{"id":143074,"date":"1999-10-06T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1999-10-05T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/leela-ram-d-through-duli-chand-vs-state-of-haryana-and-anr-on-6-october-1999"},"modified":"2017-05-22T05:42:13","modified_gmt":"2017-05-22T00:12:13","slug":"leela-ram-d-through-duli-chand-vs-state-of-haryana-and-anr-on-6-october-1999","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/leela-ram-d-through-duli-chand-vs-state-of-haryana-and-anr-on-6-october-1999","title":{"rendered":"Leela Ram (D) Through Duli Chand vs State Of Haryana And Anr on 6 October, 1999"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Leela Ram (D) Through Duli Chand vs State Of Haryana And Anr on 6 October, 1999<\/div>\n
Bench: K.T. Thomas Banerjee<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (crl.)  297 of 1992\n\nPETITIONER:\nLEELA RAM (D) THROUGH DULI CHAND\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF HARYANA AND ANR.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 06\/10\/1999\n\nBENCH:\nK.T. THOMAS  U.C. BANERJEE\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
1999 Supp(3) SCR 435<\/p>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by<\/p>\n
BANERJEE, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against an order of
\nacquittal passed by the Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh,
\nreversing the order of conviction and sentence of life imprisonment passed
\nby the learned Sessions Judge under Section 302 IPC and Section 27 of the
\nArms Act.\n<\/p>\n
The occurrence dates back to 16th July, 1983 at about 12.00 noon in a
\nvillage called Alipur Barota. The prosecution case as made out, depicts
\nthat the accused wanted to dig a khal forcibly through the field of one
\nMaman Ram, which was objected to and the local Sarpanch was also informed
\naccordingly. At a meeting, called by the Sarpanch, it was decided that the
\nmatter ought to be resolved amicably and by reason therefor the Panchayat
\nconsisting of Kurra Ram (PW2), Leela Ram (PW1), Ram Kumar Panch and Blum
\nSen (PW4) alongwith deceased Maman Ram and a few other persons proceeded
\ntowards the field of the accused. The Maman Ram, the deceased, was few
\npaces ahead of the other members. When however the deceased Maman Ram, was
\nnear the field of Kundan Singh, the accused came out of the field with a
\ndouble barrel gun and on seeing Maman Ram, raised a Lalkara to the effect
\n“pani na dene ka maza chakhata hun”. The accused thereafter fired a shot
\nfrom his gun, striking on the chest of the deceased Maman Ram. The other
\nmembers of the group on hearing the gun shot, stopped there and immediately
\nthereafter the second shot was fired by the accused and who then left the
\nplace running with his gun towards village Aharwan. The Sarpanch arrived
\nthere a little later and he and Kurra Ram remained at the place whereas
\nLeela Ram (son of the deceased) went to the Police Station, Fatehabad and
\ngave the first information statement being recorded as Exh. PA before the
\ntrial court. Upon compliance with the formalities, Sub-Inspector Devi Dutt
\nalong with Leela Ram went to the place of occurrence and prepared the
\ninquest report (Ex. PG) and despatched the dead body to Civil Hospital,
\nFatehabad for post-mortem examination. Blood stained earth and two empty
\ncartridges were also taken into custody. All these recoveries were effected
\nin the presence of Kurra Ram and Bhim Sen.\n<\/p>\n
The post-mortem examination on the body of Maman Ram was conducted by Dr.
\nA.S. Chaudhary (PW3) at Fatehabad on 16th July, 1983 at 6.00 p.m. and he
\nhad found the following ante-mortem injuries on the body;\n<\/p>\n
1.      “There was a lacerated wound 1-1\/2″ diametre with inverted margins
\nshowing blackening at edges, situated at front of lower and of sternum over
\nziphi-sternum. On further exploration of wound, it led towards the left
\nside obliquely upward and laterally, causing laceration of the heart, the
\nleft lung had passed through another wound with averted margins on lateral
\nside of left chest wall just below left arm-pit measuring 2-1\/2″ x 2-1\/2″
\nshown in the diagram.”\n<\/p>\n
2.      A lacerated wound with inverted margins measuring 6 x 2″ on the
\nmedial and upper and of left upper arm. On dissection, there were
\nlaceration of muscles, vessel, nerves and humerus bone was badly, fractured
\nin pieces. The wound passed on lateral side of upper left arm, with averted
\nmargins, resulting in injury no, 4 measuring T x 2-1\/2″. There was skin tag
\nhanging between injuries nos. 3 and 4 in front, there were corresponding
\nholes in the left sleeve of the shirt.\n<\/p>\n
3. There were four bulges and four lacerated wounds situated on the back
\nbetween and of scapula in mid-line in an area of about 6″in diametre.
