# RAM PRASAD SHARMA v. THE STATE OF BIHAR

- **Citation:** [1970] 1 S.C.R. 694
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1969-07-30
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. G 208 of 1966
- **Bench:** S. M. Sikri, G. K. Mitter Asd K. S. Hegde
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/ram-prasad-sharma-v-the-state-of-bihar-4682
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

B
Evidence Act, s. 35- Conditions of admiss;bility under-Enrrits must
be made by public official in the disclzarRe of his duties.
Evidence-Apprecialion of-Name of murdered man wrongly menriorud in F.l.R.--Does not lead to conclusion that hL was not 1n11rdered
when identity established by other evidence, and mistake in 1·
4 .J,R. satisfaclorily explained.
C
The appellant was tried for an offence under s. 302 l.P.C. as well '1'1
for other offences in connection with an incident in which 11,1,·o persons
were killed and several injured. 'fhe allegation against the appellant w31;
that he caused the death of one K by shooting him wilh a gun in the
course of the alleged incident. The Additional Sessions Judge who tried
the case convicted the appellant for offence< under "· 326/ 149, 324/ 34,
201 and 148 l.P.C. but acquitted him in re51>CCI of the murdor of K.
D
In so doing he retied upon an allcsted copy filed by the defence which
purported to be the copy of an entry in inc Chaukidar's hath chitha accord·
ing to which K died three days before the alleged incident. He also relied
on the fact that the name of K was not mentioned a5 a victim in the Finl
Information Report of the incident.
Jn .:appcaJ the High Court convicted
the appellant under s. 304 l.P.C. for causing the death of K. holding that
the alleged entry in the hath chitha had been wrongJy admitted in evidence
E
by the trial judge and that the deficiency in the F.J.R. was sufficiently
explained.
Appeal against the High Court's judgment was filed by special
leave.
Hl!LD : (i) The attested copy of the Chaukidar's halh chithn was not
admissible in evidence because the entry in question was not proved to
have been made by a public servant in the discharge of his dutie\. [699 El
SaMran Stnanati v. Emperor, A.l.R. 1945 Pat. 489 and Brii 1'.ft>han
Sin~h v. Priyc Brat Narain Sinha, (1965] 3 S.C.R. 861. .-lied on.
(ii) K's death at the time and place alleged by the prosecution w:i~
established by sufficient evidence and the High Court •Nas right in accepting the explanation of the maker of the P.I.R. for the absence of K\ name
therein. (699 Fl
F

## Text

RAM PRASAD SHARMA
v.
THE STATE OF BIHAR
July 30, 1969
A
[S. M. SIKRI, G. K. MITTER ASD K. S. HEGDE, JJ.]
B
Evidence Act, s. 35- Conditions of admiss;bility under-Enrrits must
be made by public official in the disclzarRe of his duties.
Evidence-Apprecialion of-Name of murdered man wrongly menriorud in F.l.R.--Does not lead to conclusion that hL was not 1n11rdered
when identity established by other evidence, and mistake in 1·
4 .J,R. satisfaclorily explained.
C
The appellant was tried for an offence under s. 302 l.P.C. as well '1'1
for other offences in connection with an incident in which 11,1,·o persons
were killed and several injured. 'fhe allegation against the appellant w31;
that he caused the death of one K by shooting him wilh a gun in the
course of the alleged incident. The Additional Sessions Judge who tried
the case convicted the appellant for offence< under "· 326/ 149, 324/ 34,
201 and 148 l.P.C. but acquitted him in re51>CCI of the murdor of K.
D
In so doing he retied upon an allcsted copy filed by the defence which
purported to be the copy of an entry in inc Chaukidar's hath chitha accord·
ing to which K died three days before the alleged incident. He also relied
on the fact that the name of K was not mentioned a5 a victim in the Finl
Information Report of the incident.
Jn .:appcaJ the High Court convicted
the appellant under s. 304 l.P.C. for causing the death of K. holding that
the alleged entry in the hath chitha had been wrongJy admitted in evidence
E
by the trial judge and that the deficiency in the F.J.R. was sufficiently
explained.
Appeal against the High Court's judgment was filed by special
leave.
