Ram Naresh vs State Of U.P
- SCC(2010) 15 SCC 252
- Neutral2010 INSC 595
- SCR[2010] 11 SCR 433
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where the incident occurs in a village at distance from a police station and in a rustic and backward area, the delay in lodging an FIR until the next morning does not constitute an inordinate or unexplained delay that would undermine the prosecution case. Where eyewitnesses are closely related to the injured party, their evidence is not thereby rendered unreliable and discardable, particularly where the incident occurred many years before trial and some discrepancies in memory are inevitable with the passage of time. Where ocular evidence clearly establishes that a firearm was discharged at the victim, the medical evidence of a doctor who cannot say with certainty whether an injury was caused by a firearm does not stand in the way of conviction on the basis of the ocular testimony. Where a shotgun is fired from a distance of approximately 20 feet (not 4 feet), the absence of blackening or charring around the entry wound is consistent with such a distance and does not support the defence contention that the injury was not caused by a firearm. Where a conviction has been secured after a delay of 32 years from the date of the incident, the sentence imposed may be reduced on the ground of the lapse of time, even where the conviction itself is affirmed.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad whereby the appellant stands
convicted for an offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian
Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years.
2. The facts of the case are as under:
2.1 On 11th August, 1978, as Ram Vilas PW 1, and his brother
Shiv Vilas were returning home after visiting the temple about half a
kilometre away from the village, they were waylaid by the appellant
Ram Naresh and his father Jagannath (since expired). Jagannath
was carrying a country made revolver whereas the appellant was
armed with a single barrel shot gun. Jaganath exhorted the appellant
that as Shiv Vilas was always coming in their way he should be killed.
The appellant thereupon fired one shot at Ram Vilas which hit him on
the head. The firing also attracted P.Ws2 and 3 to the spot. The next
morning Ram Vilas along with the injured Shiv Vilas went to Police
Station, Makhi and a First Information Report was lodged for an
offence punishale under Sections 307/34 IPC. On the completion of
the investigation the accused were charged for the above offences.
The trial court and the High Court have relied on the evidence of
Ram Vilas P.W. 1 and Lalu P.W. 3 as eye witnesses of the
occurrence, Shiv Vilas, in the meanwhile, having been murdered in
some other incident.
3. Before the trial court as well the High Court, the primary
argument made on behalf of the accused was that there was an
inordinate and unexplained delay in the lodging of the FIR, that the
evidence of the eye witnesses who were closely related to the injured
was discrepant in material particulars, and that the medical evidence
did not support the ocular evidence. These submissions have been
rejected by both the courts below. Before us, today, Mr. Anurag
Kishore, the learned counsel for the appellant has reiterated the
same arguments. We find from a reading of the evidence that there is
no substantial delay in the lodging of the FIR. The incident happened
in a village about 9 kms. away from the police station late in the
evening and it would have been difficult for the complainant living in
rustic and backward area to rush to the police station immediately.
We also find no reason to disregard the evidence of Ram Vilas and
Lalu, PWs. Admittedly, Ram Vilas was a brother of Shiv Vilas, the
injured and Lalu was a close relative and also a party man. It must
also be borne in mind that the incident happened in the year 1978
and the evidence was recorded in the year 1986. Some
discrepancies are therefore bound to appear in the ocular evidence
as memory fades with the passage of time.
4. We have also gone through the evidence of Dr. J.N. Bajpai,
P.W. 5. He deposed that from a look at the injury caused to Shiv
Vilas it could not be said with certainity that it was a fire arm injury. In
the light of the ocular evidence, however, we find that the opinion of
the doctor can in no way stand in the way of the prosecution. Mr.
Kishore has also attempted to argue that as the shot had been fired
at Shiv Vilas from a distance of four feet the entry wound would have
blackening and charring thereon. It is true that had the shot gun been
fired from that distance, blackening and charring would have been
visible but the four steps (kadams) that have been referred to by Mr.
Kishore is not four feet but about 20 feet as a kadam CRL.A. No. 231
of 2004 5 REPORTABLE would be about four to five feet. In this view
of the matter, the fact that there was no blackening or charring
around the wound does not in any manner help the defence.
5. It has been finally submitted by Mr. Kishore that as the
incident had happened in the year 1978 and as 32 years had passed
on some reduction in the sentence may be considered. We find merit
in this plea. We, accordingly, reduce the sentence of the appellant
from five to three years.
6. With this modification in the sentence, the appeal is
dismissed.
7. Appellant be taken into custody forthwith to serve out the
remaining period of his sentence.
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free