RAMBILAS SINGH Vs STATE OF U.P
Bench: HARJIT SINGH BEDI,CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD, , ,
Case number: Crl.A. No.-000285-000285 / 2008
Diary number: 15276 / 2006
Advocates: KRISHAN SINGH CHAUHAN Vs
PRADEEP MISRA
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.