Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Ram Singh, was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kanpur, under Sections 301/302 and 307 IPC for firing a country-made pistol at the informant, Radhey Lal (PW-1), but the bullet struck and killed his mother, Dulli. The incident occurred on 19.08.1982 at about 8:00 PM, when the appellant and co-accused Lala Ram came to the informant's house. The appellant fired at PW-1, who ducked, and the bullet hit Dulli, who died instantly. The prosecution examined six witnesses, including PW-1, PW-2 Man Singh, and PW-3 Lala Ram (son of Prahalad Singh). The trial court convicted the appellant but acquitted the co-accused Lala Ram (son of Dhanna Ram Yadav). The High Court of Allahabad dismissed the appellant's appeal. The Supreme Court considered the submissions that there were contradictions in the testimony, that crucial witnesses were not examined, that the country-made pistol was not recovered, and that the pellets were not sent for ballistic examination. The appellant also argued that the acquittal of the co-accused on the same evidence should entitle him to acquittal. The Supreme Court, however, found that the testimony of PW-1 was consistent and credible, and the absence of ballistic evidence did not weaken the prosecution case. The court noted that the appellant had a motive due to a previous scuffle with the informant's son and political rivalry. The court held that the conviction was sustainable and dismissed the appeal, confirming the life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC and five years' rigorous imprisonment under Section 307 IPC, with sentences to run concurrently.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Murder - Conviction under Section 302 IPC - Eyewitness Testimony - The appellant was convicted for murder under Section 302 IPC for firing a gunshot that killed the deceased, though intended for another. The Supreme Court held that the testimony of eyewitnesses, despite being interested, was consistent and credible, and the absence of ballistic evidence did not vitiate the conviction when ocular evidence was sufficient. (Paras 9-11) B) Criminal Law - Acquittal of Co-accused - Effect on Co-accused - The acquittal of co-accused Lala Ram on the same evidence does not automatically entitle the appellant to acquittal, as the evidence against the appellant was distinct and direct. The principle in Javed Shaukat Ali Qureshi v. State of Gujarat was distinguished. (Para 6.3) C) Evidence Act, 1872 - Interested Witnesses - Credibility - The court held that the testimony of interested witnesses, such as the son of the deceased, is not automatically unreliable; it can form the basis of conviction if it is consistent and corroborated by other evidence. (Para 9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Sections 301/302 and 307 IPC is sustainable in the absence of ballistic evidence and in light of alleged contradictions in eyewitness testimony, and whether the acquittal of the co-accused on the same evidence entitles the appellant to acquittal.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court and confirmed by the High Court.
Law Points
- Conviction under Section 302 IPC can be based on eyewitness testimony even without ballistic evidence if the testimony is credible and consistent
- Acquittal of co-accused on same evidence does not automatically entitle the other accused to acquittal if evidence against them is distinct
- Interested witnesses are not necessarily unreliable
- Motive strengthens prosecution case.
