Crl.A. 285 of 2008 1

   IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 285 OF 2008

RAM BILAS SINGH   ..... APPELLANT                                    

VERSUS

STATE OF U.P.   .....   RESPONDENT

WITH  CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 286 OF 2008

O R D E R

1. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. There were seven accused initially in the matter.  

A4 died during the course of the trial and six acused,  

accordingly,  were  brought  to  trial.   During  the  

recording of the evidence, five of the eye witnesses  

Shiv Ratan Singh (PW 1), Mahadeo Singh (PW 2), Kehar  

Singh (PW 3), Savitri Devi (PW 4) and Surya Bhan Singh  

(PW 9) were declared hostile.  The trial court and the  

High Court, therefore  relied on the evidence of Savitri  

Devi, wife of the deceased alone and having observed  

that  her  statement  was  corroborated  by  the  medical  

evidence convicted the accused under Section 302/149 IPC  

and sentenced them to life imprisonment.

Crl.A. 285 of 2008 2

3. During  the  course  of  hearing  today,  Mr.  Ashok  

Kumar  Singh,  learned  counsel  for  the  appellant  in  

Criminal Appeal No 286 of 2008 has submitted that in the  

light  of  the  fact  that  five  eye  witnesses  had  not  

supported the prosecution and had been declared hostile  

the implicit reliance on the evidence of P.W. 4, Savitri  

Devi, was not called for as her presence at the spot too  

was not believable.  He has pointed out that this fact  

was  clear  as  the  First  Information  Report  had  been  

lodged after an inordinate delay.   

4. We have considered the arguments of the learned  

counsel.   

5. We find that this matter has been dealt with by  

the trial court as well as the High Court.  It has been  

found as a matter of fact that the statement of P.W. 4  

was  completely  inspiring  and  there  was  no  reason  

whatsoever to discard it.  It has also been found that  

the medical evidence fully supported the involvement of  

all the accused as the nature and number of injuries  

suggested  that  they  had  been  caused  with  fire  arms,  

cutting weapons such as farsas and also by  lathis.  We  

see from the post mortem report that 17 injuries have  

been  caused  to  the  deceased  by  different  kinds  of  

weapons.  It is true that prima facie there appears to  

be some delay in the lodging of the FIR.  On a closer

Crl.A. 285 of 2008 3

look,  however,  this  is  not  the  case.   The  incident  

happened at about 6:00p.m. in a rural area about 10 kms  

away from the police station.  To suggest therefore that  

Savitri Devi  who had lost her husband would run post  

haste  to  the  police  station  immediately  leaving  her  

husband alone and fatally injured could not be expected  

of her.   We are, therefore, of the opinion  that there  

is no delay in the lodging of the FIR.    There can also  

be  no  doubt  with  regard  to  the  identity  of  the  

appellants.   It  has  come  in  evidence  that  the  

complainant and the accused party were very well known  

to each other and in fact the motive of the crime was  

they  were  involved  in  some  previous  litigations  both  

civil and criminal.  In this view of the matter, we find  

no merit in these appeals.   

6. Dismissed.   

     ........................J       [HARJIT SINGH BEDI]

     ........................J       [CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD]

NEW DELHI FEBRUARY 24, 2011.