\nWounds were of averted margins of size about +” x +” in oval shape, on
\ndissection of the bulges, four pellets and 3 pieces of card board with
\nmarking “Tiger” were recovered and sealed in a bottle. On further
\nexploration of ribs nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6 at their junction with the vertabrae
\nwere fractured in pieces on left side. There were holes in the body of the
\nvertabrae nos. 2, 5 and 6 left side with fracture of traneverse processes
\nand laceration of the spinal cord corresponding to the hole in the
\nverterbrae. There were corresponding holes in the shirt on the back side.\n<\/p>\n
Stomach contained semi digested food material. Semen discharged at urithral
\nend”.\n<\/p>\n
In his opinion Dr. Chaudhary recorded that the cause of death was shock and
\nhaemorrhage and the injuries were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary
\ncourse of nature.\n<\/p>\n
Without much of a factual detail, be it noted that on 18th July, 1983, the
\naccused was arrested and from his possession one DBBL gun along with 3 live
\ncartridges of 12 bore and a licence in his name were recovered. The empty
\ncartridges along with the gun were sent to the Ballistic expert on 21st
\nJuly, 1983 and who in no uncertain recorded that empty cartridges has been
\nfired from the gun belonging to the accused. The prosecution examined nine
\nwitnesses in all, and in the statement under Section 313 of the Code of
\nCriminal Procedure, the accused alleged false implication in the case at
\nthe instance of Bhim Sen Sarpanch by reason of his brother Ramji Lal having
\ncontested an election against Bhim Sen.\n<\/p>\n
The reason recorded by the High Court in the support of acquittal is that
\nthe eye witnesses’ account regarding the number of shots fired by the
\nappellant on the deceased stand contradicted by medical evidence. In this
\ncontext the High Court observed :\n<\/p>\n
“The positive case of the prosecution as set up by Leela Ram and Ram Kumar,
\neye-witnesses is that two shots were fired by Om Prakash, appellant at
\nMaman (deceased). They do not seem to be clear about the site of the first
\ninjury. In examination-in-chief they stated that the first gunshot had hit
\non the left side of the chest of Maman, but during cross-examination both
\nof them stated consis-tently that it was on the left upper arm. According
\nto Leela Ram, it has hit on the left shoulder and Kurra Ram’s position was
\nthat it had hit the left upper arm, near the arm pit. The injury had been
\ndescribed by the doctor as injury No. 3. The injury was on the medial and
\nupper end of left upper arm and its exit was on the lateral side. To
\ndescribe in a more simple language, the wound of entry was on the inner
\nside of the left arm. The exit wound was just opposite, that is outer side
\nof the arm. The injury was from 12 bore gun. We cannot imagine any
\nsituation in which the appellant could cause injury No. 3 to Maman from any
\nangle. We asked the learned State counsel to caricature any position in
\nwhich a man can strike such an injury with a 12 bore gun, as was injury No.
\n3 Maman, without causing injury on another part of the body. This injury is
\nsimply impossible and cannot be caused from any angle. The circumstances of
\nthe case suggest that all the injuries were the result of the gunshot,
\nnoted as injury No. 1. PW 1 Dr. A.S. Chaudhary, during cross-examination,
\nhad also to agree to this position. The shot which was from a close range
\nhad entered the chest of Maman (deceased) at the point of strike, after
\nencountering the bony resistence, it appears, the pellets got scattered
\ninto two groups; one group which was forcing the overshot cardboard the
\npoint which was noted as injury No. 5 by Dr. Chaudhary. The other group,
\nafter bony resistence, split from the main charge and traveled to the left
\nside. After puncturing the heart, it went out at point No. 2 and re-entered
\nthe left arm under the arm-pit to make an exit on the lateral side of the
\nleft arm. The route of the scattered pellets is almost in line from the
\npoint of entry till the point of exit on the lateral side of the left arm.
