Dismissed¶50

Ram Naresh v. State of U.P.

Supreme Court9 Sept 20102010 INSC 595 · [2010] 11 S.C.R. 4332010 INSC 595

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Supreme Court of India, CRL.A. No. 231 of 2004, Ram Naresh v. State of U.P. ([2010] 11 S.C.R. 433; decided September 9, 2010; Harjit Singh Bedi and Chandramauli Kr. Prasad, JJ.) — attempt to murder, Section 307 IPC; delay in lodging FIR; related/interested eyewitnesses; variance between medical evidence and oral testimony; blackening and charring; kadam distance about 40 feet; reduction of sentence after 32 years; appeal from Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, Criminal Appeal No. 529 of 1989.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed subject to reduction of sentence from five years to three years' rigorous imprisonment; appellant to be taken into custody forthwith to serve out the remaining period of sentence. ¶50

Ram Naresh versus State of U.P. — Supreme Court (2010) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeal dismissed subject to reduction of sentence from five years to three years' rigorous imprisonment; appellant to be taken into custody forthwith to serve out the remaining period of sentence.

¶50

Issue for consideration

Whether there was an inordinate and unexplained delay in lodging the FIR so as to render the prosecution case doubtful. +3 more

¶34

Court's answer

There is no substantial delay in lodging the FIR: the incident occurred late in the evening in a village about 9 km from the police station, and it would have been difficult for the complainant in a rustic and backward area to rush to the police station immediately.

¶34

Ratio / Principle

There is no reason to disregard the evidence of Ram Vilas (PW 1) and Lalu (PW 3) merely because they were closely related to the injured.

¶34

Key takeaways

Some discrepancies in the ocular evidence are bound to appear as memory fades with the passage of time, the incident being of 1978 and the evidence recorded in 1986.ratio¶34
Though the doctor deposed that the injury could not with certainty be said to be a firearm injury, in the light of the ocular evidence the doctor's opinion cannot stand in the way of the prosecution.ratio¶35
Absence of blackening and charring does not help the defence because the firing distance was about 40 feet (a 'kadam' being about four to five feet), not four feet.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Penal Code, 1860 — s. 307 — attempt to murder — conviction upheld. Delay in lodging FIR held not substantial where the village lay about 9 km from the police station and the incident occurred late in the evening; evidence of related eyewitnesses (PWs 1 and 3) rightly acted upon, discrepancies being natural where a 1978 incident was testified to in 1986; the doctor's uncertainty whether the injury was a firearm injury cannot outweigh consistent ocular evidence; absence of blackening/charring consistent with firing from about 40 feet ('kadams'), not four feet; sentence reduced from five to three years' rigorous imprisonment as 32 years had elapsed; appeal dismissed.

[2010] 11 S.C.R. 433

RAM NARESH

STATE OF U.P.

(Criminal Appeal No. 231 of 2004)

¶7

SEPTEMBER 9, 2010

¶8

¶9

[HARJIT SINGH BEDI AND CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD, JJ.]

¶10

Penal Code, 1860:

¶11

¶12

s. 307 - Attempt to murder - Accused shot at the victim - Conviction and sentence .of five years RI - Pleas of delay in lodging the FIR and related witnesses - Rejected - HELD: There is no substantial delay in lodging the FIR - Incident happened late in the evening in a village about 9 km away from the police station and it would have been difficult for the complainant living in a backward area to rush to the police station immediately - There is also no reason to disregard the evidence of PWs - It must also be borne in mind that the incident happened in the year 1978 and the evidence was recorded i[I the year 1986 - Some discrepancies are, therefore, bound to appear in the ocular evidence as memory fades with the passage of time - Though the doctor has deposed that from a look at the injury it could not be said with certainty that it was a fire arm injury, in the light of ocular evidence, howe:ter, the opinion of the doctor cannot stand in the way of the prosecution - However, keeping in view the fact that the incident had happened 32 years ago, the sentence is reduced from five years to three years - Delay in lodging FIR - Evidence - Variance in medical evidence and oral testimony - Sentence/Sentencing.

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 231 of 2004.

¶18

433

¶19

¶20

434 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 11 S.C.R.

¶21

A From the Judgment & Order dated 19.11.2002 of the High Gour of Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow in Criminal Appeal No. 529 of 1989.

¶22

Anurag Kishore, Somna Dhown and Vishwajit Singh for B the Appellant.

¶23

Sandeep Singh. G.V. Rao, lrshad Ahmad, Abhishek Choudhury and Manoj Kumar Dwivedi for the Respondent.

¶24

The following Order of the Court was delivered

¶25

¶26

ORDER

¶27

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 D Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years.

¶28

The facts of the case are as under:

¶29

2.1On11th August, 1978, as Ram Vilas PW 1, and his E 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. F 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 G 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

¶30

¶31

RAM NARESH v. STATE OF U.P.

¶32

435

¶33

Lalu P.W. 3 as eye witnesses of the occurrence, Shiv Vilas, in . the meanwhile, having been murdered in some other incident.

¶34

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.

¶35

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.

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

¶45

[2010] 11 S.C.R.

¶46

436

¶47

A Kishore is not four feet but about 40 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.

¶48

¶49

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 C of the appellant from five to three years.

¶50

With this modification in the sentence, the appeal is dismissed.

¶51

Appellant be taken into custody forthwith to serve out the remaining period of his sentence.

¶52

R.P.

¶53

Appeal dismissed.

Ram Naresh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Naresh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shivanna versus State by Hunsur Town Police

State NCT of Delhi versus Ajit Seth @ Ajji

Reserve Bank of India versus Gm, Coope. Bank Deposit Ajc Hr. Sha & Ors.

Brundaban Moharana & Anr. versus the State of Orissa

Sachidanand Thakur versus Union of India & Ors.

Ramesh versus State of Haryana