Page 1

1

         Non-Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.566 of 2008  

State of Rajasthan     …. Appellants

Versus

Surja Ram …. Respondent

J U D G M E N T  

Uday Umesh Lalit, J.

1.    This appeal by Special Leave challenges the judgment and order dated  

22.08.2007 passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur in  

DB Criminal Jail Appeal No. 27 of 2003 acquitting the Respondent herein of  

the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC.

2. Initially six Persons were alleged to have committed offences punishable  

under Sections 147, 341, 149, 364, 302 , 201 read with Section 120B of IPC.  

One of them named Chatra Ram was granted pardon and was examined as  

PW1 in the trial. Out of five accused who faced the trial, Bhanwru Ram and  

Mohan Ram were acquitted by the Trial Court. It convicted Hapu Ram and  

Surja Ram for the offences under Sections 341, 364, 302 IPC read with 120B  

IPC, while the other accused named Raju Ram was convicted under Section

Page 2

2

302  read  with  Section  34  of  IPC.   In  the  appeals  preferred  by  convicted  

accused, the High Court affirmed the conviction and sentence of Hapu Ram  

under Section 302 of IPC while acquitting him of the other charges. The other  

two namely Surja Ram and Raju Ram were acquitted of all the charges. In the  

Special Leave Petition preferred by the State, the Petition as against Raju Ram  

was dismissed by this court but leave was granted as against accused Surja  

Ram.  This matter  is therefore restricted as regards challenge to the acquittal of  

Surja Ram by the High Court .

3.  Complainant  PW4  Om  Prakash  submitted  written  report  at  Police  

Station, Nagaur at 10:15 p.m. on 12.5.1998, that on 10.5.1998 he and his father  

Jeevan Ram were returning after attending a marriage around 11:00pm, when  

the motor cycle tyre got punctured . Father Jeevan Ram told the complainant to  

proceed with the Motor  Cycle  while  he would return in  the  tractor  of  one  

Mohan  Ram.   The  report  further  stated  that  his  father  had  since  then  not  

returned. Pursuant to this report FIR No. 206 of 1998 was registered and matter  

was  investigated.  One  of  the  suspects   Chatra  Ram  having  being  granted  

pardon,  charges  were  framed  against  Five  accused  under  Sections  147,  

341/149, 120B, 364, 302 and 201 IPC and the trial was conducted in the Court  

of Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Nagaur vide Sessions Case No.  

72/2001.

4.  PW1 Chatra Ram deposed that on 10.5.1998, his Jeep came to be hired

Page 3

3

by Raju Ram and Surja Ram for going to Village Budi with Raju Ram, Mohan  

Ram, Surja Ram, Bhanwru Ram as occupants. On the way Hapu Ram joined  

them. While passing along they found Jeevan Ram on the road, whereupon the  

jeep  was  stopped  and  Hapu  Ram and Surja  Ram got  down.  They  brought  

Jeevan Ram forcibly and made him sit in the jeep. The witness stated that he  

and Mohan Ram resisted but Hapu Ram said that they be dropped at Nagaur  

otherwise he would kill all of them. Hapu Ram was having a pistol in his hand.  

Later Mohan Ram  left at which stage Surja Ram and Hapu Ram caught hold  

of Jeevan Ram and made him sit in the front between them. Hapu Ram with  

the pistol in his hand had stated that if anybody raised any protest he would kill  

them. The jeep was then taken towards Bidasar.  After going for about 15-20  

kms from Village Katar, the jeep was stopped near a well by the side of the  

road.  The jeep was taken close to the well. Hapu Ram and Surja Ram made  

Jeevan Ram get down, then strangulated him by the cycle tube and threw him  

in the well. Hapu Ram had threatened them not to say anything to anyone. The  

witness  further  stated  that  before  strangulating  him,  Hapu  Ram had  asked  

Jeevan  Ram to  marry  his  younger  daughter  with  him.  During  the  trial  the  

prosecution  produced one letter marked as Exh. P21 written by Hapu Ram  

stating  that  his  marriage  with  the  daughter  of  Jeevan  Ram  should  not  be  

cancelled  and  had  given  threats  therein.  PW  4  Om  Prakash,  complainant  

reiterated the contents of his complaint.

Page 4

4

5.  The Trial  Court  found that  the  case  was established as  against  Hapu  

Ram,Surja  Ram  and  Raju  Ram.  It  convicted  Hapu  Ram  and  Surja  Ram  

principally for the offence under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced them to  

undergo life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 25,000/- each, in default whereof  

to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 years. They were also convicted under  

Sections 341, 364 and 201 of IPC, while accused Raju Ram was convicted  

under Section 302 read with 34 IPC. The other two accused Bhanwru Ram and  

Mohan Ram were acquitted of all the charges.

6.    The convicted accused carried the matter by filing DB Crl. Jail Appeal  

No.27 of 2003 and 74 of 2003. The High Court while affirming the conviction  

of Hapu Ram under Section 302 IPC and under Section 201 IPC acquitted him  

of other  charges.  He was sentenced to life imprisonment  for  offence under  

Section 302 with fine of Rs.5,000/- and for sentence of 3 years under Section  

201 of  IPC with a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. The sentences were to run concurrently.   

The High court however acquitted Surja Ram and Raju Ram of all the charges.