Hl!LD : (i) The attested copy of the Chaukidar's halh chithn was not
admissible in evidence because the entry in question was not proved to
have been made by a public servant in the discharge of his dutie\. [699 El
SaMran Stnanati v. Emperor, A.l.R. 1945 Pat. 489 and Brii 1'.ft>han
Sin~h v. Priyc Brat Narain Sinha, (1965] 3 S.C.R. 861. .-lied on.
(ii) K's death at the time and place alleged by the prosecution w:i~
established by sufficient evidence and the High Court •Nas right in accepting the explanation of the maker of the P.I.R. for the absence of K\ name
therein. (699 Fl
F
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No.
G
208 of 1966.
Appeal by special leave from the judgmQilt and order dated
February 22, 1966 of the Patna High Court in Criminal Appeal
No. 530 of 1962 and Government Appeal No. 44 of 1962.
A. S. R. Chari, M. K. Ramamurthl, G. Ramamurthy and
H
Vineet Kumar, for the appellant.
B. P. Jha, for the respondent.
A
I!
c
...
D
E
F
G
H
R. P. SHARMA v. BUIAR '(Sikri, I.)
695
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Sikri, J. Fourteen persons were tried by the learned Second
Additional Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur, on various charges. Out
of these 14 persons Sheo Prasad Sharma and Ram Prasad Sharma
were charged under s. 302, I.P .C. Sheo Prasad Sharma was
charged under s. 302 for having intentionally caused tlu: death of
Qudrat Mian by shooting him down with his gun whereas Ram
Prasad Shanna was charged under this section for having shot
down with his gun Kaleshwar Yadav and thus having caused the
murder of this person. ;
·
'
The Second Additional Sessions· Judge, Bhagalpur, convicted
Sheo Prasad Sharma under ss. 304, 324/34, 201 and 148 and
sentenced him to seven years rigorous imprisomnent. The appellant, Ram Prasad Sharma was convicted under ss. 326/ 149, 324/
34, 201 and 148, I.P.C. and sentenced to four years rigorous imprisonment. Seven other accused were also convicted but it is not
necessary to mention the sections under which they were convicted.
Five of the accused persons were acquitted by the learned Second
Additional Sessions J ~dge ..
Two appeals were filed before the High Court, one by the State
and the other by the nine convicted persons, including Ram Prasad
Sharma. Both the appeals· were heard together. The High Court
accepted the appeal of the State as far as Ram Prasad Sharma was
concerned and convicted him under s. 304, I.P.C., in connection
with the shooting an4 causing the death of Kaleshwar and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for seven years. The convictions of seven others were altered from under ss. 326/149 to
one under ss. 304/ 149 but the sentence of four years rigorous imprisonment was maintained.
In other respects the convictions
were maintained. The High Court, however, quashed the convictions under s. 201, I.P.C.
Th.e nine convicted persons filed petition for special leave to
appeal. This Court by its order dated October 4, 1966 rejected
the petition except as regards Ram Prasad Sharma and his appeal
is now before us. ·
fhe prosecution' case as accepted by the High Court was, in
brief, as follows. On August 15, 1960, at about 1.30 or 2 p.m.,
by the side of a Danr (water channel) known as Chaksafia Dam
at viHage Bindi about five miles away from Police Station Banka,
a senous occurrence took place.
The Chaksafia Danr runs between village Bindi which is to its east and Banki which is to its
west and then goes, further north to village Bhadrar and other
villages.
Lands ot several villages,
namely, Bhadrar, Nayadih ..
Uprama. Basuara, Jitnagar, Majhiara, Banki, etc. are irrigated
from the water o~ this Danr and there are detailed entries rcgardLl+Sup.C. l 69-15
696
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
LlnOJ 1 s.c.a.
ing the respective rights of the different villages in the Fard
Ao11ashi wruch was prepared at the time of the last survey. It
appears that the villagers of diJierent villages who enjoy the above
ngnts go m 1n a bOdy every year during the rainy season for clearing
tnis Da11r in order tnat there may not be any obstructiOJI in the fiow
ol water therein. On the date of occurrence, i.e. August 15, 1960,
a number of pers~ns of villages Bhadrar, Nayaaih, Uprama,
.dasuara, Jitnagar and Bhatkunki went along witn spades to clear
this Danr m the usual course a.lid some or them had lathis also with
tnem. The total number of persons were estimated to vary from
about 150 to about 400. When they reached the brick kiln, which
exu•ts in Ma!mala Tikar they were confronted by a mob of 40 to 50
persons including all the convicted persons. Sheo Prasad Sharma
and Ram Prasad Sharma were armed with guns and Patel Thakur
was armed with a pharsa and the remaining accused except
Dhanusdhari Mehta were armed with bhaJas.
