{"id":217584,"date":"1982-03-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1982-03-03T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-karan-ors-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-on-4-march-1982"},"modified":"2017-07-23T23:05:22","modified_gmt":"2017-07-23T17:35:22","slug":"ram-karan-ors-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-on-4-march-1982","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-karan-ors-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-on-4-march-1982","title":{"rendered":"Ram Karan & Ors vs State Of Uttar Pradesh on 4 March, 1982"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Ram Karan & Ors vs State Of Uttar Pradesh on 4 March, 1982<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1982 AIR 1185, \t\t 1982 SCR (3) 395<\/div>\n
Author: S M Fazalali<\/div>\n
Bench: Fazalali, Syed Murtaza<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nRAM KARAN & ORS.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT04\/03\/1982\n\nBENCH:\nFAZALALI, SYED MURTAZA\nBENCH:\nFAZALALI, SYED MURTAZA\nDESAI, D.A.\nVARADARAJAN, A. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1982 AIR 1185\t\t  1982 SCR  (3) 395\n 1982 SCC  (2) 184\t  1982 SCALE  (1)288\n\n\nACT:\n     Sentencing-Imposition of  appropriate  sentence,  under\nsection 302  or 304  depends on\t the nature  of\t offence  of\nculpable homicide-Evidence  showing homicide by both parties\nin a  Civil Suit  in a\tsudden fight  in the heat of passion\nupon a\tquarrel-Appropriate  sentence  would  be  one  under\nsections 304(1)\/34  Indian Penal Code and not under sections\n302\/34 Indian  Penal  Code-Probability\tof  culpability\t not\nproved by legal evidence-Benefit of doubt must ensue in such\ncases.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     The five  accused Ram  Karan, his sons Sunil Kumar, Ved\nPrakash,  Anil\t Kumar,\t Satish\t  Kumar\t and   deceased\t son\nChhoteylal filed a Civil Suit 34 of 1967 against the decased\nPrakash Chandra,  his brother  Gopi Chandra  and one Krishan\nDevi, alleging\tthat  while  constructing  their  new  house\nPrakash Chandra had encroached upon a portion of their land.\nIn that suit appellant Ram Karan got Commissioners appointed\nby  the\t  court\t on   five  or\t six  occasions\t for  taking\nmeasurements of\t the properties\t with the  object of proving\nhis case  of encroachment  by Prakash Chandra, the deceased.\nBut these  Commissioners' reports  were\t set  aside  on\t the\nobjection  raised   by\tPrakash\t  Chandra  and\t the   other\ndefendants. The\t last Advocate Commissioner Mr. Mathur (C.W.\n1) visited  the spot  on 6-9-1970,  the day  of\t occurrence,\naccompanied by\tMr. Zafar  Hussain (C.W. 2) who appeared for\ndeceased Prakash Chandra and Mr. Mahesh Chandra (C.W. 3) who\nappeared for  Ram Karan.  After the completion of the survey\nwork and  measurements at  about 1  P.M. when  all the three\nlawyers were  standing and  talking in front of the house of\nthe appellants\tdeceased Prakash  Chandra and  Umesh Chandra\ncame there  to talk  to the Commissioner, which interference\nwas not\t liked by  the appellants. This resulted in a sudden\nquarrel, exchange  of hot  words later\tfollowed by  assault\nwith knife  etc., on  the  appellants  which,  according  to\nprosecution, was in the exercise of right of self-defence by\nthe prosecution\t party, particularly  Dinesh  Chandra  (P.W.\n11). On\t the side  of the appellants Ram Karan's son Chhotey\nLal (accused)  died and\t on  the  side\tof  the\t prosecution\nPrakash Chandra\t and his  son Umesh  Chandra died and Dinesh\nChandra (P.W.  11) was\tgrievously  injured.  All  the\tfive\naccused were  tried and\t convicted by the Sessions Judge for\noffences under\tsections 302\/149  I.P.C.  (two\tcounts)\t and\n307\/149 I.P.C.\tand were  sentenced to imprisonment for life\nand rigorous  imprisonment for\tfour years respectively. Ram\nKaran was  also convicted under section 147 and sentenced to\nundergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and his four sons\nwere convicted\tunder section  148 and sentenced to rigorous\nimprisonment for two years. In appeal the\n396\nHigh Court  acquitted Anil Kumar and Satish Kumar, set aside\nthe conviction\tand sentence  under  sections  147  and\t 148\nI.P.C. in  respect of  the  rest  and  confirmed  (a)  their\nsentence of life imprisonment by altering the conviction one\nunder sections\t302\/34 I.P.C. and (b) their sentence of four\nyears rigorous\timprisonment to\t one under  sections  307\/34\nI.P.C. Hence  the appeal  by special  leave by Ram Karan and\nhis two sons.\n     Acquitting Ram  Karan and\tallowing the  appeal of\t the\nother two in part, the Court\n^\n     HELD: Having  regard to  the age  of the  appellant Ram\nKaran who  was about  70  years\t old  at  the  time  of\t the\noccurrence, there  is a\t reasonable doubt  as to  whether he\nwould have caught hold of the young man Dinesh Chandra (P.W.\n11) by\this waist  and whether\the would  have asked all his\nsons to\t attack and  kill Prakash  Chandra and his sons. The\nappellant Ram  Karan is\t entitled to be set at liberty. [409\nD-E]\n     BY MAJORITY\n     Per Fazal Ali, J. (and on behalf of D.A. Desai, J.)\n     1:1. Exception  4 to  section 300\tI.P.C. provides that\nculpable homicide  is not  murder if it is committed without\npre-meditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon\na sudden  quarrel and  without the  offenders  having  taken\nundue advantage\t or acted in a cruel or unusual manner. [399\nD]\n     1:2. In  this case, the incident occurred upon a sudden\nquarrel and  no one took undue advantage or acted in a cruel\nor unusual  manner on either side. Prakash Chandra and Umesh\nChandra on  the side of the prosecution died and Chhotey Lal\non the\tside of\t the accused  died and\teach of\t them met  a\nhomicidal death. Therefore exception 4 to section 300 Indian\nPenal Code  is clearly\tattracted and  the offence of murder\nwould be  reduced to  culpable homicide in respect of Sushil\nKumar and  Ved Prakash\tand, therefore, they would be guilty\nof committing  on offence  under section  304(1)\/34 I.P.C. A\nsentence of  rigorous imprisonment  for seven years would be\nappropriate; conviction\t and sentence  under sections 307\/34\nI.P.C. being in order would run con currently.\n\t\t\t\t\t      [399 B-C, G-H,\n400 A]\n     Per Varadarajan, J. (contra).\n     Sunil Kumar  and Ved  Prakash were\t the aggressors\t and\nthey have been rightly convicted under section 302 read with\nsection 34  I.P.C. for\tthe offence  of\t murder\t of  Prakash\nChandra land  Umesh Chandra and under sections 307\/34 I.P.C.\nwith reference to P.W. 11. Neither Exception 2 nor Exception\n4 to section 300 I.P.C. would apply to the facts of the case\nand the offence cannot be brought under section 304 (Part I)\nI.P.C. The  evidence of\t P.Ws. 1,  10 and  11 proves  beyond\nreasonable doubt  that these  two appellants Sunil Kumar and\nVed Prakash  attacked the deceased Prakash Chandra and Umesh\nChandra with  knives as\t a result of which both of them, who\nhad no\tweapons died  on the  spot and\tthese two appellants\nattacked P.W.  11 with knives with such intention that if he\nhad died  as a\tresult of the injuries sustained by him they\nwould be  guilty of  murder in\tfurtherance of\ttheir common\nintention to  murder. Their  conviction under section 307\/34\nis proper. [408 F-H, 409 C-D]\n397\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
     CRIMINAL APPELLATE\t JURISDICTION: Criminal\t Appeal\t No.