\nWe are, therefore, satisfied that these injuries on the dead body of Maman
\nwere the result of one gunshot and not of two shots, as stated by the eye-
\nwitnesses.”\n<\/p>\n
This longish quotation probably could have been avoided but we thought it
\nfit to reproduce it verbatim so as to assess the situation in the proper
\nperspective, more so when there is an order of acquittal by the High Court
\nin reversal of the conviction and sentence for life imprisonment passed by
\nthe trial Court. Apart from the comment on the method of investigation, the
\nHigh Court mainly proceeded on two counts. On the first, the learned Judges
\ncommented that the discrepancies and contradictions between the witnesses
\ndo not inspire confidence and on the second count they noted that there was
\nfabrication of evidence by the investigating agency.\n<\/p>\n
Before however, proceeding with the matter on two counts as above, it would
\nbe convenient to note another aspect of the matter, namely, the
\nobservations pertaining to the investigation by the Investigating Agency.
\nIt is now a well settled principle that any irregularity or even an
\nillegality during investigation ought not to be treated as a ground to
\nreject the prosecution case and we need not dilate on the issue excepting
\nreferring a decision of this Court (vide State of Rajasthan v. Kishore, AIR<\/a>
\n(1996) SC 3035).\n<\/p>\n
Be it noted that the High Court is within its jurisdiction being the first
\nappellate court to re-appraise the evidence, but the discrepancies found in
\nthe ocular account of two witnesses unless they are so vital, cannot affect
\nthe credibility of the evidence of the witnesses. There is bound to be some
\ndiscrepancies between the narrations of different witnesses when they speak
\non details, and unless the contradictions are of a material dimension, the
\nsame should not be used to jettison the evidence in its entirety.
\nIncidentally, corroboration of evidence with mathematical niceties cannot
\nbe expected in criminal cases. Minor embellishment, there may be, but
\nvariations by reason therefor should not render the evidence of eye
\nwitnesses unbelievable. Trivial discrepancies ought not to obliterate an
\notherwise acceptable evidence. In this context, reference may be made to
\nthe decision of this Court in the State of U.P. v. M.K. Anthony, AIR<\/a> (1985)
\nSC 48. In paragraph 10 of the report, this Court observed :\n<\/p>\n
“While appreciating the evidence of a witness, the approach must be whether
\nthe evidence of the witness read as a whole appears to have a ring of
\ntruth. Once that impression is formed, it is undoubtedly necessary for the
\nCourt to scrutinise the evidence more particularly keeping in view the
\ndeficiencies, drawbacks and infirmities pointed out in the evidence as a
\nwhole and evaluate them to find out whether it is against the general tenor
\nof the evidence given by the witness and whether the earlier evaluation of
\nthe evidence is shaken as to render it unworthy of belief. Minor
\ndiscrepancies on trivial matters not touching the core of the case,
\nhypertechnical approach by taking sentences torn out of context here or
\nthere from the evidence, attaching importance to some technical error
\ncommitted by the investigating officer not going to the root of the matter
\nwould not ordinarily permit rejection of the evidence as a whole. If the
\nCourt before whom the witness gives evidence had the opportunity to form
\nthe opinion about the general tenor of evidence given by the witness, the
\nappellate court which had not this benefit will have to attach due weight
\nto the appreciation of evidence by the trial Court and unless there are
\nreasons weighty and formidable it would not be proper to reject the
\nevidence on the ground of minor variations or infirmities in the matter of
\ntrivial details. Even honest and truthful witnesses may differ in some
\ndetails unrelated to the main incident because power of observation,
\nretention and reproduction differ with individuals.”\n<\/p>\n
In a very recent decision in Criminal Appeal No. 61 of 1999 (Rammi alias
\nRameshwar v. State of Madhya Pradesh) with Criminal Appeal No. 33 of 1999
\n(Bhura Alias Sajjan Kumar v. State of Madhya Pradesh) this Court observed :\n<\/p>\n
“When eye-witness is examined at length it is quite possible for him to
\nmake some discrepancies. No true witness can possibly escape from making
\nsome discrepant details. Perhaps an untrue witness who is well tutored can
\nsuccessfully make his testimony totally non-discrepant. But courts should
\nbear in mind that it is only when discrepancies in the evidence of a
\nwitness are so incompatible with the credibility of his version that the
\nCourt is justified in jettisoning his evidence. But too serious a view to
\nbe adopted on mere variations falling in the narration of an incident
\n(either as between the evidence of two witnesses or as between two state-