It may be mentioned that in the First Information Report
Dhanusdhari Mehta was aileged to have been armed with a pistol
A
Jl
c
but this allegation was subsequently given up. Dhanusdhari Mehta
D
was a retired inspector of police; his son Ram Prasad Shanna was
a practising lawyer at Bhagalpur at the time of the occurrence in
question.
On seeing this crowd of villagers, Sheo Prasad Sharma directed
them to return and threatened to shoot them if they failed to do so.
There wa~ some exchange of hot words and brick-bats were thrown
by both sides.
Sheo Prasad Sharma thereafter fired one shot towards the sky but the villagers did not disperse.
Then Dhanusdhari ordered his two sons Ram Prasad Sharma and Sheo Prasad
Sharma to open fire on the villagers.
On this both Ram Prasad
Sharma and Shea Prasad Sharma opened fire with their guns on
the villagers.
One shot fired by Sheo Prasad Sharma bit one
Qudrat Mian and he fell down and died on the spot.
One other
villager was alleged to have been shot by Ram Prasad Shanna and
he died on the spot. A number of vill~gers sustained gun shot injuries and as a result of the firing by Sheo Prasad Sharma and Ram
Prasad Sharma, who are estimated to have fired about 12 rounds,
the villagers dispersed. Sobhan Manda!, one of the injured persons
went to the Police Station with three other injured persons, namely,
Chotan Rai, P.W. 5, Jagdeo Choudhary, P.W. 8 and Kishori
Prasad Singh. P.W. 12, whc had also sustained gun shot injuries
The learned Additional Sessions Judge had rejected the prosecution story that K<tleshwar Yadav was shot and killed during the
occurrence.
He hau come to the
conclusion tnat Kaleshwar
Yadav had died prior to the date of occurrence. The High Court
has accepted the prosecution version and it is this finding which is
F
G
II
~--'
•
r(
"
•
R. P, SHARMA v. BIHAR (Sikri, J.)
697
A
being seriously challenged by the learned counsel for Ram Prasad
Sharma, appellant.
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
The learned Additional Sessions Judge had rejected the version
of the prosecution regarding the shooting down of Kaleshwar
Yadav mainly on the basis of entries in an attested copy of the
Chaukidar's hath chitha (Ext. D) according to which the death of
Kaleshwar took place in Gopalpur mauza on August 12, 1960,
that is, three days prior to the occurrence. The learned Additional
Sessiobs Judge had. alsci relied on the First Information Report in
which the name of Kaleshwar Yadav does not find mention.
Two points arise before us, first, whether the hath chitha is
admissible in evidence, and secondly, whether on the evidence on
record it is otherwise proved that Kaleshwar Y adav was shot
down by the appellant Ram Prasad Sharm.a.
According to the e,ntries in ihis document, Ext. D, Kaleshwar
Yadav died on August 112, 1960, in Gopalpur Mauza and in the
remarks column. of' this register· he is described as "Bahanoi
(brother-in-lawfof Asarfi Yadav." We looked at the attested copy
produced in Court and we were unable to ascertain the date on
which the attested copy; had been obtained by the defence. The
only dates this doc1.\ffieilt bears are the date of attestation (October
15, 1960) by the District Statistical Officer, the date September
22, 1960, next to the signature of one Shukdeo Chowdhary, and
the date of admission .by the Additional Sessions Judge (June 25,
1962). As rightly pointed out by the High Court the learned
Sessions Judge took this copy on record in an extraordinary
manner. The prosecutiqn evidence closed on June 21, 1962 and
on June 25, 1962, this attested copy was admitted in evidence
without any proof. On the same day an order was passed calling
for the original. On 'the very next day the public prosecutor filed
a petition objecting to the admission of this document and alleged
that the document was l:Jogus. The hearing of the argnment thereafter proceeded on July 4, 1962. The Public Prosecutor again
filed a petition that this document be not taken in evidence. The
learned Additional Sessions Judge disposed of this petition with
the following order :
"Let the petition be placed with the record. The
original has once again been called for.