\n329 of 1975.\n<\/p>\n
     From the Judgment & Order dated the 15th April, 1975 of
\nthe Allahabad High Court in Crl. A. No. 1144 of 1971.\n<\/p>\n
     R.L. Kohli and S.K. Sabharwal for the Appellants.
\n     D.P. Uniyal and R.K. Bhatt for the Respondent.
\n     The following Judgments were delivered:\n<\/p>\n
     FAZAL ALI,\t J. This appeal by special leave is directed
\nagainst a  judgment dated  15.4.1975 of\t the Allahabad\tHigh
\nCourt by which the Judges of the High Court while acquitting
\nthe accused,  Anil  Kumar  and\tSatish\tKumar,\taltered\t the
\nconviction of  Ram Karan,  Sunil Kumar\tand Ved Prakash from
\none under  ss. 302  and 307  read with\ts. 149 I.P.C. to one
\nunder ss.  302 and 307 read with s. 34, I.P.C. and confirmed
\nthe sentences  of imprisonment\tfor life  imposed  on  these
\nappellants.\n<\/p>\n
     The prosecution  case has been detailed in the judgment
\nof the\tHigh Court  as also  in the  judgment of our learned
\nBrother Varadarajan J. and it is not necessary to repeat the
\nsame. So far as the question of occurrence is concerned that
\nhas been  proved beyond\t reasonable doubt  as pointed out by
\nBrother Varadarajan,  J. as  also by the High Court. We also
\nagree with  the appreciation  of  the  evidence\t by  Brother
\nVaradarajan, J.\t and his  conclusion that  the two  deceased
\ndied at the hands of the appellants.\n<\/p>\n
     The entire\t occurrence seems to have been the result of
\na chronic  land dispute between the parties in which several
\ncommissions were  issued and which ultimately proved futile.
\nThe prosecution\t has no\t doubt proved  that the\t two persons
\nwere killed  at the  hands  of\tthe  accused  and  that\t the
\noccurrence had\ttaken place  while  the\t Commissioners\twere
\npresent at  the spot  though they  were not  able to see the
\nactual assault\tand were,  therefore, not  in a\t position to
\ndepose the  detailed manner  in which  the assault had taken
\nplace.\n<\/p>\n
     The only  serious question\t on which  we would  like to
\nsound a\t discordant note from our Brother Varadarajan, J. is
\nas to  the actual  nature of  the  offence  which  had\tbeen
\ncommitted by the appellants, Sunil Kumar and Ved Prakash. It
\nwould appear from the evidence
\n398<\/span>
\nof CW  1 as  also other\t eye-witnesses that the accused were
\nalso assaulted with knife and one of them, Chhotey Lal, died
\nas a  result of\t the injuries  caused to  him.\tThe  medical
\nevidence as  also the  evidence of  CW 1  clearly shows that
\nthere was  exchange of hot words, followed by the assault on
\nthe appellants\twhich, according  to the  prosecution, was a
\nresult of  the exercise\t of self-defence  by the prosecution
\nparty, particularly Dinesh Chandra.\n<\/p>\n
     In fact,  the learned Sessions Judge and the High Court
\nheld that  the accused\twere the  aggressors and, therefore,
\nthey had  no right of private defence. In order to ascertain
\nwhether the  accused had  the right  of private defence, the
\ngenesis of  the incident has to be traced. Now, in this case
\nthe prosecution witnesses being partisan, the only important
\ninjured witness\t Dinesh Chandra,  PW 11 being the son of the
\ndeceased, it  would be\tnecessary to ascertain with accuracy
\nthe genesis  of the quarrel as revealed from the evidence of
\nCourt witnesses\t not shown to be partisan. CW 1, Prem Narain
\nMathur is  the practising  advocate and\t was appointed\tas a
\nCommissioner. He  was accompanied  by Mahesh Chandra, Vakil,
\nCW  3,\tadvocate  appearing  on\t behalf\t of  the  plaintiffs
\n(accused Ram  Karan) in\t the suit  in which  Commission\t was
\nissued and Shri Jafar Imam, CW 2, learned advocate appearing
\nfor the\t defendants in the same suit. C.W. 1 and C.W. 3 were
\nat the\thouse of  accused 1  Ram Karan.\t C.W.  1  says\tthat
\nseveral persons\t assembled at  that time at the house of Ram
\nKaran. He is a bit vague but he says that at that time after
\ntea was served and he was about to leave that place he saw a
\nperson lying  on the  pavement of  the\troad.  This  injured
\nperson was  lying in  front of\tthe house  of accused  1 Ram
\nKaran. This  statement has  not been  questioned  in  cross-
\nexamination nor adversely commented upon. It gives a clue to
\nthe genesis of the occurrence. After measurements were taken
\nas directed  by the  Court, C.W.  1 and\t C.W. 3\t came to the
\nhouse of  accused 1 Ram Karan. Some persons collected there.