7.  While dealing with the eye witness account through PW1 Chatra Ram as  

regards the role of Surja Ram, the High Court observed as under:-

    “…Witness  stated  that  Surja  Ram  and  Hapu  Ram  strangulated  deceased  Jiwan  Ram,  but  in  the  cross- examination, said witness stated that deceased Jiwan Ram  was strangulated by Hapu Ram and before doing so, even  Hapu Ram asked deceased Jiwan Ram to marry his younger  daughter and, in that event, he would be relieved, but his  proposal was not accepted by Jiwan Ram and, at that time,

Page 5

5

accused Hapu Ram strangulated deceased by a cycle tube.  Thus, the allegation of strangulation by Surja Ram was not  made  in  the  cross  examination.  Hence  conviction  of  accused Surja  Ram under  Section  302 of  IPC cannot  be  maintained because of contradiction in the statement….”

With this view the High Court acquitted Surja Ram of all the charges.

8. Mr. Puneet Parihar,  learned advocate appearing for State of Rajasthan  

submitted  that  the  assessment  made  by  the  High  Court  was  completely  

incorrect. Referring to the testimony PW1 Chatra Ram, it was submitted that  

the  role  of  Hapu  Ram  and  Surja  Ram  as  stated  by  the  witness  in  his  

examination in chief was :-

Both Hapu Ram and Surja Ram had got down and brought  Jeevan Ram forcibly and made him sit in the vehicle.

Later, both had caught hold of him and made him sit in the  front  between them.

After bringing the vehicle close to the well, Hapu Ram and  Surja Ram made Jeevan Ram get down. They strangulated  him with cycle tube and threw him in the well.

The relevant  portion  from the  cross-examination  of  the  witness  which was  

relied upon by the High Court was to the following effect :-

“…..I had seen Hapu Ram rounding tube in his neck and  drawing him forcibly towards well, nothing else I had seen.  I had not seen as to whether the deceased Jeevan Ram was  going  on  his  foot  or  the  accused  persons  were  drawing  him…”

Ms. Aiswarya Bhati, learned Advocate for the Respondent submitted that  

the view taken by the High Court in the circumstance, did not call  for any

Page 6

6

interference.

9.     The assertion in the cross-examination of PW1 Chatra Ram does not in  

any way detract from the role clearly attributed by the witness to Surja Ram.  

The witness did not say that Surja Ram never got down from the vehicle  or  

that he had not accompanied Hapu Ram. The cross-examination also did not  

challenge such assertion by the witness that both Hapu Ram and Surja Ram  

had made Jeevan Ram get down from the vehicle near the well. The above  

quoted portion in  the cross-examination very clearly deals  with the role  of  

Hapu Ram. This portion does not in any way detract from the  role attributed to  

Surja Ram. The High court was plainly wrong in relying on this portion in the  

cross-examination to give benefit of doubt to Surja Ram. The testimony of PW  

1 Chatra Ram, is consistent and not in any way shaken in cross-examination as  

regards Surja Ram.

10.      In our view, Surja Ram was an equal participant in the crime. His role in  

bringing Jeevan Ram forcibly and making him sit  in the vehicle,  thereafter  

making him sit in the front, and finally in making him get down near the well  

and strangulating him, was rightly relied   upon by the Trial Court. The High  

Court committed gross error in granting him benefit of doubt. Given the status  

of  record,  such view is  not  a  possible  view at  all.  We therefore  allow the  

appeal, set aside the judgment and order of the High Court acquitting Surja  

Ram. The conviction as ordered by the Trial Court is restored.  Surja Ram is

Page 7

7

convicted  under  Sections  302  and  201  IPC read  with  Section  34  IPC and  

sentenced to life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- on the first count  

and for 3 years and fine of Rs. 1.000/- on the second count. The sentences shall  

run concurrently. The Respondent Surja Ram be taken in custody forthwith to  

undergo the sentence awarded to him.

………………………..J. (Pinaki Chandra Ghose)

………………………..J. (Uday Umesh Lalit)

New Delhi, April 10, 2015

Page 8

8

ITEM NO.1C               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).  566/2008 STATE OF RAJASTHAN                                 Appellant(s)                                 VERSUS SURJA RAM                                          Respondent(s) Date : 10/04/2015 This appeal was called on for pronouncement of  

judgment today. For Appellant(s) Mr. Shiv Mangal Sharma, AAG

Mr. Puneet Parihar, Adv. Ms. Anjali Chauhan, Adv.

                 Mr. Milind Kumar, Adv.                       For Respondent(s) Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, Adv.

Mr. T. Gopal, Adv. Mr. Hemendra Sharma, Adv. Mr. Amit Verma, Adv. Mr. Adarsh K. Tiwari, Adv. Mr. Pawan Kr. Saini, Adv. Ms. Madhurima Ghosh, Adv. Ms. Neha Meena, 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 allowed in terms of the signed non-reportable  judgment as follows:-

“We therefore allow the appeal, set aside the judgment and  order of the High Court acquitting Surja Ram. The conviction  as ordered by the Trial Court is restored.  Surja Ram is  convicted under Sections 302 and 201 IPC read with Section 34  IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.  5,000/- on the first count and for 3 years and fine of Rs.  1.000/-  on  the  second  count.  The  sentences  shall  run  concurrently. The Respondent Surja Ram be taken in custody  forthwith to undergo the sentence awarded to him.”

(R.NATARAJAN)        (SNEH LATA SHARMA)  Court Master       Court Master   (Signed non-reportable judgment is placed on the file)