- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Ram Kumar v. State (Nct) Of Delhi .
Factual and Procedural Background
The appellant, Ram Kumar, was tried in Sessions Case No. 78 of 1997 before the Court of the Additional Judge, Designated Court II, Delhi. He was found guilty of: (i) attempted murder under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC); (ii) possession of prohibited arms under Section 5 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (TADA); and (iii) unlawful possession of arms under Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959. He received sentences of 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment (RI) and a fine of Rs 5,000 for the IPC offence, 5 years’ RI and a fine of Rs 1,000 for the TADA offence, and 3 years’ RI with a fine of Rs 1,000 under the Arms Act.
The conviction arose from an incident on the morning of 11-4-1991 near Village Ditchaon. Police officers on patrol saw the appellant chasing Ram Karan with a country-made pistol (“desi katta”). The appellant allegedly fired a shot, injuring Ram Karan, after which police apprehended him and recovered the weapon and two cartridges. Both the injured victim and the appellant (who was also hurt when the police vehicle knocked him down) were taken to hospital.
Ram Kumar appealed, challenging both conviction and sentence. As he was unrepresented, Shri T. N. Singh was appointed amicus curiae.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the appellant’s conviction could be sustained when the injured victim turned hostile and no independent civilian witnesses were examined.
- Whether the sentence of 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment under Section 307 IPC was excessive in the circumstances of the case.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The injured witness, Ram Karan, did not support the prosecution, undermining the case.
- No independent witnesses corroborated the police version that the appellant fired the shot or possessed a “desi katta.”
- The sentence of 10 years’ RI for the Section 307 IPC conviction was unduly harsh.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court found the testimony of Head Constables Jamna Das and Chandrabhan reliable and sufficient. It rejected the contention that the absence of independent witnesses was fatal, noting the incident occurred outside the village and no civilians were available. ASI Om Prakash’s observations of two men running, hearing a gunshot, and seeing the appellant with a pistol further corroborated the prosecution.
The Court explained the victim’s hostile stance by his close kinship with the appellant (cousins), concluding that this did not erode the credibility of the police officers’ evidence. Possession of an unlicensed country-made pistol justified convictions under both Section 5 TADA and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
On sentencing, the Court considered the familial relationship between appellant and victim and other unspecified “facts and circumstances.” It deemed a reduction of the Section 307 IPC sentence from 10 years to 7 years’ RI appropriate, while leaving all other penalties intact.
Holding and Implications
PARTLY ALLOWED: Convictions under Section 307 IPC, Section 5 TADA, and Section 27 Arms Act are affirmed. The 5-year and 3-year sentences under TADA and the Arms Act respectively, and all fines, are confirmed. The sentence for the Section 307 IPC offence is reduced from 10 years’ RI to 7 years’ RI.
Implications: The decision underscores that credible police testimony can sustain a conviction even when the injured witness turns hostile and no independent civilians are present. The judgment also shows that courts may temper punishment where mitigating familial circumstances exist, without disturbing the substantive conviction. No new legal precedent was articulated beyond applying these established principles to the facts.
G.T Nanavati, J.— The appellant has been convicted by the Court of the Additional Judge, Designated Court II, Delhi in Sessions Case No. 78 of 1997, for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC, Section 5 of the TADA Act, 1987 and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959. For the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC, he has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs 5000. For the offence punishable under Section 5 of the TADA Act, he has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs 1000 and in respect of his conviction under Section 27 Arms Act, he has been sentenced to suffer imprisonment for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs 1000. He has, therefore, filed this appeal challenging his conviction and also the sentence imposed upon him. As the appellant has not engaged any advocate, Shri T.N Singh, learned counsel has been appointed as amicus curiae to assist the Court.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant, relying upon the evidence of the eyewitnesses submitted that neither the injured has supported the prosecution case nor any other independent witness has proved that the appellant had fired the shot which injured Ram Karan, and that he had a “desi katta” with him when he was apprehended by the police. The evidence of PW 2 Jamna Das discloses that he along with other police officers was on patrolling duty during the night between 10-4-1991 and 11-4-1991 and while at about 7.30 a.m they were standing at a place near Village Ditchaon they had seen two persons running. One was chasing the other. The person chasing was having a country-made pistol in his hand. He fired a shot from his pistol and it hit the person who was running ahead. Head Constable Chandrabhan and Joginder Singh, chased the person who had fired the shot, overtook him and apprehended him. From his pocket two more cartridges were also recovered. As the person who was chasing was first knocked down by their vehicle, he had also received some injuries. Therefore, along with the other injured he was also taken to the hospital. He further explained that they had come across the accused and the injured by chance and as the incident had taken place outside the village, it was not possible to associate any independent person to witness the search and seizure. We do not find any material on record on the basis of which it can be said that any independent witness was available near the place of incident. Therefore, on the ground that no independent witness has been examined by the prosecution, the evidence of the police officers cannot be discarded when it is found to be reliable. Head Constables Jamna Das and Chandrabhan have fully supported the prosecution case and even ASI Om Prakash who was required to be cross-examined has stated that he had seen two persons running and at that time had heard a shot having been fired. He has also stated that he had seen the accused running away thereafter with a “desi katta” in his hand. The accused was immediately taken to the hospital along with the injured and that stands proved by the other prosecution evidence.
3. We have no reason to doubt the evidence of Head Constable Jamna Das and Head Constable Chandrabhan. It is true that injured Ram Karan has not supported the prosecution case but that is explained by the fact that the accused happened to be his uncle's son. The prosecution has thus satisfactorily established that the appellant Ram Kumar had a desi katta with him, he fired a shot and injured Ram Karan. The circumstances under which the injury was caused clearly indicates the intention of the appellant and, therefore, we are of the view that the High Court has rightly convicted him for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC. As the pistol was found in possession of Ram Kumar for which he did not possess any licence, his conviction under Section 5 of the TADA Act also deserves to be confirmed. So also his conviction under the Arms Act.
4. It is urged by the learned counsel for the appellant that the sentence imposed upon the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC is rather harsh and it deserves to be reduced. Considering the near relationship of the injured and the appellant and other facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the ends of justice would be met if the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 10 years, for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC, is reduced to 7 years' rigorous imprisonment.
5. We, therefore, partly allow this appeal. We maintain the appellant's conviction for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC, Section 27 of the Arms Act and Section 5 of the TADA Act. The sentence imposed upon the appellant for the offence under the Arms Act and the TADA Act is also confirmed. However, the sentence imposed upon him for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC is reduced from 10 years' rigorous imprisonment to 7 years' rigorous imprisonment. The sentence of fine is maintained.
Alert