http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: RAM GOPAL

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF RAJASTHAN

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       28/07/1998

BENCH: CJI, K.T. THOMAS

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT: THOMAS, J.      This appeal  by special  leave is  by  an  accused  who convicted under  Section 302  IPC for  murdering his  nephew (Gopinath) by  firing a  gun. The  trial court  and the High Court   has    concurrently   found   that   appellant   had intentionally  fired   the  gun  and  caused  the  death  of Gopinath.  The   defence  version   that  the   firearm  got accidentally triggered  off in a scuffle was not accepted by the two courts.      The case  of the prosecution was that accused Ram Gopal and his  brother’s sons  were at  loggerheads, years ago Ram Gopal had murdered the father of Gopinath. On the evening of the date  of occurrence  (24-6-1985)  there  was  a  quarrel between deceased  and appellant  about which a complaint was made by the deceased with the police. In the night, by about 11 P.  M. when the deceased was trying to repair an electric lamp appellant  fired his  rifle at  him through  the window which resulted  in Gopinath  falling down  dead. His brother Vishwanath (PW-1)  rushed to the scene and appellant aimed a gun shot  at him  also but  he escaped by ducking down. Then another  brother   Bharat  Bhusan  rushed  up  who  too  was targetted, but  target missed  and Bharat Bhusan caught hold of the  firearm and  there ensued a scuffle between the two. Police came to the scene and nabbed the appellant.      Though PW-1  Vishwanath has not seen the crucial act of firing at  the deceased  his evidence  reached very close to the version  of an eye witness. He gave first information to the police  on the same night. Two eye witnesses PW-2 (Asha) and PW-3  (Maya) are  sisters of  the deceased.  PW-4 Bharat Bhusan narrated  the incident  which  took  place  after  he reached the  scene which  of course  was subsequent  to  the shooting down of the deceased.      Appellant  denied  the  prosecution  version  regarding previous enmity.  He tried  to show  that he was maintaining good relationship with his nephews right from the beginning. Regarding the  occurrence he said that he returned home only at about 11 P.M. from his work spot and he was carrying his rifle with  him and  on reaching  home  he  found  the  door closed. When he opened the door he noticed PW-4 and deceased Gopinath hiding  behind  and  waiting  for  him.  A  scuffle

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

followed and  in the  course of the hubub the rifle happened to be triggered off.      High Court  did not  believe the  above version  of the defence. Learned  Judges pointed  out that  since  a  police petition  was   filed  by   the  deceased  complaining  that appellant had assaulted him on the said evening at the place of occurrence,  it is  a strong  material  to  suggest  that appellant was present at the house much earlier than 11 P.M. Another argument  of the defence was that the incident would not have  taken place  on the  first floor because blood was found on  the ground  floor. That argument also was repelled for a  good reason  that the  dead body  was taken  down and blood would  have oozed  out and thus blood was found on the ground floor.      The main  argument is  that all  the  eye  witness  are interested persons  being the  kith and kin of the deceased. It  is   true  that   prosecution  could   not  examine  any independent witness  for proving  the  occurrence.  But  the situation and  time was  such that  no  independent  witness could be  expected to  be present. The venue of the incident was inside  the dwelling  house of the deceased and the time of the  incident was  near midnight. In such a situation the inmates of  the house  would be  the most natural witness to such occurrence.  Hence they are the most natural witness in such circumstances.  There is no question of discarding such evidence on  the mere  premise that  they are related to the deceased.      Another point  raised is  that the  FIR is silent about the details  of  the  occurrence.  But  the  skeletal  facts revealed  in  the  FIR  are  consistent  with  the  detailed narration of  the eye  witnesses in  the evidence. The trial court and  the High Court have rightly pointed out that non- mention of  the details  of the occurrence in the FIR is not sufficient to jettison the vital document.      We do not think that the trial court and the High Court have committed  any error  in reaching  the conclusion  that appellant  has   intentionally  murdered  the  deceased.  We therefore dismiss this appeal.