The matter
will be discussed in the judgment."
11t is pointed out brthe High Court that there is no further refe
rence to the document in the order .sheet. After the
argument~
concluded on July 7, 1962, the case was adjourned for judgment.
The judgment of the learned Additional Sessions fudge shows
that the original w .. ; subs~quently received by him with Jetter
dated July 10, 1962, and he observed that he was satisfied about
698
St;PREME COURT REPORTS
(1970] I S.C.R.
its genuineness.
The High Court rightly pointed out that the
Additional Sessions fodge should have dealt with the question of
the admissibility of the document. The High Court, following
Sanatan Senanari v. Emperor(') and Brij Mohan Singh v. Priya
Brar Narain Sinha('), held that the document was inadmissible
in evidence.
We agree with the conclusion arrived at by the High Court.
Section 35 of the Evidence Act provides :
"An entry m any public or other official book,
register or record, stating a fact in issue or r.:llevant
fact, and made by a public servant in the discharge of
his official duty, or by any other person in performance
of a duty specially enjoined by the law of the country
in which such book, register or record is kept, is itself
l relevant fact."
In this case it has net been proved that the entry in question was
made by a public servant in the discharge of his official duties. As
observed by this Court in Brij Mohan Singh v. Priya Brat Narain
Sin/ta,(') "the reason why an entry made by a public servant in a
public or other official book, register, or record stating a fact in
issue 01 a relevant fact has been made relevant is that when a
public servant makes it himself in the discharge of his official duty,
the probability of its being truly and correctly recorded is high."
No proof has been led in this case as to who made the entry and
whether the entry was made in the discharge of any official duty.
In the result we must hold that Ex. D, the hath chitha, was rightly
held by the High Court to be inadmissible.
The High Court then dealt with the other evidence on the
record and came to the conclusion that Kaleshwar was actually
~hot down by the appellant, Ram Prasad Sharma. The learned
counsel for the appellant has tried to assail these. findings but he
has not been able to show in what way the High Court has
gon~
wrong in coming to the conclusion. The High Court states that ten
witnesses have named Kaleshwar being the second person who was
shot. Further, Kaleshwar's son and widow, P.Ws 24 and 34,
Chamak Lal Yadav and Karma Devi, deposed that on the day of
occurrence Kaleshwar had left his hause with a kudal and had
gone to Chaksafia Danr alongwith others. They further deposed
that on the next day they learnt from Nandai Lal Singh, P.W. 17,
that Kaleshwar had been killed. The High Court further accepted
the explanation of P.W. I, who had made the F.I.R., that he had
named Gholtan as being the person shot and killed by Ram
Prasad because he had heard a hul/a that Gholtan had been
murdered. It seems to us that the Higu Court came to a correct
(!) A.l.R. 1945 Pat. 41!9.
(2) (1965] 3 S.C.R. 861, 864.
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
R. P. SHARMA v. BIHAR (Sikri, /.)
699
conclusion and was right in accepting the explanation of P.W. 1.
The learned counsel further contends that it was doubtful that
12 rounds would have been fired. He points out the number of
injuries received by the villagers. But these injuries support the
prosecution story. .From the injuries on the various persons
examined by Dwl)l"ka'.Nath Prasad, P.W. 41,
apart from the
1JCrsons who had died I.and whose bodies had been held to have
been cremated by unidentified persons, if appears that 20 persons
had received gun shot h1juries; one of them had as many as 14
lacerated wounds and ;mother had 10 lacerated wounds.· Apart
from that there is no reason to doubt the oral evidence given in
this case that a number of rounds were fired.
In the result the appeal fails and is dismissed.
G.C.
Appeal dismissed.