\nments of the same witness) is an unrealistic approach for judicial
\nscrutiny”.\n<\/p>\n
This Court further observed :\n<\/p>\n
“It is a common practice in trial courts to make out contradictions from
\nprevious statement of a witness for confronting him during cross-
\nexamination. Merely because there is inconsistency in evidence it is not
\nsufficient to impair the credit of the witness. No doubt Section 155 of the
\nEvidence Act provides scope for impeaching the credit of a witness by proof
\nof inconsistent former statement. But a reading of the Section would
\nindicate that all inconsistent statements are not sufficient to impeach the
\ncredit of the witness. The material portion of the Section is extracted
\nbelow :\n<\/p>\n
” 155. Impeaching credit of witness. The credit of a witness may be
\nimpeached in the following ways by the adverse party, or, with the consent
\nof the Court, by the party who calls him…..\n<\/p>\n
(3) by proof of former statements inconsistent with any part of his
\nevidence which is liable to be contradicted.”\n<\/p>\n
A former statement though seemingly inconsistent with the evidence need not
\nnecessarily be sufficient to amount to contradiction. Only such of the
\ninconsistent statement which is liable to be “contradicted”would affect the
\ncredit of the witness. Section 145 of the Evidence Act also enables the
\ncross-examiner to use any former statement of the witness, but it cautions
\nthat if it intended to “contradict” the witness the cross-examiner is
\nenjoined to comply with the formality prescribed therein. Section 162 of
\nCode also permits the cross-examiner to use the previous statement of the
\nwitness (recorded under Section 161 of the Code) for the only limited
\npurpose, i.e. to “contradict” the witness.\n<\/p>\n
To contradict a witness, therefore, must be to discredit the par-ticular
\nversion of the witness. Unless the former statement has the potency to
\ndiscredit the present statement, even if the latter is at variance with the
\nformer to some extent it would not be helpful to contradict that witness,
\n(vide Tahsildar Singh and Anr. v. State of U.P., AIR (1959) SC 1012)”.\n<\/p>\n
The court shall have to bear in mind that different witnesses react
\ndifferently under different situations : whereas some become speechless,
\nsome start wailing some others run away from the scene and yet there are
\nsome who may come forward with courage, conviction and belief that the
\nwrong should be remedied. As a matter of fact it depends upon individuals
\nand individuals. There cannot be any set pattern or uniform rule of human
\nreaction and to discard a piece of evidence on the ground of his reaction
\nnot falling within a set pattern is unproductive and a pedantic exercise.\n<\/p>\n
It is indeed necessary to note that hardly one conies across a witness
\nwhose evidence does not contain some exaggeration or embellishments –
\nsometimes there could even be a deliberate attempt to offer embellishment
\nand sometimes in their over anxiety they may give slightly exaggerated
\naccount. The Court can sift the chaff from the corn and find out the truth
\nfrom the testimony of the witnesses. Total repulsion of the evidence is
\nunnecessary. The evidence is to be considered from the point of view of
\ntrustworthiness – If this element is satisfied, they ought to inspire
\nconfidence in the mind of the Court to accept the stated evidence though
\nnot however in the absence of the same.\n<\/p>\n
In this context, reference may be made to the decision of this Court in the
\ncase of Appabhai and Another v. State of Gujarat, AIR<\/a> (1988) SC 696 wherein
\nthis Court in paragraph 11 of the report observed :\n<\/p>\n
“Experience reminds us that civilized people are generally insensitive when
\na crime is committed even in their presence. They withdraw both from the
\nvictim and the vigilante. They keep themselves away from the Court unless
\nit is inevitable. They think that crime like civil dispute is between two
\nindividuals or parties and they should not involve themselves. This kind of
\napathy of the general public is indeed unfortunate, but it is there
\neverywhere whether in village life, towns or cities. One cannot ignore this
\nhandicap with which the investigating agency has to discharge its duties.
\nThe Court, therefore, instead of doubting the prosecution case for want of
\nindependent witness must consider the broad spectrum of the prosecution
\nversion and then search for the nugget of truth with due regard to
\nprobability, if any, suggested by the accused. The Court, however, must
\nbear in mind that witnesses to a serious crime may not react in a normal
\nmanner. Nor do they react uniformly. The horror stricken witnesses at a
\ndastardly crime or an act of egregious nature may react differently. Their
\ncourse of conduct may not be of ordinary type in the normal circumstances.
