RAMRATAN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN
LAWS(SC)-1951-9-1
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: RAJASTHAN)
Decided on September 13,1951

RAMRATAN Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF RAJASTHAN Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

YAKUB ISMAILBHAI PATEL VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2003-8-8] [REFERRED 2.]
DULU SUTRADHAR VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-1999-1-8] [REFERRED TO]
SAJID VS. STATE [LAWS(ALL)-2008-9-32] [REFERRED TO]
STATE VS. PARESWAR GHASI [LAWS(ORI)-1967-8-2] [REFERRED TO]
M D BHATT VS. STATE OF M P [LAWS(MPH)-1983-11-15] [REFERRED TO]
LAKHOO VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-1983-11-11] [REFERRED TO]
CHINTAMANI NAHAK ALIAS NAIK VS. STATE OF ORISSA [LAWS(ORI)-1984-7-7] [REFERRED TO]
NIMAI SAMAL VS. STATE OF ORISSA [LAWS(ORI)-1988-4-22] [REFERRED TO]
AJIT KUMAR MONDAL ALIAS AMAR VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-1989-4-7] [REFERRED TO]
BANWARI VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-1969-3-7] [REFERRED TO]
BALKARAN SINGH VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-1977-4-15] [REFERRED TO]
Phoola VS. State of Rajasthan [LAWS(RAJ)-1979-2-1] [REFERRED TO]
UMED SINGH VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2001-7-59] [REFERRED TO]
KARTIK MALHAR VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(SC)-1995-11-132] [FOLLOWED]
STATE OF HARYANA VS. SAT NARAIN [LAWS(P&H)-2003-5-184] [REFERRED TO]
AMAR SINGH VS. BALWINDER SINGH [LAWS(SC)-2003-1-21] [REFERRED TO]
PANDURANG CHANDRAKANT MHATRE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(SC)-2009-10-14] [REFERRED TO]
H UMESH ALIAS UMAKANTHA RAO VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-1990-3-36] [REFERRED TO]
SECRETARY MALABAR MARKET COMMITTEE CALICUT VS. SANKARAN [LAWS(KER)-1974-7-32] [REFERRED TO]
SIDHA DEHURY VS. STATE [LAWS(ORI)-1981-10-4] [REFERRED TO]
RATIA ALIAS DANDHA MUNDA VS. STATE [LAWS(ORI)-1997-7-14] [REFERRED TO]
GHISA VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-1975-4-16] [REFERRED TO]
PRAVIN @ PAGO HAMIR JEEVA BARAIYA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2014-5-48] [REFERRED TO]
NANHELAL @ NANDLAL FULRAJ YADAV VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2014-4-99] [REFERRED TO]
RAMANBHAI BHIKHABHAI MACHHI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2014-4-100] [REFERRED TO]
HAKAM MAHOMED JAINWALA VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-1970-12-11] [REFERRED TO]
KINA BEHERA VS. THE STATE [LAWS(ORI)-1967-8-17] [REFERRED TO]
KONDRA PARAJA AND 6 ORS. VS. THE STATE [LAWS(ORI)-1969-3-16] [REFERRED TO]
SHRI SANTOSH CHANDRA PAUL AND ORS. ETC. ETC. VS. SHRI CHUNILAL SAHA AND ORS. ETC. ETC. [LAWS(GAU)-1985-2-5] [REFERRED TO]
PARMAR MANISHBHAI BABULAL VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2013-11-258] [REFERRED TO]
SUJEET SHARMA VS. THE STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2015-9-105] [REFERRED TO]
BINAY KUMAR @ BINAY MOHAN LAL VS. THE STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2016-7-1] [REFERRED TO]
RAMNATH & ORS. VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-1977-11-21] [REFERRED TO]
DINESH KUMAR VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-1996-6-5] [REFERRED TO]
MD. KAMAL UDDIN VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2007-9-69] [REFERRED TO]
SANGILI @ SANGILIMADASAMY VS. STATE [LAWS(MAD)-2017-12-141] [REFERRED TO]
HAJABHAI RAJASHIBHAI ODEDARA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2019-2-160] [REFERRED TO]
MOHAMADNOMAN IQBALAHEMAD RAJPUT VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2019-5-37] [REFERRED TO]
SHAILENDRASINH VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2021-6-299] [REFERRED TO]
BAKUL RANJAN DHAR VS. STATE OF TRIPURA [LAWS(TRIP)-2021-9-28] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)This is an appeal by special leave from the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court. It arises out of an incident in which Bhimsen was murdered on May 8, 1959 at Mandi Pili Bangan shortly before 3 p.m. The prosecution story briefly was that there was bad blood between Ramratan appellant and the members of the family of Bhimsen on account of panchayat elections in which they had supported rival candidates. Another cause or enmity was that some time before the occurrence, Ramratan appellant was prosecuted under S. 307 of the Indian Penal Code and Bhimsen was cited as a prosecution witness in that case and Ramratan did not like that.
(2.)Bhimsen and his father brought some gram for sale on the night between May 7/8, 1959, to Pili Bangan. Bhimsen returned to the village to bring more gram and came back at about 10/11 a.m. on the 8th on his tractor-trolly along with his brother Ram Partap. The gram was to be sold through Roopram and was stacked in front of his shop in the mandi. Ram Partap was apparently not interested in the sale and had wandered away leaving his father Jawanaram and his brother Bhimsen at the shop. Shortly before 8 p.m. while the gram was being weighed by Lekhram weighman, the three appellants and two others (namely, Moman and Ramsingh) came up there armed with guns. Ramratan shouted that the enemy should not be allowed to escape as Bhimsen was trying to enter the shop of Roopram to save himself on seeing these persons. Before, however, Bhimsen could enter the shop of Roopram, Ramratan came in-between and fired at him from a distance of about 5 feet. Bhimsen got injured and fell down and died soon after. Jawanaram raised his hands and asked the assailants not to kill Bhimsen but Hansraj appellant fired at him causing a wound on his left hand, which resulted in a compound fracture. Maniram also fired at Jawanaram but he dropped on the ground and pellets hit Lekhram weighman who was standing behind Jawanaram. Thereafter all the assailants ran away. Roopram had shut up his shop when the incident took place and he only came out when everything was over. Jawanaram asked him to send a telegram to police station Suratgarh and told him the names of the five assailants. Thereafter Jawanaram Started for the police outpost in Pili Bangan to make a report; but Ramsingh constable met him on the way at a short distance from the shop of Roopram. Thereupon Jawanaram made a report (Ex. P-1) to Ramsingh then and there. While this report was being recorded, Ram Partap also turned up. After the report had been recorded, Jawanaram was sent to the hospital where his injuries were examined at 3-30 p.m. Ramsingh constable went to the spot after recording the report and found the dead body of Bhimsen lying in front of Roopram's shop. It appears that head-constable Govind Singh had gone outside and returned at 5 p.m. and started investigation thereafter. The Sub-inspector arrived on the scene at about 6 p.m. and took over the investigation and completed it. Thereafter the three appellants and two others who have been acquitted by the Sessions Judge were prosecuted for this murder. The case of the appellants was that they had not committed this offence and that they had been implicated on account of enmity. They examined no evidence in defence.
(3.)The main prosecution evidence consisted of the statements of Jawanaram, his son Ram Partap, Roopram and Lekhram as to what happened at the spot. Jawanaram related the whole story as given above. Ram Partap said that he had come near the spot on seeing the assailants going that way and hid himself at some distance and saw the incident from there. Roopram's statement was that he shut up his shop as soon as he heard some noise outside and did not see the assailants. When he came out, however, he was told by Jawanaram the names of the five assailants and saw Bhimsen lying dead. He had also heard three reports of gunshots from inside his shop. He saw Jawanaram and Lekhram were also there injured and Jawanaram went away shortly after for making the report. Sometime thereafter the police came to the spot and started investigation. Lekhram stated that he was there weighing the gram. Four or five persons armed with guns came there and shouted and fired two or three times with the result that Bhimsen, Jawanaram and he were injured and Bhimsen died immediately. But he was unable to say whether the five persons in the dock were the assailants. Because of certain answers that he gave in cross-examination this witness was treated as hostile by the prosecution.
;


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