Supreme Court of India
STATE OF U.P. versus RAM BAHADUR SINGH AND ORS.
- Decided
- 29 October 2003
- Judges listed
- K.G. BALAKRISHNAN
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Citations
- Official
- [2003] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 1139 · 2003 INSC 580
- Also cited as
- (2004) 9 SCC 310
Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.
- Not shown
- 1 other citation string that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.
Cited by
We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.
Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.
The Court's text
Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.
Leave granted in SLP (CRL) No. 1064/1996.
p. 1140, margin A
Criminal Appeal No. 1787/1996 has been preferred by the State of U.P. against the judgment of the High Court of Judicature of Allahabad at Lucknow in Criminal Appeal No. 457 of 1979. Against the very same _judgment one private party has also filed a Criminal Appeal by way of Special leave. In both these appeals the acquittal of four accused persons is challenged. Accused were tried by the 5th Additional Sessions Judge·, Barabanki alleging that they caused the death of Onkar Nath Singh. The incident occurred on 6.12.1974 at 4.30 p.m. There was property dispute between Onkar Nath Singh on the one hand and the accused persons. On the date of the incident, PW-4 Jagdish Baksh Singh was ploughing his field with a tractor. The accused persons raised objections to the ploughing of the field by Jagdish Baksh Singh. It seems that there was wordy alterc~tion. Accused Bhanu Pratap Singh, who was armed with a gun, fired a shot and hit on the chest of Onkar Nath Singh. Onkar Nath Singh tried to run away from the place, then he was shot again. Onkar Nath Singh fell on the ground after running few paces. PW-I Bikram Shah Singh and PW.-4 Jagdish Baksh Singh snatched the gun from Bhanu Pratap Singh. Onkar Nath Singh died-on the spot. First information statement was given by PW-1 at about 7.15 P.M. on the same day and PW-8 recorded the same and started investigation of the case.
p. 1140, margin A
PW-3 Dr. V.N. Agarwal examined the dead body of Onkar Nath Singh and prepared Ext. Ka-3 post-mortem report. There were two injuries on the body of deceased Onkar Nath Singh. One gun shot wound of entry 6 cm. x 4 cm. tissue deep on front of left side chest upper part and other exit injury of I cm. x I cm. tissue deep on right side back lower part with direction fmward and upward. Doctor opined death was due to shock and haemorrhage. The Sessions Judge found all the four accused persons guilty of murder. Bhanu Pratap Singh was convicted for the offence under section 302 simplicitor and the other tliree accused persons were convicted for the offence under section 302 read with section 34.
p. 1140, margin E
In the appeal preferred by the accused persons, the High Court found that there were serious infirmities in the prosecution case. It is found that oral evidence given by the eye witnesses was inconsistent with the medical evidence given by PW-3. As per the oral evidence, the accused Bhanu Pratap Singh was standing at a distance of 18 to 20 feet away from the deceased Onkar Nath Singh when he fired. Oral evid~nce to the effect that tatooning and scorching was present on the adjoining skin, that could have been caused only ifthe firing had been done from a distance of four feet. Reason given by the High Court cannot be said to be perverse or unreasonable. It may also be noted that the accused Bhanu Pratap Singh had sustained serious injuries on his body. He was examined by Dr. PWl A.P. Mahanti. One injury was incised wound on the top of the head in intra-parital region scalp deep and there were other lacerated injuries. The prosecution could not give any rationale explanation as to how the accused Bhanu Pratap Singh sustained these injuries. Moreover, according to prosecution there were two gun shot injuries at the instance of the Bhanu Pratap Singh and bot~ of them hit on the deceased whereas the injuries on the body or the deceased could only show that Onkar Nath Singh received only one gun shot. All these are not satisfactorily explained by the prosecution. It naturally creates suspicious and under these circumstances we feel that the High Court has taken a plausible view. This is not a fit case where this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 136 can interfere with such findings. These two appeals fail and are dismissed . R.P. Appeals dismissed.
pp. 1140–1141, margin G