had
ensued PW 7, Satyanarayan is reported to have taken the fire
arm and had fired two shots at Ghasilal which shots, however, hit
Rooplal and Surajmal as a result of which Rooplal died and
Surajmal was injured. The aforesaid version remains
8
Page 9
unsubstantiated. On the contrary the materials on record show
that the tractor which was impounded for being involved in the
incident belonged to one Prembai and not to the party of the
accused. Besides, DW1, Narottam Lal who was driving the tractor
was an employee of Prembai and not of the accused. The above
facts clearly demonstrate the falsity of the defence version. Also
in the examination of the accused-appellant under Section 313
CrPC the above defence has not been specifically taken. Though
several independent persons were reportedly available none of
them have been examined in order to lend credence to the
defence story. On the other hand PW 19 Rajesh, who is not
related to either side and had reportedly come out of his house on
hearing the commotion had supported the prosecution case
against the accused appellant. All the three eye witnesses
examined by the prosecution, as already noted, have clearly and
unequivocally deposed with regard to the involvement of the
present accused-appellant in the death of Rooplal.
10. In view of the above, we have no difficulty in reaching the
conclusion that the conviction of the accused-appellant Ram
Singh under Section 302 IPC and the sentence imposed
thereunder is fully justified. We, therefore, dismiss the appeal
9
Page 10
and affirm the conviction and sentence imposed on the accused-
appellant.
...…………………………J. [P. SATHASIVAM]
.........……………………J. [RANJAN GOGOI]
New Delhi, November 22, 2012.
10