\nAccording to C.W. 1 injured persons were seen lying in front
\nof the\thouse of  accused 1  and that was none else than the
\ndeceased. If  amongst those  who collected at the house were
\nthe two deceased and P.W. 11 Dinesh Chandra, another injured
\nwitness on  the side of the prosecution, it is crystal clear
\nthat the  prosecution witnesses and the two deceased Prakash
\nChandra and Umesh Chandra had come to the house of accused 1
\nRam Karan.  How, if one of them was armed with a knife, they
\nmust have  come with  a view to either picking up quarrel or
\nto guard  themselves. The  occurrence took place in front of
\nthe house of
\n399<\/span>
\naccused 1.  On the  side of  the prosecution Prakash Chandra
\nand Umesh Chandra received fatal injuries and Dinesh Chandra
\nwas also  injured. However,  on\t the  side  of\tthe  accused
\nChhotelal, son of accused 1 Ram Karan, suffered six injuries
\none of\twhich proved  fatal and\t he died.  Accused Ram Karan
\nhimself was  also injured.  Injuries on both sides appear to
\nhave been caused with sharp cutting weapon like knife. It is
\neasy to infer the genesis of the dispute.\n<\/p>\n
     Both the  parties were  completely exasperated with the
\nlitigation. Accused  1 Ram  Karan had summoned Commission on
\nfive to\t six occasions and his attempt to end the litigation
\nwas thwarted  by objections  being  taken  on  the  side  of
\nPrakash Chandra\t deceased. Therefore,  both sides were in an
\nexasperated mood.  Suddenly at\tthe spur of the moment there
\nensued a  quarrel. Prakash  Chandra and Umesh Chandra on the
\nside of\t the prosecution  died and  Chhotelal on the side of
\nthe accused  died and each of them met a homicidal death. On
\nthe side  of the  prosecution Dinesh Chandra was injured, on
\nthe side  of accused  Ram Karan\t was injured.  From this  an
\nirresistible inference\tensues that  exception 4  to s. 300,
\nI.P.C. would  be  attracted.  The  exception  provides\tthat
\nculpable homicide  is not murder, if it is committed without
\npremeditation in  a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon
\na sudden  quarrel and  without the  offenders  having  taken
\nundue advantage\t or acted  in a cruel or unusual manner. All
\nthe  ingredients  of  Exception\t 4  are\t satisfied.  Prakash
\nChandra and  his two  sons and\tothers came  to the house of
\naccused 1  to protest  for the\twork  of  the  Commissioner.
\nDinesh Chandra\tamongst them was armed with a knife. May be,
\nhe may\tbe usually  carrying the  same for  his safety.\t The
\nincident occurred  in front of the house of accused 1 upon a
\nsudden quarrel\tby this\t confrontation with  eyebrows having
\nbeen  raised   because\tof   a\tpersistent  litigation,\t the
\noccurrence took\t place. There  is no  clear evidence to show
\nthat any-one  took undue  advantage or\tacted in  a cruel or
\nunusual manner.\n<\/p>\n
     Taking an\toverall view  of the  situation, we  find no
\nevidence of  any intention  to kill  the two deceased on the
\npart of\t the accused because the occurrence itself had taken
\nplace suddenly\twhen, to  begin\t with,\tthe  entire  episode
\nstarted for  the particular purpose of partitioning the land
\nby the\tCommissioners who  had visited the village. In these
\ncircumstances we  are satisfied\t that Exception 4 of s. 300,
\nI.P.C. is  attracted and  the offence  of  murder  would  be
\nreduced to  culpable homicide  in respect  of accused  Sunil
\nKumar and  Ved Prakash\tand, therefore, they would be guilty
\nof committing
\n400<\/span>
\nan offence  under s.  304(1)\/34 I.P.C.\tand they  should  be
\nconvicted accordingly.\tTo this\t extent, therefore,  we\t are
\nunable to  agree  with\tBrother\t Varadarajan,  J.  that\t the
\nconviction of  the appellants  Sunil Kumar  and Ved  Prakash
\nunder s.  302 read  with s.  34\t of  the  I.P.C.  should  be
\nconfirmed.\n<\/p>\n
     We, therefore, allow this appeal to the extent that the
\nconviction of  Sunil Kumar  and Ved Prakash are altered from
\none under s. 302 read with s. 34 of the I.P.C. to that under
\ns. 304(1)\/34  I.P.C. and  they\tare  sentenced\tto  rigorous
\nimprisonment for seven years. Conviction and sentences under
\ns. 307\/34,  I.P.C. are maintained and sentences awarded have
\nalready been  directed to  run concurrently.  We  allow\t the
\nappeal of Ram Karan as indicated by Brother Varadarajan, J.\n<\/p>\n
     VARADARAJAN, J.  This Criminal  Appeal by special leave
\nis directed  against the judgment of a Division Bench of the
\nAllahabad High\tCourt in  Criminal Appeal  No. 1144 of 1971,
\nwhereby the  learned Judges, while acquitting two appellants
\nAnil Kumar  and Satish\tKumar of  the charges,\taltered\t the
\nconviction of  Ram  Karan,  Sunil  Kumar  and  Ved  Prakash,
\nappellants in  this Criminal  Appeal, under  s. 302 and 307,
\nboth read with s. 149 I.P.C., into one under ss. 302 and 307
\nboth read  with s.  34 I.P.C. and confirmed the sentences of
\nimprisonment for  life for  each of the two counts of murder
\nof  Prakash   Chandra  and   Umesh  Chandra   and   rigorous
\nimprisonment for  four years  for attempt  to murder  Dinesh
\nChandra (P.W.  11) to  run concurrently\t and set  aside\t the
\nconviction of  the appellant  Ram Karan under s. 147 and the
\nother two appellants under s. 148 I.P.C.\n<\/p>\n
     The first\tappellant Ram  Karan is\t the father of other
\nappellants Sunil  Kumar and  Ved Prakash  and also  of\tAnil
\nKumar and  Satish Kumar, who have been acquitted by the High