\nThe Court, therefore, cannot reject their evidence merely because they have
\nbehaved or reacted in an unusual manner.”\n<\/p>\n
In  paragraph 13 of the report this Court further observed :\n<\/p>\n
“The Court while appreciating the evidence must not attach undue importance
\nto minor discrepancies. The discrepancies which do not shake the basic
\nversion of the prosecution case may be discarded. The discrepancies which
\nare due to normal errors of perception or observation should not be given
\nimportance. The errors due to lapse of memory may be given due allowance.
\nThe Court by calling into aid its vast experience of men and matters in
\ndifferent cases must evaluate the entire material on record by excluding
\nthe exaggerated version given by any witness. When a doubt arises in
\nrespect of certain facts alleged by such witness, the proper course is to
\nignore that fact only unless it goes into the root of the matter so as to
\ndemolish the entire prosecution story. The witnesses nowadays go on adding
\nembellishments to their version perhaps for the fear of their testimony
\nbeing rejected by the Court. The courts, however should not disbelieve the
\nevidence of such witnesses altogether if they are otherwise trustworthy.”\n<\/p>\n
The basic reason for non-acceptance of prosecution case so far as the High
\nCourt is concerned is the contradiction said to have effected by not being
\nclear about the side of the first injury on the body of the deceased Maman
\nin so far as the evidence of Leela Ram (PW 1) is concerned. Be it noted,
\nLeela Ram is the son of deceased Maman. In his examination in Chief he
\nstated :\n<\/p>\n
“My father was 7\/8 paces ahead of me. When my father reached the field of
\nKundan Singh, then the accused came out from the field of Kundan Singh, he
\nwas having a double barrel gun. The field of Kundan Singh was having charri
\ncrop. The accused uttered the words `Pani Na Dene Ka Maza Chakhata Hun.’
\nThe accused fired a gun shot at my father which struck him on the upper
\npart of the chest to the left side. On receiving this shot, my father fell
\ndown on the ground. The second gun shot fired by the accused struck my
\nfather on his chest. After this, myself, Kurra Ram and Ram Kumar, Member
\nPanchayat ran back. In the meanwhile, the Panchayat had reached the canal
\nbridge. I told the Sarpanch that Om Prakash accused had fired at my father,
\nwho was running towards village Aharwan with his weapon.”\n<\/p>\n
In cross-examination however, the evidence records as below :\n<\/p>\n
“I was at a distance of 5 karams when the accused fired the first shot at
\nmy father. The accused had fired first shot on my father from the left side
\nhitting him on the chest on the left side. Again said on the left shoulder.
\nMy father fell down on receipt of that shot. He fell down with his face
\ntowards the sky. The head of my father was towards the bridge. The second
\nshot was fired by the accused while standing towards the side of his feet,
\nI cannot tell the distance between the feet of my father and the accused,
\nwhere he was standing. He was at a distance of a few feet from the feet my
\nfather, when he fired the second shot -I remained at the place where I was
\nwhen the first shot was fired. When the second shot was fired then I ran
\nbackward by two paces. Kurda also went backwards by 2\/3 paces. After the
\nfiring of two shots, I ran towards the Panchayat. I had raised noise when
\nthe two fires were shot at my father. When I was retreating backwards, then
\nthe second shot was fired.”\n<\/p>\n
It is the above evidence which has prompted the High Court to ask the
\nlearned Advocate appearing for the prosecution “to caricature any position
\nin which a man can strike such an injury with a .12 bore gun…….”\n<\/p>\n
Where there was one shot or two shots, can it not be termed to be
\nimmaterial in the matter of assessing the culpability of the accused. The
\nson who saw his father has been shot at and thereafter fell dead – total
\nstunning effect on the son and it is on this score that mere hair splitting
\non the available evidence ought not to be undertaken and instead the
\ntotality of the situation ought to have been reviewed. The empty cartridges
\nwere found and the ballistic expert’s report that the cartridges match with
\nthe injury. The High Court ascribes this to be an immaterial piece of
\nevidence. We, however, do not think so. Ballistic expert’s evidence cannot
\nbe brushed aside since that is in the normal course of events, a valuable
\nmaterial vis-a-vis the use of the gun and the injury. The High Court went
\non to record the contradiction from the medical evidence but unfortunately
\nthe same does not find support from the evidence on record. Dr. A.S. Chaud-
\nhary having done the post-mortem examination on the deceased Maman, has
\nstated in his evidence that : “Injuries Nos. 2, 4 and 5 are the exit
\nwounds. Injuries Nos. 1 and 3 are the entry wounds”. Dr. Chaudhary further
\nsaid that “Injury No. 1 is an entry wound of point blank range”. The doctor
\nhas been subjected to cross examination and he at the end of it all said
\nthat : “It can be said that the injuries on the person of the deceased were
\nthe result of one shot”. It is on this count, High Court recorded that Dr.
