Holding

The prosecution proved the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, so the High Court was correct in setting aside the acquittal and convicting him under IPC s.302 and Arms Act s.27.

Summary

Mani Ram and his brother Hari Ram had a dispute with Hazur Singh. On the day of the incident Singh went to his field, ate a meal brought by his wife Surjeet Kaur and son Jaskaran, and was subsequently shot by Mani Ram with a licensed pistol; Hari Ram allegedly encouraged the act. The trial court acquitted both accused for lack of proof, but the Rajasthan High Court set aside Mani Ram's acquittal, convicting him under IPC s.302 and Arms Act s.27 and sentencing him to life imprisonment. The State appealed to the Supreme Court under Section 2(a) of the Supreme Court (Enlargement of Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1970, arguing that the evidence—eye‑witness testimony, ballistic expert report and medical findings—established guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and that the trial court’s acquittal was erroneous. The appellant contended that the presence of semi‑digested food in the deceased’s stomach and the delay in sending cartridges to the ballistic expert raised doubts about the prosecution case. The Supreme Court held that the medical evidence was only opinion and did not contradict the consistent eyewitness accounts, that the ballistic evidence was reliable, and that there were no suspicious features casting doubt on the prosecution version. Consequently, the Court affirmed the High Court’s conviction and dismissed the appeal.

Issues considered

The trial court's acquittal was perverse or unreasonable.
Whether the presence of semi‑digested food in the deceased's stomach contradicts the prosecution's timeline.
Whether the delay in forwarding empty cartridges to the ballistic expert creates a reasonable doubt of tampering.
The reliability and weight of ballistic expert testimony linking the cartridges to the appellant's pistol.
The credibility of the eyewitnesses (wife and son) and whether their testimony is corroborated.

Legislation cited

Arms Acts. 27
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 302
Supreme Court (Enlargement of Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1970s. 2(a)

Subjects

murderIPC 302Arms Act 27ballistic evidencemedical evidencedigestion timingappellate jurisdictionevidence appraisalacquittalconviction

Judgment

j
MANI RAM A
v.
STATE OF RAJASTHAN

r MARCH 31, 1993

[DR. A.S. ANAND AND N.P. SINGH, JJ.] B

- Supreme Court (Enlargement of Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1970: Sec-
lion 2(a}-Appea~Appreciation of evidence-Whether conviction granted by
High Court proper.

Pana/ Code, 1860: Section 302 read with Section 27, Anns Act-Con·
c
·-\ viction-Appreciation of evidence-Semi-Digested food found in the stomach
of deceased-Time of taking food-Deduction-Evidence of Wit·
nesses-Validity of-Evidence relating to substitution of cartridges-Effect of

The prosecution case was that about 20-22 days prior to the occur- D
ftnce the appellant and his brother removed the fencing over the.field of
the deceased. This resulted in a quarftl and created ill-feelings between
the deceased an~ the appellant and his brother.

On the date of occurrence, the deceased went to bis field. Later on
bis wife, P.W.l and his son, PW2 went to the field carrying meals for the E

-
deceased. The deceased took his meal and at about 12.30 p.m., all the. three
weft returning to their village from the field, near at the water-course of
the village, the appellant, who was coming from the village side, gave a
'lalkara' to the deceased and he fiftd a shot from his pistol at the
deceased. The appellant's brother exhorted him to kill the deceased.
A
F
Theftupon the appellant fired thfte more shots from bis pistol. The
deceased fell down and died at the spot.

PW1 accompanied by one Ganpatram went to police station and
lodged the first information report at about 3 p.m. and the police inves·
ligation was commenced. G
The appellant and his brother weft sent up for trial, charging the
former under section 302 IPC and the latter under section 302/114 IPC.
Both weft also charged under section 27 of the Arms Act.

The Trial Court acquitted the appellant and his brother of all the H
849
850 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1993) 2 S.C.K.

A charges, as it found that the prosecution was unable to prove the case
against them.

The State's appeal was partly allowed by the High Court. The High
Court set aside the acquittal of the appellant and convicted him for an
offence under section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo life im-
B prisonment. The High Court maintained the acquittal of the appellant's
brother.