\nCourt as  well as  of  deceased\t Chhotey  Lal.\tThe  learned
\nSessions Judge\twho tried  the case  convicted Ram Karan and
\nall his\t four sons, Sunil Kumar, Anil Kumar, Ved Prakash and
\nSatish Kumar  under s.\t302 read  with s.  149\tI.P.C.\t(two
\ncounts) and  s. 307  read with\ts. 149\tI.P.C. and sentenced
\nthem to\t undergo imprisonment  for life\t on each  of the two
\ncounts\tunder  s.  302\tread  with  s.\t149  I.P.C.  and  to
\nimprisonment for  four years  under s.\t307 read with s. 149
\nI.P.C. He convicted Ram Karan under s. 147 and his aforesaid
\nfour sons  under s.  148 I.P.C.\t and sentenced\tRam Karan to
\nundergo rigorous imprisonment
\n401<\/span>
\nfor one\t year and  his sons to undergo rigorous imprisonment
\nfor two years under s. 147 and s. 148 I.P.C. respectively.\n<\/p>\n
     The case  of the  prosecution was\tthis:- The  deceased
\nPrakash Chandra was the father of the deceased Umesh Chandra
\nand the\t injured witness Dinesh Chandra (P.W. 11) as well as
\nof Gyan\t Chand (P.W.  1). Prakash  Chandra and his sons were
\nliving in  Seohara town,  Bijnor district. The appellant Ram
\nKaran and  his five  sons including the deceased Chhotey Lal
\nwere living  in another\t house\tin  the\t same  town  as\t the
\nneighbours of  Prakash Chandra and his sons. Prakash Chandra
\nand his\t sons built  a new  house on  a\t vacant\t land  which
\nexisted between\t these two houses about three years prior to
\nthe occurrence\tin this\t case which has taken place at about
\n1.00 p.m.  on 6.9.1970.\t The appellant\tRam Karan  and\tfive
\nothers filed  Civil Suit  No. 34 of 1967 in the court of the
\nMunsif, Nagina\tagainst Prakash Chandra and his brother Gopi
\nChandra\t and   one  Krishna   Devi,  alleging\tthat   while
\nconstructing the  new house  Prakash Chandra  had encroached
\nupon a\tportion of  their land.\t In that suit, Ram Karan got
\nCommissioners  appointed   by  the  court  on  five  or\t six
\noccasions for taking measurements of the properties with the
\nobject of  proving  his\t case  of  encroachment\t by  Prakash
\nChandra. But  those Commissioners’ reports were set aside on
\nthe objection  raised  by  Prakash  Chandra  and  the  other
\ndefendents. The\t last Advocate Commissioner Mr. Mathur (C.W.\n<\/p>\n
1) visited  the spot  on 6.9.1970,  accompanied by Mr. Zafar
\nHussain (C.W.  2)  who\tappeared  for  Prakash\tChandra\t and
\nanother and  Mr. Mahesh\t Chand (C.W. 3) who appeared for Ram
\nKaran. After  the completion  of the  survey work  at  about
\n12.30 p.m.  all the  three lawyers were standing and talking
\nin front  of Ram  Karan’s baithak  at about  1.00 p.m.\tThen
\nPrakash Chandra\t and Umesh  Chandra came  there to talk with
\nthe Commissioner.  Ram Karan,  who was\tpresent there  along
\nwith his  five sons,  did  not\tlike  that  interference  of
\nPrakash Chandra\t and Umesh Chandra with the Commissioner. He
\nstated that  he has spent thousands of rupees for taking out
\nthe commissions\t and that  the reports\tof the Commissioners
\nwere set  aside on  the objection  of  Prakash\tChandra.  So
\nsaying, he  instigated his  sons to kill Prakash Chandra and
\nhis sons.  Thereupon, Chhotey  Lal and\tVed Prakash attacked
\nPrakash Chandra\t with knives  while Sunil  Kumar, Anil Kumar
\nand Satish  attacked Umesh  Chandra with  knives. On  seeing
\nDinesh Chandra\t(P.W. 11)  who\trushed\tmeanwhile  from\t the
\neastern side  to help  his father  and\tbrother,  Ram  Karan
\ninstigated his sons to attack him and caught hold of him by
\n402<\/span>
\nhis waist,  and all his five sons attacked him and inflicted
\ninjuries. Then P.W. 11 took out a knife from his pent pocket
\nand wielded  it against\t Ram Karan  and Chhotey Lal in self-
\ndefence\t and  they  sustained  injuries.  P.W.\t11  received
\ninjuries and  fell down.  Gyan Chandra\t(P.W.  1),  who\t was
\nseeing the  occurrence, ran  to his  house along  with\tsome
\nothers and  bolted the door when Sunil Kumar, Anil Kumar and
\nSatish chased  him for\tattacking him. Abdul Wahid, P.W. 10,
\nand others  who were  witnessing the  occurrence  raised  an
\nalarm, and Ram Karan and his sons ran away.\n<\/p>\n
     Gyan Chand,  (P.W. 1)  came out  of his  house sometime
\nlater and found his father Prakash Chandra and brother Umesh
\nChandra\t dead  and  Dinesh  Chandra  (P.W.  11)\t lying\twith
\ninjuries. He prepared the report, Ex. Ka. 3 and proceeded in
\na jeep with his brother Dinesh Chandra (P.W. 11), to Seohara
\nPolice Station\tsituate about  half a  mile away  and handed
\nover that  report at  1.30 p.m. Dinesh Chandra (P.W. 11) was
\ntaken to  Dhampur hospital after he was given first aid by a
\nDoctor on  the way.  He was examined at the Dhampur hospital
\nby Dr.\tBagchi, P.W.  3 who  found on his person an abrasion
\nand nine  incised wounds  of which injury No. 7 on the right
\nside of\t the chest  through which  blood and air were coming
\nout was serious and the rest were simple.\n<\/p>\n
     The dead  bodies of  Prakash Chandra  and Umesh Chandra
\nwhich were  found lying\t in front of their house where blood
\nalso was  found, were  later sent for autopsy. Ram Karan and
\nChhotey Lal  went to  the Government  hospital, Bijnor where
\nthey were  examined by Dr. Sarin (P.W. 2) at 4 p.m. and 4.15
\np.m. respectively  on 6.9.1970.\t P.W. 2\t found one punctured
\nwound and  four incised\t wounds on  Chhotey  Lal  and  three
\nincised wounds\ton Ram\tKaran. The  injuries on both of them
\nwere fresh  and those  on Ram Karan were simple while injury