\nChaudhary “had also to agree to this position” (emphasis supplied).
\nNeedless to say that the Doctor probably has not been able to match the
\ncross-examining lawyer and there was thus an unequal duel between the
\nmedical man and a refined lawyer. Can it be said; that by reason of the
\nevidence of Dr. Chaudhary the contradictions are galore in nature, so far
\nas the evidence of Leela Ram is concerned – the High Court upon
\nconsideration of the factum of such a contradiction answers the same on a
\npositive note. This however; is not acceptable to this Court the
\ndiscrepancy does not seem to be of such a nature so as to effect the
\ncreditworthiness or the trustworthiness of the witness. As as matter of
\nfact it does not so do by reason of the fact that Maman fell a victim of
\ngun shot injuries and died; it is immaterial as to whether one or two gun
\nshots were fired – the contradiction at its highest cannot but be stated to
\nbe in regard to a minor incident and does not travel to the root of the
\nnature of the offence. The other piece of evidence is that the Sarpanch and
\nthe members of the village panchayat saw the accused running away towards
\nthe village Aharwan just after firing with his gun.\n<\/p>\n
Incidentally, the Sarpanch also stated that there were two gun shots sounds
\nwhich he heard. Then there is ballistic expert report as noticed above-
\nthese pieces of evidence as available on record cannot be ascribed to be
\nuntrustworthy neither can be that they do not inspire confidence. There is
\nthus no discrepancy about the totality of the situation and witnesses
\nwithout any major contradiction deposed before the Court of Session with an
\nunbiased mind and in a manner which in our view unmistakably point to the
\nguilt of the accused and the appreciation of evidence by the High Court, in
\nour view is wholly unwarranted, improper and unimaginative in the
\ncontextual facts.\n<\/p>\n
Admittedly, there was some dispute pertaining to digging of a water course
\nthough the land of the deceased Maman. There is such an evidence that the
\nSarpanch of the village was going to resolve the dispute between the
\nparties and it was at this juncture this gruesome murder took place: motive
\ntherefore, cannot be ruled out. The High Court has proceeded on the basis
\nthat two eye witnesses being the son and brother-in-law of the deceased are
\ninterested witnesses, and hence their evidence ought not to be relied upon,
\nwe are unable to concur therewith. The ocular account though may have been
\ngiven by the son and the brother-in-law does not by itself loses its
\nefficacy or its evidentiary value unless some other factor is brought on
\nrecord to discredit the creditworthiness of the witnesses: On the facts of
\nthe matter under consideration, the presence of Leela Ram being the son of
\nthe deceased appears to be quite natural by reason of the fact that the
\nfather had a land dispute with someone else and the son in the normal way
\ncould be interested in settlement of the dispute. As such his presence
\nduring parley cannot be termed unnatural. Similar was the situation as
\nregards the presence of Kurra Ram, brother-in-law of the deceased, who has
\nlodged a complaint to the Panchayat. If Kurra Ram, also accompanied the
\nPanchayat members for the amicable settlement of the dispute, in our view
\nthere is nothing unnatural about it. Evidence of both the eye-witnesses
\nstand fully corroborated by the Sarpanch who is an independent witness. The
\nHigh Court has doubted the veracity of his evidence only on the ground that
\nthe brother of the accused once lost election against the witness. We
\nconsider that as too feeble a ground to doubt the evidence of the Sarpanch.
\nThe core of his testimony remains reliable and no good reason can be traced
\nout to reject it.\n<\/p>\n
In our view the High Court relying upon some minor contradictions fell into
\na clear error in passing the order of the acquittal of the accused.