Under section 2(a) of the Supreme Court (Enlargement of Appellate
Jurisidistion) Act, 1970 the present appeal ""s filed, contending that the
C judgment of the Trial Court could neither be styled as perverse nor even
as unreasonable and that there was no other substantial and compelling
reasons which could justify the setting aside of the order of acquittal and,
therefore, the High Court should not have interferred with the order of
acquittal; that the presence of undigested food in the stomach of the
D deceased belied the prosecutioticffii'se and that the Trial Courl was right in
holding that the deceased could not have taken the meals at the time
stated by his llife PWI and his son, PW2 or murdered at 12.30 p.m., as
alleged; that the inordinate d~lay in sending the empty cartridges to the
ballistic expert went to show that the possibility that the same had been
subs$ituted by the investigating agency could not be ruled out and there-
E fore the conviction of the appellant by the High Court was not justified.

The State submitted that since it was an appeal under Section 2 of
the Supreme Court (Enlargement of Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1970, this
Court could itself appreciate the evidence to determine the guilt or other-
F wise of the appellant; that the findings recorded by the Trial Court were
based on surmises and conjectures and the High Court was perfectly
justified in reversing the order of acquittal; that the evidence of PWl and
PW2 conclusively established that the crime had been committed by the
appellant by his pistol and their testimony had received ample corrobora-
tion not only from the statement of the doctor, PW9, but also from the
G evidence of PWll, the ballistic expert, who had opined that the four empty
cartridges had been fired from the licenced pistol of the appellant and
could not have been fired from any other weapon; that being rustic
villagers much importance could not be attached to the time given by PWl
and PW2 during their depositions about the exact time when the deceased
H may have had his meals and therefore it could not be said that the medical
'>··
MANI RAM v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN 851
j
evidence had in any way belied the prosecution case: A

Dismissing the appeal, this Court,

HELD: 1.01. The process of digestion depends upon the digestive
'r power or an individual and varies from in individual to an individual. It
also depends upon the type and amount or food taken. The period of B
digestion is different for different types of food. Some food articles like
mutton, chicken.etc. would take more time for being digested as compared

- to vegatarian food. No question at all were asked from the wife of the
deceased about the. type of food served by her to her husband or the
amount of food taken by the deceased. That apart, the time stated by the
witnesses as to when the deceased took his food was only an approximate
c
time as it was not even suggested.to PWl that she bad a W..ist watch and
had actually seen the time when her husband took his food. Too much play
on such slippery factors goes against realism and is not enough to dis-
credit the otherwise reliable testimony or PWl. [856E-Fl
D
1.02. The doctor opined that digestion begins in 1 or 1-1/2 hours.
From this testimony, what was sought to be made out by the defence was
that had the occurrence taken place at 12.30 noon, the deceased would
have had his meals before 11.00 a.m. as semi-digested food was found in
the stomach or the deceased. The emphasis on this aspect or the case by E
the Trial Court, is misplaced because the medical evidence is only an
evidence of opinion and is hardly decisive. [856-D)

- 1.03. The evidence of both the witenesses PWl and PW2, the widow
and son or the deceased, shows that they are consistent in their versions
not only about the assailants but also about the manner of assault. Both F
;. the witnesses have given a vivid description of the occurrence. The state-
ment of PWl that the deceased took his meals at about 10.30 a.m. and that
the occurrence had taken at about 12-12.30 in the noon cannot be taken to
have been contradicted by the medical evidence. [856-B)

1.04. The first information report was lodged by PWl at 3.00 p.m. at
G
a distance of about 13 miles from the place or occurrence and was there-
fore lodged with great promptitude and the entire version of the oceur-
rence finds mention in that report. [857-B]

I.OS. The testimony of the PWsl and 2 has impressed the Court and H
-{

852 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1993] 2 S.C.R.
~-
A they appear to he truthful witnesses and being the close relations of the
deceased would, in the ordinary course of things, he the last person to
screen the actual offenders and implicate !he appellants falsely. Their
testimony also receives ample corroboration from the medical evidence
and the testimony or ballistic expert, PWU. (857 B·CJ
~
B 1.06. No sugguestion even was made to anyone of the PWs. 6, 7, 8,
10, 12 that the sealed packets had allegedly heen tampered with while in

-
their custody. No such suggestion was even made to PW6 that he had
either substituted the carridges sent to the ballistic expert or otherwise
tampered with the sealed packets. There is no possibility of the substitu·
c lion of the cartridges. (858-F)

1.07. Thus there are no suspicious features at all appearing in the
evidence which may cast any doubt on the prosecution version that the
deceased was shot at with the pistol by the appellant and that he died as
a result of the injuries so received. The prosecution had successfully
D established the case against the appellant beyond any reasonable doubt.
[858 H, 859 A]
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No.
724 of 1985.
E A'
From the Judgment and Order dated 21.8.1985 of the Rajasthan
High Court in D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 494 of 1974.

