STATE OF HARYANA Vs. RAM SARUP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) , J.

(2.) ON the night intervening the 19th and 20th July, 1984 Mohan Lal and Ram Kumar were murdered. ON the allegation that Ram Sarup-respondent committed the said murders, he was tried under section 302 IPC. The trial court, after considering the testimony of the witnesses who were examined in the case, held that the respondent was guilty of the offence with which he was charged and sentenced him to life imprisonment and fined him Rs. 1000/- and, in default of payment of fine, the respondent would suffer further rigorous imprisonment for two years. ON appeal, the High Court set aside the order made by the trial court and acquitted the accused. Hence this appeal.

(3.) THE trial court adverted to the testimony of eye witnesses PW 3 and PW4 and found that it is reliable. As regards motive the trial court proceeded on the basis that if the evidence of eye witnesses PW 3 and PW4 was to be taken into consideration, the question as to whether there was any motive for committing the murders or not would become insignificant. THE trial court noticed that altercation while playing cards was not an insignificant event and might provoke the accused depending upon how worked up he was to commit the murders. While the contention of the defence counsel was that the said quarrel was not sufficient to provoke the accused to commit the murders, on the other hand, the prosecution contended that this motive was sufficient enough and had been mentioned even in the first information report [FIR] recorded at the earliest stage of the proceedings; that there was no enmity between the accused and the deceased; that, therefore, the accused could not have been falsely implicated in a serious charge of murder. THE learned sessions judge took caution to state, whether the incident of playing cards was sufficient to provoke the accused to commit the murders would depend on as to how sensitive he is, but, however, much would depend upon the evidence of the eye witnesses. THE defence plea was that there was enmity between the two parties inasmuch Kesra, brother of the accused, had given evidence against Chhotu,. which had resulted in his conviction. According to them, they were sleeping on the chabutra of Kesra along with one Manphul, when the two deceased had come and opened fire at them after raising lalkara that Kesra would be taught a lesson for giving evidence against their friend Chhotu. However, this stand of the defence was not accepted by the trial court.