CASE NAME: Shyam Narayan Ram V. State of U.P & Anr. Etc.
CASE NO.: Criminal Appeal No.s ( @special leave to petition (Crl.) Nos.16282-16284 of 2023) of 2024.
DATED: October 21, 2024.
QUORUM: Vikram Nath. J
FACTS OF THE CASE:
- First Information Report was lodged on 22.04.1998 at 05.30 am by the appellant which was registered as FIR bearing No.27/1998, Police Station Dhanapur, District Chandauli, U.P.under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 18602 and 3(1)(v) of the SC/ST Act.
- According to the prosecution story, on the intervening night of 21/22.04.1998 the appellant (PW 1), Ram Dular (PW2) who were harvesting crops in the fields, on hearing gunshots, rushed to the pumping set from where the shots were being fired and saw that the four accused namely Radhey Shyam Lal (A-1), Pratap (A-2), Rajesh Kumar @ Pappu (A-3) and Jagannath (A-4) were assaulting the parents of the appellant namely Bodha Devi and Mohan Ram who belonged to Scheduled Caste. After brutally attacking the two deceased, they threw their bodies into the well.
- After the registration of the FIR, the police came to the site, with the help of villagers they pulled out the two dead bodies of the parents of the appellant from the well.
- After preparing an inquest the bodies were sent for post-mortem.
- The deceased Bodha Devi had suffered seven injuries all over her body including a fatal wound on the back of the chest extending up to the neck measuring 48 cm x 28 cm. The cause of death was recorded as a fracture in the vertebra and injury to the spinal cord.
- The postmortem of the deceased Mohan Ram disclosed as many as sixteen injuries which included eleven lacerated wounds and the cause of death was reported as death due to injuries to the spine and spinal cord.
- From the place of occurrence, the Investigating Officer recovered a blood-soaked scarf belonging to accused Pratap (A-2), a licensed SBBL gun with two live cartridges, three empty-shell-casings of 12 bore, 1 live 12 bore cartridge, cardboard and plastic rods, tikli and other remnants of spent cartridges.
- The recovered articles were sent to the forensic laboratory and as per the report one out of the three cartridges has been found to have been fired from the seized licensed SBBL gun. The FSL report further confirmed that in the barrel of the seized SBBL gun, there was residue of firing.
- Further, the presence of lead and nitrate clearly indicated that the gun had been recently used.
- After completing the investigation charge-sheet was submitted. The Magistrate concerned took cognizance and after that committed the case to the Sessions Court for trial. The charges were read out to the four accused who denied the same and claimed to be tried.
ISSUES OF THE CASE:
The issues of the case are as follows:
- Whether the defence admitting the authenticity of the prosecution’s documents makes the trial fair?
- Whether the retrial allowed by the High Court was justifiable?
LEGAL PROVISIONS:
- Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code:
Section 302 of IPC stipulates penalties for murder, ranging from the death sentence to life imprisonment, along with the possibility of fines.
Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.
- Section 313 of CrPC:
This section provides the power to examine the accused.
- Section 294 of CrPC:
Section 294 of the CrPC allows for the admission of certain documents without formal proof, provided that the authenticity of these documents is not disputed by the opposing party.
- Section 161 of CrPC:
Examination of witnesses by police.
CONTENTIONS BY THE APPELLANT:
According to the learned counsel for the appellant, if the judgment of the High Court is allowed to stand, it would render the provisions of section 294 CrPC redundant and otiose. It was also submitted that it was not for any error or oversight of defence counsel that they had admitted the genuineness of the police papers by dispensing formal proof of the same, rather they had repeatedly confirmed their stand of admitting the genuineness of the documents and had opposed the recall of witnesses by the Public Prosecutor on two occasions, once in 2005 and again in 2019. It was thus submitted that the High Court ought to have decided the appeal on merits based on evidence led during the trial and there was no justification for remanding the matter.
CONTENTIONS BY THE RESPONDENT:
Learned Counsel for the respondent i.e, State of U.P has supported the case of the appellant and submitted that despite the Public Prosecutor having repeatedly requested the Trial Court to allow them to produce the formal witnesses but on account of strong opposition by the counsel for defence, the Trial Court had rejected the said request as such there was no justification for remitting the matter back to the Trial Court for a further trial from the stage of recording of evidence of PW 2. Learned counsel for the respondents accused in the three appeals supported the judgment of the High Court.
JUDGEMENT:
Considering that the High Court made a mistake and the reliance by the High Court on the case of Munna Pandey V. State of Bihar was misplaced, the SC sent back the matter to the Trial Court for cross/further examination of the prosecution witnesses.
By setting aside the order of the High Court, the Supreme Court ordered the High Court to decide the appeals freshly based on the evidence led during the trial as early as possible, as the incident is of 1998.
The Supreme Court ordered that the private respondents in all three appeals would surrender within six weeks before the Trial Court and it would allow for them to apply for suspension of sentence before the High Court in accordance with law.
ANALYSIS:
This case revolves around the tragic murder of the parents of Shyam Narayan Ram, from filing the complaint in the Trial Court to taking the case to the Supreme Court of India this case involves strong notes of facts, evidence, and twists making it more challenging for the appearing counsels.
By referring to the precedents like Amar V. State of Haryana, Shamsher Singh Verma V. State of Haryana, Akhtar V. State of Uttaranchal, Munna Pandey V. State of Bihar, this case involves strong arguments from the both sides.
The High Court’s decision to set aside the decision of the lower court was further rejected by the Supreme Court, sending back the case to the High Court.
CONCLUSION:
Determination of the fact that the decision of the Trail Court was fair the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s verdict. The acceptance of the prosecution’s document by the defence without any cross-examination does not interrupt the fairness of the trial.
Stating that the retrial was unnecessary the Supreme Court upheld the Trial Court’s by setting aside the High Court’s decision.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
WRITTEN BY: D.V. DEEKSHA.