Mahabir Singh for the Appellant.

F Aruneshwar Gupta for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

DR. ANAND, J. This appeal under Section 2(a) of the Supreme
Court (Enlargement of Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1970 is directed against
G the judgment and order of the High Court of Rajasthan dated 21.8.1985 in
Criminal Appeal No.494/1974 convicting the appe)lant for an offence under
Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him ta suffer im·
prisonment for life by reversing an order of his acquittal recorded by the
Additional Sessions Judge, Ganganagar vide judgment and order dated
H 13.2.1974.
/
"i

854 SUPREME COURT REPOR}S (1993) 2 S.C.R. ~~

A 1/2" with ulterior medical size of lower and of left arm ..
Little bleeding. Wound is printing upward and posterior
through bone. Shirt over wound is torn.
j::

(iv) Gun shot wound 1 1!4' x 2/4" with margins averted
~
B
ragged with severe bleeding on the posterior - lateral size
of the upper fifth of left arm. Shirt over wound is torn. f\
(v) Gun shot wound in intra-scapular iegion right side 1"
x l/4" x 3/4" circular averted and tagged margins with ~

severe bleeding.
c (vi) Gun shot wound mid-back left side 11!2" x l' ragged
and averted margins with severe bleeding. j \
According to the Doctor, the death was caused due to ru!Jture of vital J:
organs like liver, lung and big blood vessels causing severe hemorrhage and
shock. as a result of t.he gun shot injuries and the same were sufficient in ~
'
D
the ordinary course of nature to cause death. After completion of the r
investigation, the appellant alongwith his brother Hari Ram were sent up l
for trial. While the appellant was charged for an oftence under Section 302
!PC, Hari Ram was charged for the offence under Section 302/114 !PC.
'
,A
Both, the appellant and Hari Ram, were also charged for an offence under
E Section 27 of the Arms Act. After the trial, the learned Sessions Judge
found that there was no case made out against Hari Ram at all and that
the prosecution had also not been able to prove the case against the
appellant beyond a reasonable doubt: As a consequence, both Hari Ram
and the appellant were acquitted of all the charges by the trial court. On
- .1

F the State filing an appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal
passed by the Trial Court, the High Court allowed the appeal of the State
in part and while it set asidethe acquittal of the appellant and convicted
him for an offence under Section 302 JPC and sentenced him to suffer
imprisonment for life, the acquittal of Hari Ram was maintained. While .
the State has not questioned the acquittal of Hari Ram, the appellant, as
G already noticed, has filed this appeal.
•
'r.
Mr. Mahabir Singh, learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that
the judgment of the Triaf Court could neither be styled as perverse nor
even as unreasonable and there were no other substantial and compelling r
H reasons which could justify the setting aside of the order of acquittal and,
I
,._ MANI RAM v. STATEOFRAIASTHAN [ANAND,J.] 855

therefore, the. High Court should not Ihave interferred with the order of A
acquittal. Learned counsel urged that the presence o_f undigested food in
the stomach of the deceased belied the prosecution case and that the Trial
Court was right in holding that Hazur Sigh Could not have taken the meals
1 at the time stated by his wife Surjeet Kaur PWl and his son Jaskaran PW2
)'
or murdered at 12.30 p.m. as alleged. The learned counsel also submitted
that the inordinate delay in sending the empty cartridges to the ballistic
B
expert went to show :hat the possibility that the same had been substituted

- by the investigating agency could not be ruled out and therefore the
conviction of the appellant by the High Court was not justified.

In reply, Mr. Aruneshwar Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the c
'· State of Rajasthan, submitted that since it was an appeal under Section 2
~ of the Supreme Court (Enlargement of Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1970,
this Court could itself appreciate the evidence to dete•mine the guilt or
otherwise of the appellant. Learned counsel stated that the findings
recorded by the Trial Court were based on surmises and conjectures and
D
the High Court was perfectly justified in reversing the order of acquinaL
Learned counsel emphasised that the evidence of PWl Surjeet Kaur and
PW4 Jaskaran conclusively established that the crime had been committed
by the appellant by his pistol and their testimony has received ample
l_ corroboration not only from the statement of Dr. K.C. Mitlal PW9 but also
from the evidence of Shri G.R. Prasad PWll, the ballistic expert, who had E
opined that the four empty cartridges had been fired from the licenced
pistol of the appellant and could not have been fired from any other
- weapon. Replying to the submission regarding the presence of undigested
food, learned counsel submitled that being rustic villagers much impor-
lance could not be attached to the time given by PWl and PW2 during
F
J..
their depositions about the exact time when the deceased may have had
his meals and therefore it could not be said that the medical evidence had
in any way belied the prosecution case.