\nNo. 1  on Chhotey  Lal, namely,\t a punctured wound which was
\nlung-deep and  anterior to the left nipple, was grievous and
\nthe rest  were simple.\tThe injuries  on both  could, in the
\nopinion of  P.W. 2, have been caused by knife. P.W. 2 issued
\nthe wound  certificates Ex.  Ka. 12  and Ka. 13. Ram Karan’s
\nreport was  lodged at  the Police  Station at  10.30 p.m. on
\n6.9.1970. Chhotey  Lal died in the District hospital, Bijnor
\non 10.9.1970.\n<\/p>\n
     Dr. Zuber\tconducted autopsy  on the  bodies of Prakash
\nChandra\t and  Umesh  Chandra  on  7.9.1970  and\t found\tnine
\nantemortem, injuries,  of which\t six were incised wounds, on
\nthe body  of Prakash  Chandra  and  six\t antemortem  incised
\nwounds on the body
\n403<\/span>
\nof Umesh  Chandra and  he opined  that the  death of both of
\nthem was  due to  shock and  haemorrhage resulting  from the
\nincised injuries.  Ex. Ka.  1 and  Ka. 2  are the postmortem
\ncertificates relating  to Prakash  Chandra and Umesh Chandra
\nissued by  Dr. Zuber  who was  examined as  P.W.  1  in\t the
\nCommitting Magistrate’s Court (Ex. Ka. 37). Dr. Dua (C.W. 4)
\nconducted autopsy  on the  body of  Chhotey Lal on 11.9.1970
\nand found  an abrasion\tand five  incised wounds  which were
\nsufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.\n<\/p>\n
     The prosecution’s\tcase rests mainly on the evidence of
\nGyan Chand  (P.W. 1),  Abdul  Wahid  (P.W.  10)\t and  Dinesh
\nChandra (P.W.  11). As\tstated earlier P.Ws 1 and 11 are the
\nsons of\t deceased Prakash  Chandra and brothers of the other
\ndeceased Umesh Chandra. P.W. 11 had received injuries during
\nthe occurrence\tand P.W. 1 is the witness who had lodged the
\nFirst Information  Report (Ex.\tK. 3)  in the Seohara Police
\nStation at  the earliest opportunity at 1.30 p.m. soon after
\nthe occurrence\twhich had  taken place\tat about  1.00\tp.m.
\nThese three  witnesses were  put forward as eyewitnesses and
\nthey have deposed in support of the case of the prosecution.\n<\/p>\n
     The accused  put forward  their version  of  the  case.
\nAccording to  the accused,  after the  Commissioner (C.W. 1)
\nfinished his work and went to the house of the appellant Ram
\nKaran, Prakash Chandra and his sons Umesh Chandra and Dinesh
\nChandra (P.W.  11) came\t to the\t baithak of  Ram  Karan\t and
\nattacked Ram  Karan and deceased Chhotey Lal with knives and
\nthereupon they grappled with those three persons and wrested
\nthe knives  from them and attacked them in self-defence. The
\naccused examined  D.W. 1 on their behalf. The court examined
\nthe Commissioner and the counsel of the parties in the civil
\nsuit as\t C. Ws.\t 1 to 3 and the Doctor who conducted autopsy
\non the body of Chhotey Lal as C.W. 4.\n<\/p>\n
     The evidence  of C.W.  1 is  that\tafter  he  completed
\ntaking measurements  he went  along with Ram Karan’s counsel
\nMr. Mahesh  Chandra (C.W.  3) to  the baithak of Ram Karan’s
\nhouse, that  both of  them came\t out of\t the house  8 or  10
\nminutes later,\tthat when  he advanced\tfrom the door of the
\nbaithak he saw a person lying injured on the pavement of the
\nroad and another injured person standing there, that a third
\nperson came  and struck the injured person who was standing,
\nand that  he and  C.W. 3  left\tthe  place  thereafter.\t The
\nevidence of C.W. 3 is that he and C.W. 1 who had gone to the
\nbaithak of Ram Karan’s house after C.W. 1 had
\n404<\/span>
\ntaken the  measurements, came  out of  the baithak  5  or  7
\nminutes later,\tand saw\t Chhotey Lal  grappling with a young
\nman, that  in the  course of grappling Chhotey Lal fell down
\nbleeding, that\tChhotey Lal  managed to\t get up and snatched
\nthe weapon  of the  assailant and  struck him  with it, that
\nPrakash Chandra\t came to  the rescue  of the  young man\t and
\nChhotey Lal  struck him\t with the  same weapon\tand both the
\nyoung-man and  Prakash Chandra\tfell  down  after  receiving
\ninjuries from  Chhotey Lal,  and  that\ton  account  of\t the
\nincident he  went away\talong with  C.W. 1. C.W. 3 has added
\nthat soon  after he  went and  sat in  the  baithak  of\t Ram
\nKaran’s\t house,\t  Zafar\t Hussain  (C.W.\t 2)  came  and\tsaid
\nsomething to C.W. 1 from beyond the door of the baithak. The
\nevidence  of   Zafar  Hussain\t(C.W.  2)   is\tthat   after
\nmeasurements had  been taken  C. Ws.  1 and  3 went  to\t the
\nbaithak of Ram Karan’s house while he sat in the verandah of
\nthe old\t haveli of  Prakash Chandra,  that  he\tand  Prakash
\nChandra’s son,\twho is now no more, thereafter went near the
\nCommissioner (C.W  1) and  he told  C.W. 1  that he may hear
\nwhat Prakash  Chandra wanted to say, that after saying so he
\ngot back  for meeting  another person  while Prakash Chandra
\nand his son remained there, that after reaching the verandah
\nof Prakash  Chandra he\twent away  with Mehboob\t Ali who was
\nwaiting for  him to  Mehboob Ali’s house and that no quarrel
\ntook place  when he  was present  there though\twhen he\t was
\nreturning to  the verandah  of Prakash\tChandra’s  house  he
\nheard some hot words being exchanged near the baithak of Ram
\nKaran’s house.\n<\/p>\n
     The learned Sessions Judge has observed in his judgment
\nthat  the  evidence  of\t C.Ws.\t1  to  3  is  contradictory,
\nunnatural and  not truthful.  He found\tthat P.W. 1’s report
\n(Ka. 3)\t was lodged  in the Police Station at 1.30 p.m. soon
\nafter the  occurrence had taken place at about 1.00 p.m. and
\nthat there  has been  no attempt at concoction in this case.
