SHAM SUNDER Vs. PURAN
LAWS(SC)-1990-9-68
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: PUNJAB & HARYANA)
Decided on
September 21,1990
SHAM SUNDER
Appellant
VERSUS
PURAN
Respondents
Cited Judgements :-
STATE VS. RAJESH PAGI ALIAS DHURI [LAWS(BOM)-2004-9-190] [REFERRED TO]ZAMIL VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2019-5-2] [REFERRED TO]
DEEN DAYAL VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2019-4-113] [REFERRED TO]
KAUSHAL KASHYAP VS. STATE OF U. P. [LAWS(ALL)-2019-4-248] [REFERRED TO]
TILAK DHARI & ANOTHER VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2018-5-96] [REFERRED TO]
MAHESH VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2019-11-158] [REFERRED TO]
DANTE FARINELLO CARDOSO VS. STATE OF U P AND ANOTHER [LAWS(ALL)-2016-5-312] [REFERRED]
PAPPU AND ORS. VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2016-1-42] [REFERRED TO]
ANWAR HUSSAIN VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2017-6-68] [REFERRED TO]
SRIPAL DOHARE VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2020-1-288] [REFERRED TO]
SOBRAN VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2020-1-500] [REFERRED TO]
SELVAM AND ANR. VS. STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KODUMUDI (CR. NO. 660 OF 1990 OF ARACHALLOR P.S.) [LAWS(MAD)-1997-1-142] [REFERRED TO]
GOPAL S/O SHIVAJI BHOSALE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2020-12-6] [REFERRED TO]
CHANDRASINH ALIAS CHANDUBHA LALUBHA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2001-7-19] [REFERRED TO]
CHANDAN CHATTERJEE ALIAS FULU VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2002-12-25] [REFERRED TO]
NARPAT SINGH VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2015-10-20] [REFERRED TO]
GAJENDRA VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2019-10-232] [REFERRED TO]
SANJAY KUMAR VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2019-1-300] [REFERRED TO]
RAMESH SINGH AND ORS. VS. STATE [LAWS(ALL)-2018-9-251] [REFERRED TO]
DEVENDRA KUMAR VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2019-9-118] [REFERRED TO]
RAM AVTAR BHAR VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2019-9-258] [REFERRED TO]
VIKAS @ SHERA VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2017-10-297] [REFERRED TO]
RAM SUBHAG AND ANR VS. STATE [LAWS(ALL)-2018-10-26] [REFERRED TO]
KAWAR & ANOTHER VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2015-8-288] [REFERRED TO]
JUMEYDEEN AND ORS. VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2015-8-254] [REFERRED TO]
KADAM SINGH VS. STATE [LAWS(ALL)-2023-5-141] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF SIKKIM VS. BUDDHIMAN SUBBA [LAWS(SIK)-2015-4-10] [REFERRED TO]
ANANDA POOJARY VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(SC)-2014-10-17] [REFERRED TO]
MUNNA PAHALWAN VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-1994-1-60] [REFERRED TO]
JITENDER @ KALLA VS. STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2016-12-47] [REFERRED TO]
ANAND BABU VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2019-11-211] [REFERRED TO]
CHANDER VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2018-11-213] [REFERRED TO]
SADAN BHADAURIYA VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2015-9-219] [REFERRED TO]
MUKHTAR AHMAD & OTHERS VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2017-7-326] [REFERRED TO]
BHOLA SINGH VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2019-5-364] [REFERRED TO]
HEERA LAL KHARWAR VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2019-4-366] [REFERRED TO]
VIJAY SINGH VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2019-4-91] [REFERRED TO]
KAPIL VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2019-9-311] [REFERRED TO]
CHHOTU @ CHHOTE @ ISRAR @ BHURA VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2019-9-276] [REFERRED TO]
RAJESH VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2019-9-109] [REFERRED TO]
LAL CHAND GUPTA VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2019-9-190] [REFERRED TO]
RAN VIJAI SINGH VS. STATE OF U. P. [LAWS(ALL)-2020-4-110] [REFERRED TO]