We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions made
at the Bar and have with the assistance of learned counsel for the parties G
y examined the judgments of the courts below as also the material evidence
in the case.

We are in agreement with the High Court that the evidence of PWl
Surjeet Kaur and PW2 Jaskaran has not been viewed and considered in H
856 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1993) 2 S.C.R. ~

A the correct and proper prospective by the trial court and undue and
unwarranted emphasis had been attached to certain minor discrepancies.
Our independent appraisal of the evidence of both the witnesses PWl and
PW2, the widow and son of the deceased, shows that they are consistent
in their versions not only about the assailants but also about the manner of
B assault, as has been noticed by us in the earlier part of this judgment. Both
the witnesses have given a vivid description of the occurrence. The state-
ment of PWl Surjeet Kaur that Hazur Singh took his meals at about 10.30
a.m. and that the occurrence had taken at about 12- 12.30 in the noon
cannot be taken to have been contradicted by the medical evidence.
Indeed, in the post-mortem examination, Dr. K.C. Mittal PW9 found
c "semi-solid undigested food in the stomach of the deceased". The doctor
opined that digestion begins in 1 or 11/2 hours. From this testimony, what '
was sought lo be made out by the defence was that had the occurrence
taken place at 12.30 noon, the deceased would have had his meals before
11.00 a.m. as semi-digested food was found in the stomach of the deceased.
D The emphasis on this aspect of the case by the Trial Court, in our opinion,
is misplaced not only because the medical evidence is only an evidence of
opinion and is hardly decisive but also because when Dr. K.C. Mittal PW9
stated that digestion begins in 1 or 1.1/2 hours, he did not clarify as to what
was the extent of the undigested food in the stomach of the deceased. The
E process of digestion depends upon the digestive power of the an individual
and varies from an individual to an individual. It also depends upon the
type and amount of food taken. The period of digestion is different for
different types of food. Some food articles like mutton, chicken etc. would
take more time for being digested as compared to vegetarian food. No
questions at all were asked from the wife of the deceased about the type
F of food served to her husband or the amount of food taken by the deceased.
-
Thiit apart, the time stated by the witnesses as to when the deceased took
hiAood was only an approximate time as it was not even suggested to PWl
that she had a wrist watch and had actually seen the time when her husband
took his food. Too much play on such slippery factors goes against realism
G and is not enough to discredit the otherwise reliable testimony of PWl. In
our opinion, the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 does not stand contradicted by
the medical evidence at all and as a matter of fact, the presence of semi
solid undigested food in the stomach lends support of the testimony of the
two witnesses that they had gone to the field latter on with the food for the
H deceased and had actually served meal to him. It lends assurance to their
..,.._ MANI RAM v. STATE OF RA.JASTHAN [ANAND, J.] 857

presence in the field with the deceased. Despite the lengthy cross-examina- A
tion nothing was brought out in the cross-examination of either of these
two witnesses which could effect the veracity of their testimony. The first
information report was lodged by Surjeet Kaur PWl at 3.00 p.m. at a
distance .of about 15 miles from the place of occurrence and was therefore
lodged with great promptitude and the entire version of the occurrence
finds mention in that report. The testimony of both the witnesses has
B
impressed us and they appear to us to be truthful witenesses and being the
close relations of the deceased would, in the ordinary course of things, be
the last persons to screen the actual offender and implicate the appellants
falsely. Their testimony also receives ample corroboration from the medical
evidence and the testimony of ballistic expert Shri G.R. Prasad PWll. c
---.( Dr. Mittal PW9, as already noticed, found six injuries on the
deceased and opined that the same were sufficient in the ordinary course
of nature to cause the death. In the FIR Ex. Pl lodged soon after the
occurrence PW! Surjeet Kaur had stated that Mani Ram appellant ·had
fired 3-4 shots after he had fired the first shot on her husband. At the trial,
D
she however could not state exactly as to how many shots had been fired
by the appellant from his pistol. That is no surprising because she could
not be expected to keep an exact account of the shots fired by the
).._ appellant, when she found her husband being shot at and having fallen
dwon dead. She categorically attributed the gun shot injuries to the appel- E
lant and did not attribute any injury to the acquitted accused Hari Ram.
Since, it has been found that the recovered empties had been fired from
the pistol of the appellant, it lends sufficient corroboration to her tes-
timony. We may ignore the testimony of Sukh Ram PW4 as a matter of
abundant caution but that would not in any way detract from the reliability
F
of the testimony of PWl and PW2 .
. ·""
The pistol, "'.eapon of offence, was taken into possession from the
appellant by PW6 SHO Bhim Singh. It is a licenced pistol of the appellant.
According to the evidence of ballistic expert PWll, the empty cartridges