\nHe rejected  the contention  that Abdul Wahid, (P.W. 10) had
\nany reason  to depose  falsely\tagainst\t the  appellant\t Ved
\nPrakash and  found his\tevidence to be reliable. He observed
\nthat though  Prakash Chandra had been working as an Engineer
\nin a  sugar mill  at Seohara and P.W. 10 was employed in the
\nengineering department,\t P.W. 10  was actually working under
\none Bachcha  Lal and  is an  independent witness. P.W. 1 has
\nstated in  his evidence\t that Prakash Chandra, Umesh Chandra
\nand Ram\t Karan did  not have  any weapon  at the time of the
\noccurrence. The\t evidence of  the injured witness P.W. 11 is
\nthat when  he returned\thome from  Moradabad at\t about 12.30
\np.m. on the day of occurrence
\n405<\/span>
\nhe saw\this father Prakash Chandra and brother Umesh Chandra
\nlying in  a pool  of blood  and that on seeing him Ram Karan
\nshouted that he also should be killed and caught hold of him
\nby his\twaist and  that he  was attacked  with knives by the
\naccused persons\t including Ram Karan and he wielded in self-
\ndefence the knife which he had purchased on that day for his
\nwork.\n<\/p>\n
     The learned  Sessions Judge  accepted the\tevidence  of
\nP.Ws. 1,  10 and 11 and commented upon Ram Karan and Chhotey
\nLal going  to the hospital at Bijnor without arranging for a
\nreport being  given at the Police Station at Seohara in time
\nand held  that the  accused were  the  aggressors  and\tthat
\nDinesh Chandra\t(P.W. 11)  caused injuries  to Ram Karan and
\nthe deceased  Chhotey Lal  in the  exercise of\tthe right of
\nprivate defence. Accordingly he found the accused guilty and
\nconvicted them and sentenced them as mentioned above.\n<\/p>\n
     The High  Court also  rejected the\t defence theory that
\nChhotey Lal  was attacked by three persons armed with knife,
\nchura and khukhri having regard to the fact that he had only
\none lung deep punctured wound and the other four wounds were
\nonly skin deep and of very minor dimensions.\n<\/p>\n
     The learned  Judges of  the High  Court found  that the
\nname of Anil Kumar is not mentioned in the First Information
\nReport (Ex.  Ka. 3)  but instead the name of one Virendra is
\nmentioned and  that it\tappears from  the evidence of P.W. 1
\nthat Virendra is the name of Prakash Chandra’s brother. They
\nfound that  in the  statement of  P.W. 11  recorded as dying
\ndeclaration, Sushil  Kumar is  mentioned instead  of  Satish
\nKumar. In  these circumstances the learned Judges found that
\nthere is reasonable doubt regarding the participation of the
\naccused Anil  Kumar and\t Satish\t Kumar\tand  they  gave\t the
\nbenefit of  that doubt\tto those  two appellants before them
\nand acquitted  them. In\t other respects,  the learned Judges
\naccepted the  evidence of  P.Ws. 1,  10 and 11 regarding the
\noccurrence and\trejected the  defence version  and held\t the
\nappellants guilty under s. 302 read with s. 34 in respect of
\nthe murder of Prakash Chandra and Umesh Chandra and under s.
\n307 read  with s. 34 in respect of Dinesh Chandra, (P.W. 11)
\nand convicted them accordingly and sentenced them to undergo
\nimprisonment for  life under  s. 302  read with s. 34 I.P.C.
\nand rigorous  imprisonment for\tfour years under s. 307 read
\nwith s. 34 I.P.C.\n<\/p>\n
406<\/span><\/p>\n
     We perused the records and the judgments of the learned
\nSessions Judge\tand of\tthe learned Judges of the High Court
\nand heard  the arguments  of Mr. R.L. Kohli, Senior Advocate
\nwho appeared  for the  appellants and  of Mr.  D.P.  Uniyal,
\nSenior Advocate\t who appeared  for the\trespondent-State  of
\nU.P. We\t were taken  through the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 10 and\n<\/p>\n
11. The\t learned Sessions Judge has observed in his judgment
\nthat the  evidence of  the three  lawyers C.Ws.\t 1 to  3  is
\ncontradictory, unnatural  and not  truthful and that if they
\nhad given  honest evidence it would have been easier for the
\ncourt  to  conclude  which  side  was  the  aggressor.\tThis
\nobservation of\tthe learned Sessions Judge appears to be too
\nsweeping and  not correct  at least with reference to C.W. 2
\nwho has\t professed ignorance  about the actual occurrence in
\nthe case  and has  stated that\the left\t after asking C.W. 1
\nfrom outside  the baithak  of Ram Karan’s house to hear what
\nPrakash Chandra\t who had  gone with him and his deceased son
\nwanted to  tell him  because another person Mehboob Ali with
\nwhom he\t later went  to his house was waiting for him in the
\nverandah of  Prakash Chandra’s house. The evidence of C.W. 2
\nthat no\t quarrel took place when he was present there though
\nwhen he\t was returning\tto the verandah of Prakash Chandra’s
\nhouse he  heard some  hot words\t being\texchanged  near\t the
\nbaithak of  Ram Karan’s house, is, in a way, corroborated by
\nthe evidence of P.W. 1. P.W. 1 has stated that when exchange
\nof hot\twords started  the Commissioner\t and Vakils  of\t the
\nparties moved  from there to the road and that just when Ram
\nKaran’s Vakil  had gone\t a short  distance from\t Ram Karan’s
\nhouse, Ram  Karan and  others stated that “they have got our
\nthousands of  rupees spent  over litigation.  We have become
\ntired of getting commissions issued. Kill them today so that
\nthe trouble may be ended for ever. At that time all the five
\nsons of\t Ram Karan,  Chhotey Lal, Ved Prakash, Satish Kumar,
\nSunil Kumar  and Anil Kumar were present, and when Ram Karan
\nsaid so\t all  five  sons  whipped  out\tknives\tand  started
\nassulting…..”. This  portion of  the evidence of P.W. 1 is
\nto the effect that the lawyers C.Ws. 1-3 were not present at
\nthe time  of the  actual assault  on  the  deceased  Prakash
\nChandra and Umesh Chandra as a well as on P.W. 11. Even P.W.
