Sections 147, 302 read with Section 149 IPC.- the time and occurrence was between 8 to 9 pm, the night was dark, -the accused were strangers to the witnesses and no test identification was conducted during the investigation.-the accused persons were not in the front of the tractor or in the light of the tractor-The informant PW3 Lalaram turned hostile and could not identify the assailants-PW4 Ramkaran. His behaviour in leaving the place of occurrence and not reporting the matter to any one is extremely unnatural.- as to how "one child" who was on the tractor, has after investigation been found to be none other than PW5 Ramratan, aged about 22 years and a stout person. - High court rightly acquitted the accused nothing to interfere - 2015 S.C. MSKLAWREPROTS

 PW3 Lalaram at 11.30 pm  on
21.05.1982 that at about 8.30 pm while  returning  from  his  field  he  had
stayed at piao of Padmaji for having water and  smoke.  
That  time  he  saw
Bhagirath, resident of Tausar ploughing his field with a tractor  driven  by
PW4 Ramkaran.
 He also saw "one child" sitting on the  tractor,  whose  name
he did not know.
 While so sitting at piao  he  saw  that  the  respondents-
accused and one more person armed with lathis  and  kassies  had  formed  an
unlawful  assembly  and  entered  into  the  field  of  Bhagirath.
 As  per
reporting, he was able to identify them all in the light of the tractor  and
he had seen accused-respondent  Manglaram  stopping  the  tractor  whereupon
Bhagirath came down from the tractor.
Accused  Sampat  Ram  then  allegedly
inflicted a kassi blow on the head of Bhagirath  who  fell  down.   Treating
him to be dead all the accused ran away.  PW3  Lalaram  went  to  the  spot,
remained there for about an hour and since nobody appeared he left the  dead
body of Bhagirath there itself.

The  informant  PW3
Lalaram  turned  hostile  and  could  not  identify  the  assailants.    PW4
Ramkaran, driver of the tractor could identify all the  accused  and  stated
that respondent Sampat Ram had dealt kassi blow on  the  head  of  Bhagirath
while the others with their lathis had  given  blows  to  him.   He  further
stated that immediately  after  the  incident  he  had  left  the  place  of
occurrence with his tractor to his house.  The person who  was  referred  to
as "one child" in the initial reporting, according to  the  prosecution  was
PW5 Ramratan.   As a matter of fact, PW5 Ramratan was aged  about  22  years
and a stout person.  He could identify  only  one  accused  i.e.  respondent
Sampat Ram, who allegedly was carrying a kassi and had given a blow  on  the
head of Bhagirath.
The High Court observed that the time and occurrence was between 8  to
9 pm, the night was dark, the accused were strangers to  the  witnesses  and
no test identification was  conducted  during  the  investigation.   It  was
further observed that according to PW4 Ramkaran, the  accused  persons  were
not in the front of the tractor  or  in  the  light  of  the  tractor.   His
behaviour in leaving the place of occurrence and not  reporting  the  matter
to anyone was found to be against normal human behaviour.   As  regards  PW5
Ramratan who was a total stranger and  whose  very  presence  was  doubtful,
material contradictions were also found in his statement.   On  the  overall
analysis of the matter the prosecution witnesses  who  claimed  to  be  eye-
witnesses were found to be unreliable and untrustworthy by the  High  Court.
The High Court, thus, allowed the  appeal  and  acquitted  the  respondents-
accused of all the charges.

We have gone though the record and considered the  rival  submissions.
PW3 Lalaram, having turned hostile, the  matter  completely  hinges  on  the
testimony  of  PW4  Ramkaran.   His  behaviour  in  leaving  the  place   of
occurrence and not reporting the matter to any one is  extremely  unnatural.
The incident having  occurred  in  the  darkness  and  as  accepted  by  PW4
Ramkaran it was not in front of the tractor, the chance and opportunity  for
him to have sufficiently identified the assailants is also doubtful.   There
is nothing on record as to how "one child"  who  was  on  the  tractor,  has
after investigation been found to be none  other  than  PW5  Ramratan,  aged
about 22 years and a stout person.-2015 S.C. MSKLAWREPROTS

Popular posts from this blog

Sec.482 Cr.P.C. - Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 - Part B question Paper was missed ( said to be distributed to A1 along with other students by A2 an invigilator ) - Charge - she was negligent in performing the invigilation duties. - Their Lordships held that Mere negligence in performing invigilation duties, does not attract the offence set-forth in the Act. Therefore, in absence of any allegation that the petitioner herein has committed the offence set out in Section 5 of the Act, she cannot be subjected to prosecution for which the penalty has been provided under Section 8 of the Act.- Quashed the criminal proceedings - 2015 Telganga & A.P. msklawreports

Section 5 of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 read with Rule 9(1)(a)(i), (ii) and (iii) of the Rules of 1989. - Powers of Revenue Court - Petitioners are the legal heirs of Late Sri A. Penta Reddy and respondents 1 to 3 are the brothers of Penta Reddy - Petitioners claimed as Separate Property - Brothers/Respondents claimed as Joint family Property - MRO held summary enquiry and held that it is Joint family Property - No Appeal to RDO - after the lapse of 12 years filed Revision directly to Joint Collector - JC. dismissed the revision - this Writ - Their Lordships held that in the absence of any suit for Declaration of title after receiving Rule 9 notice with in 3 months, the MRO can decide the dispute summarily - since no appeal is filed nor any suit is filed in any court - the orders of MRO can not be challanged after the lapse of 12 years - dismissed the revision - -2015 Telangana & A.P. MSKLAWREPORTS

DVC CASE - Practice & Procedure - Magistrate shall issue a notice of the date of hearing fixed under Sec.12-the Magistrate need not, nay shall not issue warrant for securing presence of respondent - the Court need not insist for personal attendance of the parties for each adjournment like in criminal cases.-if the respondents failed to turn up after receiving notice and file their counter affidavit if any,pass an exparte order by virtue of the power conferred on him under Sec.23 of the D.V.Act.-only under exceptional circumstances, if the Magistrate feels required, he may issue warrants for securing the presence of the concerned party. -2015 A.P. MSKLAWREPORTS( Telegana)