RAM PAL v. STATE OF U.P. 2020

INTRODUCTION

The case of Ram Pal v. State of Uttar Pradesh emerged as a result thereof following a savage murder that occurred on April 4, 1985, near Sharda Canal Bridge, in the village Behta Gokul, District Hardoi. The deceased was Ganga Ram and was intercepted and assaulted by four accused- Ram Pal, Babu Ram, Lala Ram and Raj Pal (killed in the process of trial). Enmity was used to make the decision of the attack, since the slain was implicated in a prior murder case against the father of two suspects.

The prosecution claimed that the accused conspired and acted in their furtherance to an intention that they all had to kill Ganga Ram. The accuseds were also armed with various arms such as country made pistols and guns, gandasa (chopper) and lathis (sticks). This was done by firing several shots, then proceeding with physical contact with the blunt and sharp weapons thus causing death of the victim at the scene. Gunshot wounds, several lacerations and abrasions involving blunt and sharp force trauma were also injuries.

As the FIR was lodged, the investigation was commenced immediately and it included registration of the crime, inquest proceedings, gathering of forensic evidence and medical examination of the injured witnesses. The evidence of eyewitnesses who were close members of the deceased, medical experts and the investigating officers was also considered in the trial. The defense primarily concerned the impeachment of the credibility and consistency of the prosecution witnesses, the reliability of the FIR and an alibi plea on the part of some of the accused.

The trial court found guilty the three surviving accused individuals under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and they were found guilty of murder with common intention and were sentenced to life imprisonment with a fine. The applicability of joint liability in Section 34 IPC and the applicability of the evidence, credibility issues, and the validity of the conviction were deep-seated issues that the Allahabad High Court considered on appeal. The ruling has heavily cited pertinent precedents of the Supreme Court and provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, which reinforced the principles of examining the ocular testimony, medical evidence, and liability of co-accused.

ISSUES:

The main issues in front of the court were:

1. Did the prosecution provide evidence to the extent that they had beyond reasonable doubt that the accused were directly involved in the murder of Ganga Ram on the said date and place as indicated in the FIR? This entailed investigating the authenticity of eyewitnesses, medical evidence and documentary evidence such as the FIR and inquest reports. This was made more complicated by the fact that some of the witnesses who would have been of significant help were the family members of the deceased and one was identified as hostile by the prosecution.
2. Could the alleged-convicts (appellants) be found guilty of the offence under Section 34 IPC jointly and severally, even though the weapons with which the crime was committed varied and the role played by each of them was different? This involved deciding on the relevance of the doctrine of common intention, whether the accused acted in agreement with a premeditated scheme to kill the deceased or not, and whether or not the acts committed were within the scope of joint criminal liability to homicide.
3. Would the alibi defense and false implication due to hostility plea be sufficient to cause doubt that would acquit the defendant? The defense vigorously protested the time of FIR and its registration, the uniformity of witness testimony and sufficiency of evidence to prove the presence and role of accused, especially inconsistency on weapons used and injuries incurred.
4. Did the non-interrogation of some of the witnesses and the fact that other accused not mentioned in the FIR (Pramod Kumar, Rameshwar, Devi Dayal) influence the efficiency of the prosecution case? The court was required to look at the applicability and impact of these process issues to the evidentiary burden of the prosecution.

RULE

The main legal provisions and principles that were used by the court included:

• Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): An Indian murder sentencing.
• According to Section 34 IPC: Principle of joint liability in the instance of joint action of more than one person where, upon the joint action of these persons there is a common intention among them; all persons are liable in the same manner as though they were acting singly.
• Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) Section 319: The authority to invite other accused during trial under the evidence.
• Section 45 Indian Evidence Act: Admissibility of expert opinion in the court particularly medical expert evidence.

The case precedents that have been referenced:

• Barendra Kumar Ghosh v. King Emperor (AIR 1925 PC 1): It was clarified that members of the common intention working in furtherance of the criminal act are liable collectively to the criminal act although one of them may have committed the particular criminal act.
• Mohan Singh v. State of Punjab (AIR 1963 SC 174): It was declared that common intention must be preceded by the existence of mind and the act committed in concert would accrue to each party.
• Shivaji Sahab Rao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra (1973) 2 SCC 793: It was stressed that small differences in statements of the witnesses do not always have a crucial impact on the actual truth and reliability.
• Sheikh Sattar v. Burden of proving alibi rests on the accused: State of Maharashtra (2010) 8 SCC 430.
• State of Haryana v. Bhagirath (1999) 5 SCC 96: Proves beyond reasonable doubt is moral certainty.
• Vishnu Narayan Moger v. State of Karnataka (1996 Cr.L.J. 1121): Expressed and elucidated the meaning of an eye witness.

Principles laid down:

• The evidence of the related witnesses is not in itself to be disregarded but it is to be examined to determine its credibility.
• Eyewitness testimonies are very significant to the court unless they are disproved beyond any doubt with medical evidence.
• Common intention is formed immediately during the commission of the offence and the totality of circumstances must be proved.

