Ram Manohar Singh vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh

2023INSC781 NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). 760 OF 2022

RAM MANOHAR SINGH APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH RESPONDENT(S)

JUDGMENT

ABHAY S. OKA, J.

1. The appellant is accused No. 1. The Trial Court convicted the

appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “IPC”) simplicitor and the High

Court has confirmed the conviction and life sentence of the

appellant.

2. In brief, the prosecution case is that the dispute arose over

plucking mango trees. On 24.04.1982, co-accused-Raja Bhaiya Singh

and Bhujwal Singh had gone to pluck fruits from mango trees. They

met with an obstruction by Shiv Mohan Singh @ Dadu (the deceased).

There was an exchange of hot words. On 25.04.1982 at 03:00 P.M.,

the incident re-occurred when the two co-accused tried to pluck the

fruits which again led to exchange of abusive and filthy words.

Further allegation is that at 06:00 P.M., on the same day, the Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Neetu Khajuria

present appellant and accused No. 2-Ram Khilawan Singh armed with Date: 2023.09.01 14:47:41 IST Reason:

their licensed guns and co-accused-Bhujwal Singh and Raja Bhaiya

Singh with a spear came to the house of the complainant-Raj Lalan 2

Singh(PW-1), the uncle of the deceased. They challenged PW-1 to

come out of his house. Again, an altercation took place between

them and there was an exchange of abusive and filthy words. The

allegation is that the appellant and the accused No. 2 fired

gunshots from the small window of the house. The bullet injury

caused by the appellant led to death of Shiv Mohan Singh @ Dadu.

The gunshots fired by accused No. 2 caused the injury to Rajendra

Singh (PW-2) and Rani Devi (PW-1’s daughter). PW-2 is the father of

the deceased.

3. In support of the appeal challenging the concurrent judgments

of conviction, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant

submitted that the entire incident cannot be believed. He pointed

out that according to the prosecution case, only one gunshot was

fired from the gun of accused No. 2 but, it is claimed that it

resulted into seven injuries on the persons of PW-2 and PW-1’s

daughter Rani Devi. He also pointed out that Rani Devi was not

examined by the prosecution. He further submits that the

prosecution story is highly unreliable. Without prejudice to the

aforesaid contentions, he urged that in this case, Exception 4 to

Section 300 of IPC will squarely apply. He pointed out that prior

to the incident, there were two altercations between the members of

the family over the incident of plucking of fruits. The co-accused

Bhujwal Singh and Raja Bhaiya Singh were involved in the incident

and the reason of the said incident was that the deceased

obstructed them from plucking the mango fruits. He submitted that

going by the testimony of PW-1 and PW-4, it is apparent that for a

period of 10-15 minutes, there was a heated exchange of abusive 3

words. He submitted that, obviously, the appellant had no intention

to kill the deceased and perhaps, he visited the house of the

deceased to question the conduct of the deceased. His submission is

that the act committed by the appellant is without premeditation in

the heat of passion due to a sudden fight. He submitted that

Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC will squarely apply. He submitted

that on this issue, a point for determination was framed by the

Trial Court which was not unfortunately answered. However, some of

the findings of the Trial Court support his contention that

Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC was applicable. The learned counsel

further submitted that there was no recovery of any gun at the

instance of the appellant.

4. The learned counsel for the respondent urged that there was no

prior enmity between the two groups. She also pointed out that

there is a relationship between the family of the appellant and the

injured Rani Devi. She supported the impugned judgments.

5. Both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court have believed the

ocular evidence of PW-1 to PW-4. The medical evidence shows that it

was the gunshot injury which led to the death of the deceased. In

fact, during post-mortem, it was found that there were 23 pellets

in different wounds on the dead body.

6. We have carefully perused the evidences of the eye-witnesses

and find that the witnesses are very consistent on their version in

respect to the role played by the appellant of causing gunshot

injury to the deceased. Once the Court believes the testimony of

the eye-witnesses, the failure to recover the gun used by the

appellant, is not at all significant. Therefore, we have no manner 4

of doubt that there was sufficient evidence to indicate that it was

the appellant who caused gunshot injury to the deceased which led

to his death. The non-examination of Rani Devi does not, in any

manner, adversely affects the case of the prosecution, as against

the appellant.

7. Now, we come to the issue whether Exception 4 to Section 300

IPC will apply in this case. There are many material circumstances

which militate against the theory of applicability of Exception 4

to Section 300 IPC. Firstly, the appellant was not involved in

earlier two incidents which occurred when co-accused tried to pluck

fruits. When the appellant visited the house of the deceased, the

appellant was carrying his licensed gun. He went there with the

object of questioning the act of the deceased. Therefore, there was

no reason for the appellant to carry his licensed gun with him.

Secondly, he fired the licensed gun through the window of the house

of the deceased, which led to the death of the deceased who was

inside the house. If there was no premeditation, the appellant

would have not carried his gun with him to the house of the

deceased. It cannot be said that there was a sudden quarrel as

there was a background of quarrel which took place on the same day

between the co-accused and the deceased and, on the earlier day

between the same co-accused and the deceased. Moreover, it cannot

be said that the appellant did not act in a cruel manner. In the

facts of the case, as narrated above, only after a trifle quarrel

over plucking of fruits, the appellant fired a gunshot from the

window of the house of the deceased.

5

8. In the circumstances, it is not possible to accede to the

submission made that Exception 4 to Section 300 will apply.

9. In view of the above, we find no merit in this case. Hence,

the appeal fails and is, accordingly, dismissed.

10. As the appellant is on bail, we grant time of one month to him

to surrender before the Trial Court for undergoing the remaining

sentence.

11. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

……………………………………….J. [ABHAY S. OKA]

……………………………………….J. [PANKAJ MITHAL] NEW DELHI;

AUGUST 24, 2023.