\nAccording to us the learned Sessions Judge has reached the conclusion
\ncorrectly and such a well merited conviction should not have been so
\nlightly interfered with.\n<\/p>\n
We therefore, allow this appeal and set aside the judgment of the High
\nCourt. The conviction and sentence passed by the Session Judge shall stand
\nrestored. The accused is hereby directed to surrender before the trial
\ncourt. We direct the Sessions Judge concerned to take prompt steps to put
\nthe accused back in jail to undergo the sentence imposed on him.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Leela Ram (D) Through Duli Chand vs State Of Haryana And Anr on 6 October, 1999 Bench: K.T. Thomas Banerjee CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 297 of 1992 PETITIONER: LEELA RAM (D) THROUGH DULI CHAND RESPONDENT: STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 06\/10\/1999 BENCH: K.T. THOMAS U.C. BANERJEE JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-143074","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nLeela Ram (D) Through Duli Chand vs State Of Haryana And Anr on 6 October, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/leela-ram-d-through-duli-chand-vs-state-of-haryana-and-anr-on-6-october-1999\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Leela Ram (D) Through Duli Chand vs State Of Haryana And Anr on 6 October, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/leela-ram-d-through-duli-chand-vs-state-of-haryana-and-anr-on-6-october-1999\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1999-10-05T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-05-22T00:12:13+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"23 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/leela-ram-d-through-duli-chand-vs-state-of-haryana-and-anr-on-6-october-1999#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/leela-ram-d-through-duli-chand-vs-state-of-haryana-and-anr-on-6-october-1999\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Leela Ram (D) Through Duli Chand vs State Of Haryana And Anr on 6 October, 1999\",\"datePublished\":\"1999-10-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-22T00:12:13+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/leela-ram-d-through-duli-chand-vs-state-of-haryana-and-anr-on-6-october-1999\"},\"wordCount\":4589,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/leela-ram-d-through-duli-chand-vs-state-of-haryana-and-anr-on-6-october-1999#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/leela-ram-d-through-duli-chand-vs-state-of-haryana-and-anr-on-6-october-1999\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/leela-ram-d-through-duli-chand-vs-state-of-haryana-and-anr-on-6-october-1999\",\"name\":\"Leela Ram (D) Through Duli Chand vs State Of Haryana And Anr on 6 October, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1999-10-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-22T00:12:13+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/leela-ram-d-through-duli-chand-vs-state-of-haryana-and-anr-on-6-october-1999#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/leela-ram-d-through-duli-chand-vs-state-of-haryana-and-anr-on-6-october-1999\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/leela-ram-d-through-duli-chand-vs-state-of-haryana-and-anr-on-6-october-1999#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Leela Ram (D) Through Duli Chand vs State Of Haryana And Anr on 6 October, 1999\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Leela Ram (D) Through Duli Chand vs State Of Haryana And Anr on 6 October, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/leela-ram-d-through-duli-chand-vs-state-of-haryana-and-anr-on-6-october-1999","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Leela Ram (D) Through Duli Chand vs State Of Haryana And Anr on 6 October, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/leela-ram-d-through-duli-chand-vs-state-of-haryana-and-anr-on-6-october-1999","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1999-10-05T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-05-22T00:12:13+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"23 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/leela-ram-d-through-duli-chand-vs-state-of-haryana-and-anr-on-6-october-1999#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/leela-ram-d-through-duli-chand-vs-state-of-haryana-and-anr-on-6-october-1999"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Leela Ram (D) Through Duli Chand vs State Of Haryana And Anr on 6 October, 1999","datePublished":"1999-10-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-22T00:12:13+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/leela-ram-d-through-duli-chand-vs-state-of-haryana-and-anr-on-6-october-1999"},"wordCount":4589,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/leela-ram-d-through-duli-chand-vs-state-of-haryana-and-anr-on-6-october-1999#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/leela-ram-d-through-duli-chand-vs-state-of-haryana-and-anr-on-6-october-1999","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/leela-ram-d-through-duli-chand-vs-state-of-haryana-and-anr-on-6-october-1999","name":"Leela Ram (D) Through Duli Chand vs State Of Haryana And Anr on 6 October, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1999-10-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-22T00:12:13+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/leela-ram-d-through-duli-chand-vs-state-of-haryana-and-anr-on-6-october-1999#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/leela-ram-d-through-duli-chand-vs-state-of-haryana-and-anr-on-6-october-1999"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/leela-ram-d-through-duli-chand-vs-state-of-haryana-and-anr-on-6-october-1999#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Leela Ram (D) Through Duli Chand vs State Of Haryana And Anr on 6 October, 1999"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/143074","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=143074"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/143074\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=143074"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=143074"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=143074"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}