ANALYSIS

The court went into a careful review of the facts, evidence, and the law to resolve the appeals. The first area of concern was the credibility and reliability of the witnesses of prosecution, particularly those who were eyewitnesses PW-1 (Chhotelal), PW-3 (Vijay Pal), and PW-6 (Saheb Lal). Although this case was associated with the deceased, the court noted the previous precedents according to which the fact that a witness is related does not necessarily prevent his or her testimony being interested or discredited. The testimonies were discovered to be consistent at the time, place, and sequence and gave a graphic, coherent account of what happened.

Another important factor that was taken by the court was the hostile nature of PW-3 testimony on the weapon wielded by A-1 (Babu Ram) as the witness did not categorically deny the presence or participation of the accused but he was not certain what kind of weapon was used as he was upset during the incident. This partial hostility was considered not to be enough to dismiss his testimony, and was supported with PW-1 and PW-6.

On the aspect of medical evidence, the court examined the post-mortem report, which established that the victim died out of shock and hemorrhage secondary to numerous ante-mortem injuries such as gunshot wounds and blunt force trauma that was evident through lacerations. Despite conflicting evidence on whether the precisely identified weapons were used by witnesses to inflict the various wounds (e.g. Gandasa punch inflicting lacerated versus incised wounds), the expert opinion was accorded less weight than ocular testimony, whose differences are natural.

On-site evidence such as the FIR and inquest report was reviewed to counter the claims that the FIR was pre-empted or falsified. The court also held that at 7:30 p.m. the incident had taken place at 6:00 p.m. and the FIR was promptly registered with supporting official entries and inquest proceedings. The time between the murder and registration of FIR was justified as the amount of time required to report, drafting of written complaints and commuted to the police station. Therefore, the FIR was considered credible and true.

His alibi defence asserted by Babu Ram was not admitted due to the fact that the duty chart submitted to him had flaws like unknown issuing authority, uncertain timing of duty among other flaws and no support by other witnesses. The court emphasized that a heavy burden of alibi was on the accused and it was not enough to say it.

The problems of common intention and joint liability with reference to Section 34 IPC were critical. The court cited the legal principle according to which in cases where multiple individuals act in a common intention to commit an offence, everyone is responsible to any acts committed by one of them in the continuation of his or her intention. The appellants were sitting together armed and hiding place and simultaneously intercepted a victim, inflicted deadly injuries using various weapons and fled collectively. This behaviour showed a premeditated killing and agreement. To conclude on joint liability, the court used the important Supreme Court precedents (Barendra Kumar Ghosh, Mohan Singh, Vijendra Singh) to determine that joint liability still applied even when each of the accused had a different act or weapon. The defense side of the case that the injuries inflicted by some of the accused were not the direct cause of death were found irrelevant since the involvement in a joint act under common intention will be sufficient to find culpability.

The court further dealt with the non-examination of specific witnesses such as “Kadhiley” and introduction of new accused as found in the investigation process but absent in FIR. It provided, prosecution is not obliged to present all the witnesses listed in FIR, only those relevant to establish the crime and failure to examine certain witnesses cannot render a otherwise strong case non-existent. The additional accused that did not appear in FIR or witness statement were dropped or the case against them was withdrawn to guarantee no bias towards the convicted appellants. The evidence appreciation by the trial judge has been found comprehensive, balanced and consistent with criminal jurisprudence principles such as benefit of doubt doctrine. The fact that there were small discrepancies in the information given by the witnesses was not crucial. The core factual consistency, the existence of an injured eyewitness, medical support, official record, and motive associated with a previous hostility justified the decision.

Overall, the petition was rejected and the guilty were affirmed to a life imprisonment sentence as they were found guilty of guilt beyond reasonable doubt, joint responsibility in accordance with Section 34 IPC and refusal of defense pleas.

CONCLUSION

In Ram Pal v. the Allahabad High Court. The conviction of the accused-appellants under Section 302 read along with Section 34 IPC was upheld by State of Uttar Pradesh in the murder of Ganga Ram. The ruling supported the main criminal law principles connected with the credibility of the eyewitnesses, even who are connected to the victim, and the importance of the ocular testimony, which plays a critical role in the case of murder. The court stressed that slight discrepancies in the narratives of the witnesses do not destroy the nature or the truth, as long as the testimony is logical, and supported by other facts, such as the views of other experts.

The case focused on the doctrine of common intention that stated that where several individuals are involved in the commission of a crime with a common intention all are liable jointly and severally regardless of the role or weapon wielded by an individual. This legal doctrine plays a significant part in the case of organized crimes and was clearly applied after considering the facts that the accused sat heavily armored and was hidden, and assaulted and fled along together after carrying out the murder.

The court fairly dismissed alibi and false implication due to enmity defense because it was not supported by plausible evidence. Immediate filing of FIR, onsite inspection and inquest process nullified fraudulent or in good faith prosecution allegations. The decision is a major confirmation of the Indian criminal justice system attitude to assessing evidence in a holistic and rational set of mutually supporting forms rather than using the isolated discrepancies. It indicates the proper use of the statutory clauses such as the Sections 302 and 34 IPC, the procedural protection under the Section 319 CrPC and the evidentiary norms under the Indian Evidence Act.

In general, the ruling by the court acts as a strong precedent as regards joint liability, how related eyewitnesses evidence should be treated, the burden of proof on the defense pleadings, and the uniformity of medical and ocular evidence. It balances effectively in the protection of the rights of accused persons and the need to ensure justice to victims of serious crimes like murder.