.,,.
.
sent to him for examination had been fired from that pistol and that pistol G
alone and from no other similar \veapon. Of course, the sealed packets
containing the pistol and the cartridges were sent to the ballistic expert
•t after a long delay and that could have created some doubts about the
possibility of substitution of the cartridges, while the packets remained with
the police but the evidence on the record rules out any possibility of such H
.....
-{

858 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1993) 2 S.C.R.
~
A a substitution. The three sealed packets, one, contiaining pistol, the second,
contianing the emply cartridge recovered from the spot and the third,
containing the three empty cartridges recovered from the appellant
alongwith the pistol, were deposited in the malkhana of the police station.
They had been received by Head Constable Mani Ram PWlO on 23.6.1972,
the very next day after the occurrence. He had sent the same to the Police
B
lines at Ganganagar. The prosecution examined PW12 Amar Singh who
had carried the three packets from the police-station to the police lines at
Ganganagar. He categorically stated that while the packets remained with
him, they were not tampered with at all. PWlO Mani Ram also deposed
that during the period, the sealed packets remained in the malkhana, they
c were not tampered with by anyone and that they were handed over to Amar
Singh PW12 in the same condition. According to PW? Ram Chandra, he
received the three packets from Amar Singh and after taking them into
custody he made an entry in the register and that . while the .packets
remained in his custody, nobody tampered with them. The packets were
D sent to the ballistic expert and received there by Jaswant Singh PW8 and
Mamraj Singh. Jaswant Singh, appearing as PW8, deposed that he
delivered the packets to the ballistic expert on the very next day after
receiving them and while the packets remained in his custody, nobody
tampered with them. According to the Ballistic expert, PWll, the packets
when recieved by him were properly sealed and the seals were intact and
E
tallied with the specimen of the seal sent to him. None of these witnesses
1
were at all cross-examined. No suggestion even was made to anyone of

F
them that the sealed packets had allegedly been tampered with while in
their custody. No such suggestion was even made to SHO Bhim Singh PW6
that he had either substituted the cartridges sent to the ballistic expert or
other-wise tampered with the sealed packets. It is, therefore, futile to
contend that the possibility of the substitution of the cartridges could not
--
be ruled out. There is no basis for such an argument. The evidence of the
ballistic expert, Shri G.R. Prasad PWll, read with the medical evidence of
PW9 and the testimony of the eye-witnesses PWsl and 2 clearly establishes
G that the appellant had tired from his licenced pistol at the deceased and
that the deceased dies as a result of the pistol shot injuries received by him.
We agree with learned Judge of the High Court that there are no suspi- ...,_,,
cious features at all appearing in the evidence which may cast any doubt
on .the prosecution version that the deceased was shot at with the pistol by
the appellant and that he died as a result of the injuries so recived.
...
H ' .
r- MANI RAM v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [ANAND, J.] 859

Thus, in view of what we have discussed above, we find that the A
prosecution has successfully established the case against the appellant
beyond any reasonable doubt and since the Trial Court bad passed an
order of acquittal on wholly erroneous grounds, the High Court after a
proper appraisal of the evidence was right in setting aside the order of
acquittal and convicting the appellant for an offence under Section 302 !PC
as well for an offence under Section 27 Arms Act. Our independent B

- analysis of the evidence on record shows that the order of conviction and
the sentence of life imprisonment and two years rigorous imprisonment
recorded by the High Court against the appellant for the offence under
Sections 302 !PC and 27 Arms Act respectively is well merited and does
not call for any interference. Both the sentences shall, however, run con-c
currently. Consequently, the appeal fails and is dismissed. The appellant is
on bail. His bail bonds shall stand cancelled and he shall be taken into
custody to suffer the remaining period of the sentence.

V.P.R. Appeal dismissed.

-