Page 1

1

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

Page 2

2

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-

Page 3

3

mortem on the dead body of  Bhagirath deposed about  the injuries  and his  

opinion was as under:

“a lacerated wound of size 2” x ¼” x deep muscle on the  head of deceased, another lacerated wound of size ¼” x ¼”  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.

Page 4

4

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.

Page 5

5

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

Page 6

6

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

Page 7

7

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)