FURKAN VS. STATE OF U. P. [LAWS(ALL)-2020-12-66] [REFERRED TO]
SHAKEEL AHMED VS. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) AND ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2015-5-255] [REFERRED TO]
RADHEY @ SUBEDAR AND 2 OTHERS VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2019-5-7] [REFERRED TO]
PAPPU @ VEERBHAN & OTHERS VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2016-1-2] [REFERRED TO]
JITENDRA SINGH AND ORS. VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2016-1-18] [REFERRED TO]
WASIM AND ORS. VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2020-12-134] [REFERRED TO]
ANOOP VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2020-11-139] [REFERRED TO]
SABIR VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2020-7-123] [REFERRED TO]
DHARAM DAS VS. STATE OF U. P. [LAWS(ALL)-2020-9-38] [REFERRED TO]
JANGAL RAMSHARAN VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGRAH [LAWS(CHH)-2011-7-44] [REFERRED TO]
MAYA RAM BHATT VS. STATE OF U P AND ANR [LAWS(ALL)-2019-5-140] [REFERRED TO]
ANAR SINGH VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2019-4-66] [REFERRED TO]
KRISHAN KUMAR @ KUKKOO VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2017-5-170] [REFERRED TO]
SHIV PRASAD & ORS VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2017-5-556] [REFERRED TO]
ANVIR VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2020-7-120] [REFERRED TO]
SHIV SINGH VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2021-10-101] [REFERRED TO]
MANOJ KUMAR VERMA VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2020-2-422] [REFERRED TO]
ARUN KUMAR VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2019-5-267] [REFERRED TO]
FAQIREY VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2021-10-104] [REFERRED TO]
RAM SINGH VS. STATE OF U. P. [LAWS(ALL)-2022-12-116] [REFERRED TO]
SUSHIL ANSAL VS. STATE THROUGH CBI [LAWS(SC)-2014-3-11] [REFERRED TO]
Selvam VS. State of Tamilnadu [LAWS(MAD)-1998-8-3] [REFERRED TO]
KHAGEN JITA VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-1997-2-33] [REFERRED TO]
RAM AJOR VS. STATE OF U. P. [LAWS(ALL)-2020-9-35] [REFERRED TO]
MUSTAK VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2015-9-217] [REFERRED TO]
GOPAL & OTHERS VS. STATE [LAWS(ALL)-2017-7-314] [REFERRED TO]
GYAN CHANDRA VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2018-9-56] [REFERRED TO]
SONU VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2023-9-26] [REFERRED TO]
RAVADA SASIKALA VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(SC)-2017-2-59] [REFERRED TO]
UGGARSAIN VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(SC)-2023-7-4] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF GUJARAT VS. AJITSINH ANDUBHA PARMAR [LAWS(GJH)-2001-7-133] [REFERRED TO]
BHASKAR NAIK VS. STATE OF ORISSA [LAWS(ORI)-2003-10-38] [REFERRED TO]
USMAN VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2019-4-65] [REFERRED TO]
BABLOO VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2019-4-150] [REFERRED TO]
RAJA HUSSAIN VS. STATE [LAWS(ALL)-2019-9-200] [REFERRED TO]
J P SHARMA VS. STATE [LAWS(ALL)-2017-1-451] [REFERRED TO]
RAJIV KUMAR AND ORS. VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2015-9-52] [REFERRED TO]
ABDUL GAFFAR VS. STATE [LAWS(ALL)-2018-12-206] [REFERRED TO]
NAYEEMULLAH AND 2 OTHERS VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2018-4-256] [REFERRED TO]
VIJAYBHAN AND 2 OTHERS VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2017-5-594] [REFERRED TO]
SANTOSH SAHADEV KHAJNEKAR VS. STATE [LAWS(BOM)-2022-11-102] [REFERRED TO]
OJING TASING VS. STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH [LAWS(GAU)-2008-9-5] [REFERRED TO]
SANJAY KUMAR KESHARWANI VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2010-1-11] [REFERRED TO]
ASHIS DEY BABLU DEY VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(CAL)-2003-9-51] [REFERRED TO]
RAJENDRA KUMAR VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2015-10-19] [REFERRED TO]
NARABOYINA KULLAYAPPA VS. STATE OF A P [LAWS(APH)-2004-8-28] [REFFERED TO . (PARA 5) 3.]