\n10 has\tstated in  his evidence\t that “when  he reached near
\ndharmshala at  about 12.45  p.m. he  heard the shouts of Ram
\nKaran from his house situate at a distance of 30 paces, that
\nwhen he\t reached the end of the road he was in a position to
\nsee the\t house of  Ram Karan,  that on hearing the shouts he
\nproceeded towards  the place  from where they came and stood
\nnear
\n407<\/span>
\nthe wall  and found  three Vakils  present and\talso Prakash
\nChandra and  Umesh Chandra,  that as  soon as he reached the
\nplace, the Vakils left the place, that Ram Karan then stated
\nthat he\t got the  Commissioner appointed  5 or\t6 times\t and
\nspent several  thousands of  rupees and\t he should be killed
\nand that when Ram Karan said so his sons Chhotey Lal and Ved
\nPrakash began  to attack  Prakash Chandra  with knives, that
\nSunil Kumar  and Ram  Karan’s other  sons began\t to  assault
\nUmesh Chandra  with knives,  that during  the marpit Prakash
\nChandra\t and   Umesh  Chandra\tfell  down  after  receiving
\ninjuries, that\tthereafter Dinesh  Chandra, son\t of  Prakash
\nChandra came  from the\teastern direction, and on seeing him
\nRam Karan  shouted that he should also be done to death, and
\nhe caught  hold of Dinesh Chandra by his waist, and that all
\nthe four  boys and  deceased Chhotey  Lal began\t to  assault
\nDinesh Chandra\twith knives,  and Dinesh Chandra wielded his
\nknife in  self-defence and  caused injuries to Ram Karan and
\nChhotey\t Lal   and   thereafter\t  fell\t down\tand   became
\nunconscious….”. This\tportion of  the evidence  of P.W. 10
\nalso shows  that C.Ws.\t1 to  3 left  the place\t soon  after
\nexchange  of   hot  words   began  between  the\t two  sides.
\nTherefore, I  am of  the opinion  that there is no reason to
\nreject the  evidence of\t C.W. 2\t that no  quarrel took place
\nwhen he\t was present  near about the scene of occurrence. In
\nthe circumstances  of the  case, it  is very  probable\tthat
\nbefore serious\ttrouble started\t from the  exchange  of\t hot
\nwords, C.Ws.  1 to  3. the  Commissioner and the counsel for
\nboth the  parties in the civil suit, left the place and were
\nnot present  at the  time of the actual occurrence as stated
\nby P.Ws. 1 and 10.\n<\/p>\n
     Mr. R.L.  Kohli drew  our attention to some portions of
\nthe judgment  of the  learned Judges  of the  High Court and
\nsubmitted that\tthe observation\t of the\t learned Judges that
\nfrom the  side of  the defence\tit was\tnot suggested to any
\nwitness that  Abdul Wahid  (P.W. 10) was a different man and
\nthat he has been introduced because the real Abdul Wahid was
\nnot prepared  to support  the prosecution case is incorrect.
\nThe learned  counsel further  submitted that the observation
\nof the\tlearned Judges that the presence of Gyan Chand (P.W.\n<\/p>\n
1) at  the time\t of the\t occurrence does  not appear to have
\nbeen challenged\t by the\t defence is  also not  correct. This
\ncriticism of  the learned counsel for the appellants appears
\nto be  well-founded, for  I find  that a suggestion has been
\nmade to\t P.W. 10  in cross-examination\tand he\thas admitted
\nthat there is also
\n408<\/span>
\nanother person\tnamed Wahid  son  of  Abdul  Rehman  in\t his
\nmohalla and  that that\tperson was  an accused\tin a rioting
\ncase. And  in the  cross-examination of\t P.W. 1\t it has been
\nclearly suggested  that he  was not  present at the spot and
\nthat he\t prepared the  report Ex. Ka. 3 afterwards with some
\nconsultation. P.W. 1 has no doubt denied that suggestion and
\nstated that  he was  present at the spot and that he himself
\nwrote the  report Ex.  Ka. 3 before he came out of the house
\nby opening the door. The learned Judges have stated in their
\njudgment that  after Ram  Karan stated\tthat  he  has  spent
\nthousands of rupees on commissions and every time the report
\nof the\tCommissioner was  set  aside  on  the  objection  of
\nPrakash Chandra\t and he\t instigated his sons to kill Prakash
\nChandra and  Umesh Chandra,  all the  five sons of Ram Karan
\nstarted giving\tknife blows  to Prakash\t Chandra  and  Umesh
\nChandra and  both of  them fell\t down. This  portion of\t the
\njudgment of the learned Judges is to the effect that all the
\nfive sons  of Ram  Karan including  the deceased Chhotey Lal
\nattacked the  deceased Prakash\tChandra\t and  Umesh  Chandra
\nwhereas it  is the case of the prosecution as brought out in
\nthe evidence  of P.W.  1 that after Ram Karan instigated his
\nsons to\t open the  attack only\tChhotey Lal  and Ved Prakash
\nattacked Prakash  Chandra with\tknives and only Sunil Kumar.
\nAnil Kumar  and Satish\tKumar attacked\tUmesh  Chandra\twith
\nknives. It is unfortunate that these inaccuracies have crept
\ninto the  judgment of  the learned Judges of the High Court.
