LALA RAM Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
LAWS(SC)-1990-2-1
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: ALLAHABAD)
Decided on February 07,1990

LALA RAM Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

K K DHAWAN VS. STATE NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-1998-10-54] [REFERRED]
CHHAKKI RAMNATH VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-1990-9-41] [REFERRED TO]
ROBIN SINGH VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2005-2-152] [REFERRED TO]
PRITHVI SOVERN KUNTAL VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2000-11-74] [REFERRED TO]
GURDEO SINGH VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-1991-3-1] [REFERRED TO]
GURDEEP SINGH VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-1992-4-43] [REFERRED TO]
S V L MURTHY VS. STATE OF A P [LAWS(SC)-2009-5-57] [RELIED UPON]
PUSHPA DEVI VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-1997-9-53] [REFERRED]
CHANDARSINGH VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-1992-7-34] [REFERRED TO]
RAMLAL PRABHULAL VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-1992-8-25] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. VINAYAK SHIVAJIRAO POL [LAWS(BOM)-1997-4-3] [REFERRED TO]
NAGINA SHARMA VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-1990-7-1] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

K. Jayachandra Reddy, J. - (1.)The Sessions Court convicted all the ten accused under S. 148 and S. 302 read with S. 149 Indian Penal Code and sentenced each of them to two years R.I. and life imprisonment under the two counts respectively. The sentences were directed to run concurrently. The convicted accused preferred an appeal to the High Court of Allahabad. One of the accused Har Sewak who figured as Accused No. 1 died during the pendency of the appeal. The convictions and sentences of all the other nine accused were confirmed. Hence they have preferred this appeal by way of special leave granted by this Court. During the pendency of the appeal in this Court Accused No. 3 and Accused No. 9 died.
(2.)Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the case arose out of an acute faction and the witnesses relied upon by both the Courts below being by are highly interested and there are any number of circumstances indicating that the whole prosecution story is fabricated and at any rate the evidence cannot be relied upon at all. Learned counsel for the respondent State on the other hand submitted that the two Courts below have accepted the evidence and therefore this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Art. 136 cannot interfere. It is true that this Court generally will not interfere in the concurrent judgment of criminal Courts but it has also been held that where the interest of justice requires the Court can interfere even in such cases. In Jagta v. State of Haryana, (1974) 4 SCC 747, it is held that where there is some glaring infirmity in the prosecution evidence and as a result there is any miscarriage of justice, this Court can interfere. In Jagir Singh v. The State (Delhi), (1975) 3 SCC 562, this Court, having noticed that the evidence relied upon by the Court below is not worthy of credit and unreliable, while exercising jurisdiction under S. 136 of the Constitution of India, interfered and set aside the convictions and sentences. In Balak Ram v. State of U. P., (1975) 3 SCC 219, this Court while examining the scope of Art. 136 observed that "The powers of the Supreme Court under Art. 136 are wide but in criminal Appeals Supreme Court does not interfere with the concurrent findings of fact save in exceptional circumstances." In Nachhettar Singh v. The State of Punjab, AIR 1976 SC 951, this Court again examined the scope of Art. 136 and observed "When there are various infirmities in the prosecution case, the Supreme Court can interfere."
(3.)Bearing these principles in mind, we shall now examine the prosecution case and the evidence relied upon and the respective submissions in respect of the same. The material witnesses and the accused and the two deceased persons belong to Singhulapur village. The deceased Pratap Narain was the brother of Jagat Narain PW 1, complainant in the case. The other by Sushil Chandra was the grandson of Ram Dularey maternal uncle of PW 1. Ram Gopal, another maternal uncle of PW 1 executed a sale deed in respect of the property of his share in favour of Ram Dularey, his own brother. In respect of the same a number of disputes including civil litigations had taken place between Ram Autar and Ram Dularey. And the complainant Jagat Narain helped Ram Dularey. Consequently there was enmity between him and some of the accused who are the sons of Ram Autar, the brother of Ram Dularey. There was also old enmity between the complainant and the accused Har Sewak. A number of disputes of civil and criminal nature were there between these two families. During the elections in 1972 there was an incident of 'marpit' between the two parties and a case was registered. It may not be necessary to refer to other disputes since it is an admitted fact that there was acute enmity and bitter faction between the two families.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.