CHHATTAR SINGH VS. STATE OF M.P [LAWS(CHH)-2009-11-28] [REFERRED TO]
SHRINATH MANOHAR KESKAR VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-1997-8-21] [REFERRED TO]
MUKESH VS. STATE OF U. P. [LAWS(ALL)-2023-2-112] [REFERRED TO]
ABDUL GAFFAR VS. STATE [LAWS(ALL)-2018-11-266] [REFERRED TO]
V K JAIN VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2017-4-433] [REFERRED TO]
DIWARI & ORS VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2017-8-378] [REFERRED TO]
RANVEER SINGH @ BHAGGU & 3 OTHERS VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2015-8-400] [REFERRED]
DHRUV SINGH VS. STATE [LAWS(ALL)-2019-4-433] [REFERRED TO]
JAGBEER SINGH VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2019-4-51] [REFERRED TO]
CHHABILAL VS. STATE [LAWS(ALL)-2019-5-456] [REFERRED TO]
JAG MOHAN & ANOTHER VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2018-4-226] [REFERRED TO]
RAJPOOT VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2019-2-289] [REFERRED TO]
PUTTAN YADAV VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2023-2-16] [REFERRED TO]
SANTU KORI VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2020-3-60] [REFERRED TO]
RAJEEV AND ORS. VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2020-5-102] [REFERRED TO]
VIJAI PRAKASH VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2021-9-164] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)The respondents Purati and Tara Chand along with Ved, Balwan, Dhapan, Jagdish and Lal Chand were tried before the Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat, for the murder of one Partap Singh and causing injuries to others. The learned Judge by judgment dated 18-5-1972 convicted these respondents for offences under Section 302, I.P.C., and Sections 323, 325 read with S. 149, I.P.C. They were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and ordered to pay a sum of Rs. 500/- each under S. 302, I.P.C., R.I. for one year under Seetion 148, I.P.C., R.I. for one year under Section325 and R.I. for six months under Section 323, 1. P.C. The other accused were convicted for the minor offences and released on probation under Section 360/361, Cr.P.C. The respondents appealed against the conviction and sentence. The High Court by the impugned judgment dated 30-11-1982 disposed of the appeal thus:-
Admittedly there was no prior enmity between the parties. The quarrel arose out of a very insignificant matter like the burning of dry sugarcane leaves on the common boundary of the fields of the two parties. The ensuing altercation would probably have been forgotten had Partap Singh deceased not died. Even when there is an altercation arising out of a minor incident there is some tendency on the part of the prosecution witness to exaggerate matters. The three eyewitnesses have of course fully supported the prosecution case but the investigating officer recorded the statement of one Paras Ram at the time of making the inquest report which gives a somewhat different version. The learned trial judge has himself found that the object of the unlawful assembly was not to commit the murder of the deceased. It is precisely for this reason that five accused persons have been released on probation and only, two accused, i.e., Puran and Tara Chand appellants, have been convicted under Section 302, I. P.C. We do not propose to go into the details of the controversy and in the peculiar circumstances of this case convert the conviction of Puran and Tara Chand appellants into one under Section 304, Part-1, I.P.C., on the basis that in view of the statement made by Paras Ram at the time when the investigating officer made the inquest report a somewhat different version was given. This Paras Ram was not produced as a witness by the prosecution. Since there was no prior enimity between the parties, we order that the sentence already undergone by Puran and Tara Chand appellants will meet the ends of justice. They are however, ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 12,000/- each. In default of payment of this fine, the defaulter is ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years. The sentences of imprisonment imposed upon Puran and Tara Chand appellants on other counts are also reduced to that already undergone by them. The total fine, if realised, shall be paid to the next heirs of Partap Singh deceased as compensation." (Emphasis supplied).
The High Court has, by this cryptic order, acquitted respondents of the major charge under Section 302, I.P.C., and recorded their conviction under Section 304 Part-1 reducing the sentence of life imprisonment to a term of imprisonment already undergone while enhancing the sentence of fine. The State has not preferred any appeal against the order of acquittal or reduction of sentence. The respondents, it appears, have accepted the judgment. Sham Sunder, the de facto complainant, however, being aggrieved approached this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution. This Court has granted special leave to appeal.
