RAM DEV Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ram Chandra was subjected to violent death at about 10 or 10. 30 p. m. on 12/6/1977 in the courtyard of his own house at Village Gudera. His brother ram Saran Public Witness 1 received two injuries in the same incident. Both the appellants along with Ram Mohan and Rabudi alias Pratap Narain were challaned in that connection by the police, after investigation which started after lodging of the fir on 13/6/1977 at 6.30 a. m. at police outpost Amritpur, at a distance of about 8 miles from the place of occurrence on the statement of Ram Saran, Public Witness 1, the injured witness. They were put on trial. The learned Sessions Judge, videjudgment dated 6/9/1978 acquitted Ram Mohan and Rabudi but convicted both the appellants. Ram Dev was convicted for an offence under Section 302 Indian Penal Code for the murder of Ram Chandra and also for an offence under Section 307 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code in respect of the injuries caused to Ram Saran, Public Witness 1. Sudhakar was convicted for an offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 indian Penal Code in respect of the murder of Ram Chandra and under Section 307 Indian Penal Code for the injuries caused to Ram Saran Public Witness 1. Both the appellants were sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and rigorous imprisonment for five years each on each of the two counts respectively The State did not file any appeal against the acquittal of Ram Mohan and Rabudi in the High court but the appellants challenged their convictions and sentence. The High court, vide judgment dated 7/11/1988 dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants and confirmed their conviction and sentence.

(2.) The prosecution story in short is that Ram Saran, Public Witness 1 along with his three brothers Ram Chandra, deceased, Ram Bharose, Public Witness 2 and Raksh Pal used to live in different kothas of the same house with a common courtyard. On the fateful day, the appellants who have their houses not very far away came to the courtyard of the house of Ram Saran, Public Witness 1 and his brothers. While the deceased Ram Chandra, according to the prosecution case, was sitting on a rajai, his other brothers Ram Saran, Ram Bharose and Raksh Pal were sitting on a cot towards the east side of the kitchen inside the courtyard. There was a lighted lantern hanging on the wall. Both the appellants were armed with a gun each while according to the prosecution case the acquitted co-accused were armed with country-made pistols. Soon after arrival in the courtyard Ram Dev appellant I shouted that Ram Chandra should be put to death and should not be allowed to escape. He thereafter fired from his gun at Ram Chandra causing him injuries as a result of which he died on the spot. The three brothers took shelter by running away and hiding behind the wall of the kitchen and raised an alarm. Sudhakar appellant is then reported to have fired from his gun towards them and ram Saran Public Witness 1 was hit by the pellets from the fire shot by Sudhakar. On hearing cries of Ram Chandra and others some persons from the locality including Brij Bhushan Public Witness 5 arrived at the spot flashing their torches. They challenged the accused party, who however made good their escape. Early in the next morning Ram Saran Public Witness 1 went to the police outpost Amritpur and lodged the first information report. The investigating officer, Shri Bharat Lal sharma, Sub-Inspector arrived at the spot and after preparing the site plan, inquest report and effecting seizure of the pellets and tikiis from the spot, sent the dead body of Ram Chandra for post-mortem examination and also sent Ram saran Public Witness 1 for medical examination. Dr R. C. Gupta, Public Witness 3 examined the injuries of Ram Saran, Public Witness 1 while Dr P. K. Bansal, Public Witness 6 performed the post- mortem examination on the dead body of Ram Chandra, deceased. The medical evidence has been reproduced by both the High court and the Sessions court and we need not record the injuries found on the deceased or on Ram Saran, PW i in this judgment. Previous enmity is stated to be the motive for the assault.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellants in this appeal, by special leave, firstly argued that there was difference between the oral testimony as given by Public Witness 1 ram Saran and Public Witness 2 Ram Bharose and the medical evidence and therefore, the entire prosecution case suffers from a serious infirmity and the convictions ofthe appellants could not be sustained. Similar arguments, it appears, were raised before the learned Sessions Judge as well as the High court also. The High court for very cogent reasons found that there was no conflict between the medical evidence and the oral testimony. High court negatived the argument that all the injuries which were found during the post-mortem examination on deceased Ram Chandra could not have been caused by one shot fired by Ram dev appellant from his gun. The High court dealt with the medical evidence regarding these injuries and opined that all the injuries mentioned by the doctor could have been caused by the dispersed pellets of a single fire. In the words of the High court: