Holding

Ramvir’s conviction under s.302 IPC is upheld as he intentionally inflicted a fatal knife wound, whereas the convictions of Ranpal Singh and Chatar Singh under s.302 read with s.34 IPC are set aside due to lack of credible participation and the benefit of doubt.

Summary

The prosecution alleged that on 17 April 1978, the deceased Yashpal was surrounded by three brothers, Ramvir, Ranpal Singh and Chatar Singh, and Ramvir delivered a fatal knife blow to his chest. The trial court convicted Ramvir under s.302 IPC and the other two brothers under s.302 read with s.34 IPC, sentencing all to life imprisonment. On appeal, the accused challenged the FIR as ante‑timed, the credibility of eyewitnesses, and the relevance of semi‑digested food in the stomach to the time of death. The Supreme Court held that the FIR was timely filed, the eyewitnesses were reliable residents, and the stomach evidence did not alter the incident time. It found the prosecution’s version of the involvement of Ranpal and Chatar implausible, granting them benefit of doubt, while affirming that Ramvir intentionally inflicted a lethal wound, satisfying the mens rea for murder. Consequently, Ramvir’s conviction was upheld and the convictions of the other two brothers were set aside.

Issues considered

Whether the FIR was ante‑timed and the time of the incident was altered by the prosecution.
Whether the eyewitnesses are chance witnesses and can be relied upon.
Whether the presence of semi‑digested food in the deceased's stomach can be used to infer a different time of death.
Whether appellants Nos.2 and 3 participated in the murder under s.302 read with s.34 IPC.
Whether appellant No.1 had the intention and knowledge to cause death, justifying conviction under s.302 IPC.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 313
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 302, s. 34

Subjects

murdersection 302 IPCsection 34 IPCbenefit of doubtante‑timed FIReyewitness testimonyknife injurylife imprisonment

Judgment

[2009) 10 S.C.R. 704

A RAMVIR & ORS. .. -
v.
STATE OF U.P.
(Criminal Appeal No. 1108 of 2007)
-
JULY 6, 2009
B
[DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA AND DR. B.S.
CHAUHAN, JJ.] .,, ~

Penal Code, 1860 - s.302 and s.302 rlw s.34 - Death
c due to knife blow which pierced through the chest as also the
lung - Allegation that while appellant nos. 2 and 3 embraced
the deceased, appellant no. 1 inflicted the knife blow -
Conviction of appellant no.1 under s.302 and appellant nos.2
and 3 under s.302 rlw s.34 - Challenge to - Held: On facts,
D role ascribed to appellant nos.2 and 3 was unbelievable and
their presence at the place of occurrence was doubtful - Their
conviction accordingly set aside - However, gravity of the
knife blow and dimension of injury caused clearly proves that
appellant no. 1 had intention and knowledge of killing ·the
E deceased, and therefore, used knife at the most vital part of
body affecting chest and lung with the knowledge that such
injury will definitely cause death in the ordinary course of
nature - Hence, conviction of appellant no. 1 upheld.
.
In a murder case, the prosecution alleged that on
F account of previous enmity, the accused-appellants
surrounded the deceased while he was going to his Gher,
whereafter appellant nos. 2 and 3 embraced him, while
appellant no.1 inflicted a knife blow on his chest which
proved fatal. The Courts below convicted appellant ino.1
G under s.302 IPC and appellant nos. 2 and 3 under s.302
'rlw s.34 IPC. All the three appellants were sentenced to __.. ""~,.

life imprisonment.

In appeal to th_is Court, the appellants challenged
H 704
RAMVIR & ORS. v. STATE OF U.P. 705

their conviction on various grounds viz. that the FIR was A
ante timed and that the time of incident was also changed
by the prosecution to suit their purp'ose; that all the
witnesses examined by prosecution as eye witnesses
·were chance witnesses; and that the semi-digested and
digested food found in stomach of the deceased B
indicated that he took food about 3-4 hours prior to time
of the incident and therefore, the incident must have
happened at about 11 p.m. in the night and not at 6.15
p.m. as alleged by the prosecution.

Disposing of the appeal, the Court
c
HELD : 1. The FIR is not ante timed. According to the
prosecution, the incident happened at about 6.15 p.m.
and the same was reported to the police at 7.35 p.m.
which was registered and therefore there was no D
question of ante timing of the FIR. [Para 10] [710-F-G]

2. The eye-witnesses examined in the trial cannot be
said to be chance witnesses as they were the residents
of the same village and at about 6.15 p.m. these eye E
witnesses were moving around, some were going to their
agricultural field while some were coming from their
respective agricultural fields. The incident had happened
near a sugarcane crop which is near to the agricultural
field. The time 6.15 p.m., being broad day light, the
F
presence of the eyewitnesses at the place of occurrence
is quite natural. The witnesses being the residents of the
locality, their presence at the place of occurrence could
not be considered unnatural. They had no cause to give
false evidence. Accordingly, their testimonies cannot be
discarded. [Para 10] [710-G-H; 711-A-B] G
' " .le

3. So far as stomach of the deceased containing
semi-digested and digested food is concerned, no
suggestion was put by the defense to prove or elicit the
H
706 SUPREME COURT REPORTS . [2009] 10 S.C.R.

A information regarding the exact time of taking the food
by deceased. Even if it is assumed that the food was
taken 3-4 hours prior to the time of incident, it would be
somewhere around 2-3 p.m., when also food could have
been taken by the deceased. The defense put up by all
B the three accused that they were not present and they
were present elsewhere is found to be baseless. There
is no reason to take a different view from what was taken
by both the trial court as well as the High Court. [Para 10]
[711-B-E]
c 4. The plea of the defense that the time of occurrence
was solely to suit the purpose and interest of the
prosecution could also have not been proved by leading
any evidence to establish that the incident had happened
during night. Therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve
D the facts put up by the prosecution that the incident had
happened at about 6.15 p.m. at the place of occurrence
and deceased had died out of a knife blow allegedly
being given by appellant No.1 and the said knife blow
itself caused his instantaneous death and he died at the
E spot before he could be taken to any hospital. The
dimension and the nature of the injury also speaks for
itself. [Para 11] [711-E-G]

5. The evidence adduced to establish the guilt of
F appe.llant Nos. 2 and 3 are that appellant No. 1 had come
to the place of occurrence alongwith a knife in his hand
and he came out of nearby bushes whereas the appellant
nos. 2 and 3 came from another place. They allegedly
came out of the field, caught hold of the deceased and
G embraced him. If the appellant Nos. 2 and 3 were
embracing the deceased, a knife blow could not have
been given in that manner by appellant No.1 on the chest
of the deceased. It is not stated by the prosecution that
appellant nos.2 and 3 were embracing him from behind.
Nature of the evidence adduced and role ascribed to
H
RAMVIR & ORS. v. STATE OF U.P. 707

, + them appear to be highly improbable. They are, therefore, A

·- entitled-to benefit of doubt. The aforesaid attack with the
help of the knife pierced through the lung and went
through the chest. All the three appellants are brothers
and apparently there was some rivalry between the two
groups in the village. [Para 14] (712-B-E] B
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
'-' case, it is found that the story put up by the prosecution
regarding the role of the appellant No·s. 2 and 3 are
exaggerated and improbable. There is no allegation that
·appellant No. 2 and 3 were carrying any weapon in their
c
hands. It is also proved ttiat they were coming to the
place of occurrence from another direction. Therefore, the
role ascribed to the appellant Nos. 2 and 3 are found to
be unbelievable. Their presence at the place of
occurrence is also doubtful and therefore the benefit of D
doubt is extended so far as appellant Nos. 2 and 3 are
concerned. [Paras 15 and 16] [712-F-H; 713-A]

7. However, the· fact that appellant No. 1 had given
knife blow which pierced through the chest and also E
pierced the lung, the gravity of the blow and the
dimension of the injury clearly proves that appellant No.1
r~ had the intention and knowledge of killing the deceased,
' and therefore, the appellant No. 1 used knife at the most
vital part of the body affecting chest and lung with the F
knowledge that such injury will definitely cause death to
,t the deceased in the ordinary course of nature. In that view
of the matter, it is a clear case of Section 302, IPC. The
conviction and sentence with respect to appellant No. 1
is upheld. However, the conviction and sentence of
G
appellant No. 2 and 3 are hereby set aside. [Paras 17 and
•. + 19] [713-A-E]

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal

H
708 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 10 S.C.R.

~
A Appeal No. 1108 of 2007. '

From the Judgment & Order dated 2.5.2007 of the High
Court of Judicature of Allahabad in Criminal Appeal No. 133
of 1979.
B M.C. Dhingra, Gaurav Dhingra and Rajeshwar Singh for
the Appellants.

T.N. Singh, Rajeev Dubey and Kamlendra Mishra for the
Respondent.
c The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
--
DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J. 1. The appellants
herein are the real brothers who have been convicted and
sentenced under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (in short
D "the IPC") and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. The Trial
Court found the appellant No. 1 herein, Ramvir guilty of the
offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC whereas the
appellant Nos. 2 and 3, namely, Ranpal Singh and Chatar Singh
respectively were found guilty of the offence punishable under
E Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and each of them
was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment.

2. The First Information Report (in short "the FIR") reveals
that on 17.04.1978 at about 6.15 p.m. when the deceased
•
Yashpal while going to his Gher was surrounded by the
F
appellants namely Ramvir, Ranpal Singh and Chatar Singh
near the field of Nek Ram. After surrounding the deceased,
Chatar Singh and Ranpal Singh embraced the deceased while
Ramvir gave a knife blow on the chest of the deceased. The
deceased cried out upon which the complainant and the
G witnesses reached the place of occurrence. On seeing the
~ ....
complainant and the witnesses, the appellants fled away from
the place of occurrence. Deceased Yashpal instantaneously
died on account of the injury received.

H
RAMVIR & ORS. v. STATE OF U.P. 709
[DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]
3. The prosecution proved the motive of the accused - A
' ~
appellant against the deceased Yashpal stating it to be a case
of election rivalry inasmuch as election of the Society had taken
place in the village in which three candidates contested the
election against the complainant. The deceased Yashpal took
active part in the election and during the campaign an 8
altercation had taken place between the deceased - Yashpal
and the appellant No. 1 Ramvir upon which Ramvir threatened
to kill the deceased and since then the appellants were having
~
enmity with the deceased - Yashpal.

4. The aforesaid FIR was lodged immediately at the Police
c
Station after the occurrence. As already noted the incident took
place at about 6.15 p.m. whereas the FIR was lodged at 7.35
p.m.

5. On receipt of the aforesaid FIR the Police started the D
investigation during the. course of which the statement of the
witnesses were recorded and on completion of the investigation
a charge sheet was submitted against all the accused
appellants. At the time of framing of the charge, the accused
pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. E

6. The Sessions Judge framed the charge against
appellant - Ramvir under Section 302 IPC while the other two
_... accused, namely, Ranpal Singh and Chatar Singh were charged
~
under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. During the trial
F
eight witnesses were examined including PW-1 (Giriraj Singh),
PW-2 (Rajpal), PW-3 (Nek Ram) and PW-4 (Deopal Singh),
who are stated to be the eye witnesses of the occurrence. All
four of them in their examination-in-chief have supported the
prosecution version of the case. The said witnesses were also
cross-examined at length by the defence. The other witnesses G
examined are of formal nature. PW-5 (Dr. Aqil Ahmed) who
1 ..
conducted the post mortem examination of the deceased
Yashpal found the following antemortem injuries:-

"Star wound 11h" X 1" (chest cavity) on right side chest 2' 1-j
710 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 10 S.C.R.

A above right nipple at 12 O' clock position."

7. PW-6 (S.I. Mahendra Singh) and PW-7 (S.I. Ranvir
Singh) are the investigating officers whereas PW-8 (Jag
Mohan) is the constable who had taken the dead body for post
mortem examination. The accused was examined under
B
Section 313 of the Code fo Criminal Procedure, 1973.

8. The defense also examined one witness on his behalf
namely Sri Krishna Kumar Bhardwaj as DW-1. The aforesaid
witness was examined by the defense with a plea that the FIR
c was ante timed and for that reason the special report was sent
late to the District Magistrate, Bulandshahr.

9. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has
raised many submissions before us. His first submission was
D that the FIR is ante timed and that the time of incident has also
been changed by the prosecution to suit their purpose. It was
also submitted that all the witnesses examined by the
prosecution as eye witnesses are chance witnesses. It was
further submitted that the semi-digested and digested food was
found in the stomach of the deceased which indicates that the
E
food was taken about 3-4 hours prior to time of incident and
therefore, the incident must have happened at about 11 p.m.
in the night and not at 6.15 p.m. as alleged by the prosecution.
We have considered the aforesaid submissions. •.
).

F 10. We may state here that similar submissions were also
made before the learn::d Sessions Judge as also before the
High Court which were considered and were found to be
baseless by both the courts below. So far the contention that
the FIR is ante timed, we find no reason to accept the said
G contention. According to the prosecution, the incident happened
at about 6.15 p.m. and the same was reported to the police at
7.35 p.m. which was registered and therefore there was no
question of ante timing of the FIR. The eye-witnesses examined
...
in the trial cannot be said to be the chance witnesses as they
H were the residents of the same village and at about 6.15 p.m.
RAMVIR & ORS. v. STATE OF U.P. 711
[DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]

these eye witnesses were moving around, some were going A
~
<
to their agricultural field while some were coming from their
respective agricultural fields. The incident had happened near
a sugarcane crop which is near to the agricultural field. The time
6.15 p.m., being broad day light, the presence of the
eyewitnesses at the place of occurrence is quite natural. The B
witnesses being the residents of the locality, their presence at
the place of occurrence could not be considered unnatural. They
had no cause to give false evidence. Accordingly, their
~
testimonies cannot be discarded. So far as stomach of the
deceased containing semi-digested and digested food is c
concerned, no suggestion was put by the defense to prove or
elicit the information regarding the exact time of taking the food
by deceased Yashpal. Even if it is assumed that the food was
taken 3-4 hours prior to the time of incident, it would be
somewhere around 2-3 p.m., when also food could have been D
taken by the deceased. The defense put up by all the three
accused that they were not present and they were present
elsewhere is found to be baseless. We find no reason to take
a different view from what was taken by both the trial court as
well as the High Court.
E
11. The plea of the defense that the time of occurrence
was solely to suit the purpose and interest of the prosecution
could also have not been proved by leading any evidence to
·-"'
• establish that the incident had happened during night .
Therefore, we find no reason to disbelieve the facts put up by F
the prosecution that the incident had happened at about 6.15
p.m. at the place of occurrence and deceased Yashpal had
died out of a knife blow allegedly being given by accused No.
1 Ramvir and the said knife blow itself caused his
instantaneous death and he died at the spot before he could G
be taken to any hospital. The dimension and the nature of the
~- .. injury also speaks for itself.

12. It was next submitted by the counsel appearing for the
appellants that presence of appellant Nos. 2 and 3 should have
H
712 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 10 S.C.R.

A been held to be doubtful. , ~

13. It was submitted by the prosecution that appellant nos.
2 and 3 caught hold of the deceased Yashpal whereupon
appellant No. 1 gave a knife blow to the deceased Yashpal
which proved to be fatal. We have analysed the said evidence
B
very carefully and very minutely and also appreciated the
contention raised on behalf of the counsel for appellant Nos. 2
and 3.

14. The evidence adduced to establish the guilt of
c appellant Nos. 2 and 3 are that appellant No. 1 had come to
the place of occurrence alongwith a knife in his hand and he
came out of nearby bushes whereas the other two accused
came from another place. They allegedly came out of the field,
caught hold of the deceased and embraced him. If the appellant
D Nos. 2 and 3 were embracing the deceased, a knife blow could
not have been given in that manner by appellant No. 1 on the
chest of the deceased. It is not stated by the prosecution that
the said two accused Nos. 2 and 3 were embracing him from
behind. Nature of the evidence adduced and role ascribed to
E them appear to us to be highly improbable. They are, therefore,
entitled to benefit of doubt. The aforesaid attack with the help
of the knife pierced through the lung and went through the chest.
All the three appellants are the brothers and apparently there
was some rivalry between the two groups in the village.
F 15. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case,
we find that the story put up by the prosecution regarding the
role of the appellant Nos. 2 and 3 are exaggerated and
improbable. There is no allegation that these two persons i.e.
appellant No. 2 and 3 were carrying any weapon in their hands.
G It is also proved that they were coming to the place of
occurrence from another direction.
.. .
16. Therefore, the role ascribed to the appellant Nos. 2 and
3 are found to be unbelievable. Their presence at the place of
H occurrence is also doubtful and therefore we extend benefit of
RAMVIR & ORS. v. STATE OF U.P. 713
[DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]

doubt so far as appellant Nos. 2 and 3 are concerned. A

17. However, the fact that appellant No. 1 had given knife
blow which has pierced through the chest and has also pierced
the lung, the gravity of the blow and the dimension of the injury
clearly proves that appellant No.1 had the intention and 8
knowledge of killing the deceased Yashpal, and therefore, the
appellant No. 1 used knife at the most vital part of the body
cf affecting chest and lung with the knowledge that such injury will
definitely cause death to the deceased Yashpal in the ordinary
course of nature. In that view of the matter we are of the
considered opinion that it is a clear case of Section 302, IPC.
c
The conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant No. 1
by both the trial Court as well as the High Court is affirmed.
The conviction and sentence with respect to appellant No. 1 is
upheld.
J,· D
18. Accordingly, the appeal so far as appellant No. 1 is
concerned, is dismissed.

19. However, the appeal in respect of appellant Nos. 2 and
3 is hereby allowed. The conviction and sentence of appellant E
No. 2 and 3 are hereby set aside. They are set at liberty. They
shall be released forthwith if they are not wanted in any other
_,,. case.
.
20. The appeal is disposed of in terms of aforesaid order.
F
8.8.8. Appeal disposed of.