(2.)The High Court, exercising power under Section 386, Cr. P.C., in an appeal from a conviction may reverse the finding and sentence and acquit the accused or alter the finding maintaining the sentence or with or without altering the finding alter the nature or the extent or the nature and extent of the, sentence but not so as to enhance the same.
The powers of the High Court in dealing with the evidence are as wide as that of the trial court. As the final court of facts, the High Court has also duty to examine the evidence and arrive at its own conclusion on the entire material on record as to the guilt or otherwise of the appellants before it.
(3.)It is true that the High Court is entitled to reappraise the evidence in the case. It is also true that under Article 136, the Supreme Court does not ordinarily reappraise the evidence for itself for determining whether or not the High Court has come to a correct conclusion on facts but where the High Court has completely missed the real point requiring determination and has also on erroneous grounds discredited the evidence and has further failed to consider the fact that on account of long standing enmity between the parties, there is a tendency to involve innocent persons and to exaggerate and lead prejudged evidence in regard to the occurrence, the Supreme Court would be justified in going into the evidence for the purpose of satisfying itself that the grave injustice has not resulted in the case.
Admittedly there was no prior enmity between the parties. The quarrel arose out of a very insignificant matter like the burning of dry sugarcane leaves on the common boundary of the fields of the two parties. The ensuing altercation would probably have been forgotten had Partap Singh deceased not died. Even when there is an altercation arising out of a minor incident there is some tendency on the part of the prosecution witness to exaggerate matters. The three eyewitnesses have of course fully supported the prosecution case but the investigating officer recorded the statement of one Paras Ram at the time of making the inquest report which gives a somewhat different version. The learned trial judge has himself found that the object of the unlawful assembly was not to commit the murder of the deceased. It is precisely for this reason that five accused persons have been released on probation and only, two accused, i.e., Puran and Tara Chand appellants, have been convicted under Section 302, I. P.C. We do not propose to go into the details of the controversy and in the peculiar circumstances of this case convert the conviction of Puran and Tara Chand appellants into one under Section 304, Part-1, I.P.C., on the basis that in view of the statement made by Paras Ram at the time when the investigating officer made the inquest report a somewhat different version was given. This Paras Ram was not produced as a witness by the prosecution. Since there was no prior enimity between the parties, we order that the sentence already undergone by Puran and Tara Chand appellants will meet the ends of justice. They are however, ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 12,000/- each. In default of payment of this fine, the defaulter is ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years. The sentences of imprisonment imposed upon Puran and Tara Chand appellants on other counts are also reduced to that already undergone by them. The total fine, if realised, shall be paid to the next heirs of Partap Singh deceased as compensation." (Emphasis supplied).
The High Court has, by this cryptic order, acquitted respondents of the major charge under Section 302, I.P.C., and recorded their conviction under Section 304 Part-1 reducing the sentence of life imprisonment to a term of imprisonment already undergone while enhancing the sentence of fine. The State has not preferred any appeal against the order of acquittal or reduction of sentence. The respondents, it appears, have accepted the judgment. Sham Sunder, the de facto complainant, however, being aggrieved approached this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution. This Court has granted special leave to appeal.
(2.)The High Court, exercising power under Section 386, Cr. P.C., in an appeal from a conviction may reverse the finding and sentence and acquit the accused or alter the finding maintaining the sentence or with or without altering the finding alter the nature or the extent or the nature and extent of the, sentence but not so as to enhance the same.
The powers of the High Court in dealing with the evidence are as wide as that of the trial court. As the final court of facts, the High Court has also duty to examine the evidence and arrive at its own conclusion on the entire material on record as to the guilt or otherwise of the appellants before it.
(3.)It is true that the High Court is entitled to reappraise the evidence in the case. It is also true that under Article 136, the Supreme Court does not ordinarily reappraise the evidence for itself for determining whether or not the High Court has come to a correct conclusion on facts but where the High Court has completely missed the real point requiring determination and has also on erroneous grounds discredited the evidence and has further failed to consider the fact that on account of long standing enmity between the parties, there is a tendency to involve innocent persons and to exaggerate and lead prejudged evidence in regard to the occurrence, the Supreme Court would be justified in going into the evidence for the purpose of satisfying itself that the grave injustice has not resulted in the case.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.