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