\nBut on\tan overall  consideration of  the entire material on
\nrecord and  the evidence  in the  case in  the light  of the
\narguments of the learned counsel for the parties I am of the
\nopinion that the appreciation of the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 10
\nand 11\tby the learned Sessions Judge and the learned Judges
\nof the\tHigh Court  in so  far as the appellants Sunil Kumar
\nand Ved\t Prakash are  concerned\t is  correct  and  that\t the
\nevidence of  P.Ws. 1  and 10  proves beyond reasonable doubt
\nthat these  two\t appellants  Sunil  Kumar  and\tVed  Prakash
\nattacked the deceased Prakash Chandra and Umesh Chandra with
\nknives as a result of which both of them, who had no weapons
\ndied on the spot, and the evidence of P.Ws. 10 and 11 proves
\nsatisfactorily and  beyond any\treasonable doubt  that these
\ntwo appellants\tattacked  P.W.\t11  with  knives  with\tsuch
\nintention that\tif he  had died\t as a result of the injuries
\nsustained  by\thim  they  would  be  guilty  of  murder  in
\nfurtherance of\ttheir common  intention to  murder. The dead
\nbodies of  Prakash Chandra  and Umesh Chandra and blood were
\nfound in front of the house of both the
\n409<\/span>
\ndeceased and  P.W. 11.\tBoth the deceased had no weapons and
\nthey had  been attacked before P.W. 11 arrived and wield his
\nknife against Ram Karan and Chhotey Lal. The main occurrence
\nhad taken  place in  front of the house of both the deceased
\nand P.W.  11. Before  the trial\t court it  was not submitted
\nthat the  attack by the accused persons on both the deceased
\nPrakash Chandra\t and Umesh  Chandra and\t P.W. 11 was without
\nany pre-meditation  in a sudden fight in the heat of passion
\nupon a sudden quarrel. Nor is it a case in which it could be
\nsaid that the offenders had not taken undue advantage or had
\nnot acted in a cruel or unusual manner. No such argument was
\nput forward  even before  the High  Court to  bring the main
\noccurrence under  s. 304  (Part I) I.P.C. Since I have found
\nthat the occurrence has taken place in front of the house of
\nthe two\t deceased and  P.W. 11\tin this\t case and  that\t the
\naccused persons\t were the aggressors neither Exception 2 nor
\nException 4  to s.  300 I.P.C.\twould apply  to the facts of
\nthis case  and the  offence cannot  be brought\tunder s. 304
\n(Part I)  I.P.C. In  these circumstances,  I agree  with the
\nlearned Sessions  Judge that  the appellants Sunil Kumar and
\nVed Prakash were the aggressors and find that they have been
\nrightly convicted  under s.  302 read  with s. 34 I.P.C. for
\nthe offence  of murder of those two persons and under s. 307
\nread with  s. 34  I.P.C. with reference to P.W. 11. But I am
\nof the\topinion, having\t regard to  the age of appellant Ram
\nKaran, who  was about  70 years\t old  at  the  time  of\t the
\noccurrence that there is a reasonable doubt as to whether he
\nwould have caught hold of the young man Dinesh Chandra (P.W.\n<\/p>\n
11) by\this waist  and whether\the would  have asked all his
\nsons to\t attack and  kill Prakash  Chandra and\this  son.  I
\ntherefore, give\t the benefit of this reasonable doubt to the
\nappellant Ram  Karan and  set aside  his conviction under s.
\n302 read  with s.34  (two counts) and under s. 307 read with
\ns. 34  and acquit  him and  direct him\tto be set at liberty
\nforthwith if  he is  in custody\t and  his  presence  is\t not
\nrequired  in  connection  with\tany  other  case.  In  other
\nrespects I  dismiss the\t criminal  appeal  and\tconfirm\t the
\nconviction of  Sunil Kumar and Ved Prakash and the sentences
\nawarded to them.\n<\/p>\n
     In accordance  with the  opinion of  the majority,\t the
\nappeal is  allowed to  the extent that the conviction of Ram
\nKaran under s. 302 read with s. 34 (two counts) and under s.
\n307 read  with s.  34 of  the Indian Penal Code is set aside
\nand he\tis acquitted and that convictions of the appellants,
\nSunil Kumar and Ved Prakash, are
\n410<\/span>
\naltered from  one under\t s. 302\/34,  I.P.C. to that under s.
\n304(1)\/34,  IPC\t  and  they   are  sentenced   to   rigorous
\nimprisonment for seven years. Conviction and sentences under
\nsection 307\/34,\t I.P.C. are maintained and sentences awarded
\nhave already been directed to run concurrently.\n<\/p>\n
S.R.\t\t\t\t      Appeal partly allowed.\n411<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Ram Karan & Ors vs State Of Uttar Pradesh on 4 March, 1982 Equivalent citations: 1982 AIR 1185, 1982 SCR (3) 395 Author: S M Fazalali Bench: Fazalali, Syed Murtaza PETITIONER: RAM KARAN & ORS. Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH DATE OF JUDGMENT04\/03\/1982 BENCH: FAZALALI, SYED MURTAZA BENCH: FAZALALI, SYED […]<\/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-217584","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nRam Karan & Ors vs State Of Uttar Pradesh on 4 March, 1982 - 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\/ram-karan-ors-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-on-4-march-1982\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ram Karan & Ors vs State Of Uttar Pradesh on 4 March, 1982 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-karan-ors-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-on-4-march-1982\" \/>\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=\"1982-03-03T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-07-23T17:35:22+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=\"34 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-karan-ors-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-on-4-march-1982#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-karan-ors-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-on-4-march-1982\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ram Karan & Ors vs State Of Uttar Pradesh on 4 March, 1982\",\"datePublished\":\"1982-03-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-23T17:35:22+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-karan-ors-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-on-4-march-1982\"},\"wordCount\":5858,\"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\/ram-karan-ors-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-on-4-march-1982#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-karan-ors-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-on-4-march-1982\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-karan-ors-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-on-4-march-1982\",\"name\":\"Ram Karan & Ors vs State Of Uttar Pradesh on 4 March, 1982 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1982-03-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-23T17:35:22+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-karan-ors-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-on-4-march-1982#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-karan-ors-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-on-4-march-1982\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-karan-ors-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-on-4-march-1982#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ram Karan & Ors vs State Of Uttar Pradesh on 4 March, 1982\"}]},{\"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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":"Ram Karan & Ors vs State Of Uttar Pradesh on 4 March, 1982 - 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\/ram-karan-ors-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-on-4-march-1982","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ram Karan & Ors vs State Of Uttar Pradesh on 4 March, 1982 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-karan-ors-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-on-4-march-1982","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1982-03-03T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-07-23T17:35:22+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":"34 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-karan-ors-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-on-4-march-1982#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-karan-ors-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-on-4-march-1982"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ram Karan & Ors vs State Of Uttar Pradesh on 4 March, 1982","datePublished":"1982-03-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-23T17:35:22+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-karan-ors-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-on-4-march-1982"},"wordCount":5858,"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\/ram-karan-ors-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-on-4-march-1982#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-karan-ors-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-on-4-march-1982","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-karan-ors-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-on-4-march-1982","name":"Ram Karan & Ors vs State Of Uttar Pradesh on 4 March, 1982 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1982-03-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-23T17:35:22+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-karan-ors-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-on-4-march-1982#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-karan-ors-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-on-4-march-1982"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-karan-ors-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-on-4-march-1982#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ram Karan & Ors vs State Of Uttar Pradesh on 4 March, 1982"}]},{"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/217584","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=217584"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/217584\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=217584"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=217584"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=217584"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}