# RAMRATAN AND OTHERS v. THE STATE OF. RAJASTIIAN

- **Citation:** [1962] 3 S.C.R. 590
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1960-10-31
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 2'18 of 1960
- **Bench:** K. N. \VANonoo, ICC. DAs GUPTA, J. c. SHAH
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/ramratan-and-others-v-the-state-of-rajastiian-2461
- **Pages:** 15

## Headnote

Ei·ititnu~SiNJk witn~s-Corroborafion-lndian Evirltftca
!let, 1872(1of1872), s.157.
The appellant• were convicted on a charge of murder on
the sole testimony of one \4/itness.
A not her prosecution witness
deposed that the former witness told him immediately after
tbe incident that the appellants were responsible for the murder.
The question \vhich arose \Vas 'vhether it \vas necessary for the
former witness also to depose in Court tlrat he had told the
names of the murderers to the other witness immediately after
the occurrence or \vhcrher his former statement be proved under
s.157 of the Indian Evidence Act to corroborate his testimony
without his deposing a bout it in Court.
lleld, that it was
not necessary under s. 157 of the
Evidence Act that the witness to be corroborated must also say
in his testimony in court that he had made the former statement
to
the witness who was corroborating him.
What s.157
required was that the witness to be corroborated must give
evidence in court of some fact and if that was done his testi•
mony in court -relating to that fact could be corroborated by
any former statement made by him relating to the same fact.
Mt. Misri v.
Emperor, A.LR. 1934 Sind 100 and
Nazar Singh v. The State, A.LR. 1951 Pepsu 65, held as
wrongly decided.
As a grneral rule a court may act on the testimony of a
single witness, though ui:corroborate~ and the question whether
corroboration of the test1n1ony of a single \vHness \\.'a3 or \Yas
not necessary must depend on the circumstances of each case.
Vemireddy Satyanarayan Reddy v. The Stale oj llyderabad,
(1956) S.C.R. 247, di,tinguished.
Vedivelu Thevar v. The State of Madras, (1957) S.C.R.
981, follnwed.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JuRrsmcTIO:); : Criminal
Appeal No. 2'18 of 1960.
Appeal by special leave from the jutlgmenta.nd
order datt>tl October 31, 1960, of the Raj-istha.n High
Court in D. B. Criminal Appeal No. 290 of 1960 and
p, J3. Criμli.Jjal Murcjcf Referc!!OC No. 7 of 1960,
-
-
......
3S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
•
I
•
~
• •
•
.591
R. L. Anand, O. L. Sareen and R. L. Kohli, for
the appellants.
S. K. Kapur and T. M. Sen, for the respondent.
1961. September 13. The Judgment of the.
Court was delivered by
WANcHoo,J.-This is an appeal by special
leave from the judgment of the Hajasthan High
Court. It arises out of an incident in which
Bhimsen was murdered on l\fay 8, 1959 at Mandi
Pili Bangali shortly bofore 3 P .11r.
The prosecution
story briefly was that there was bad blood between
Ramratan appellant and the members of the family
of Bhimsen on account of panchayat elections in
which they had supported rival candidates. Another
cause for enmity was that some time before the
occurrence, Ramratan appellant was prosecuted
under s. 307 of the Indian Penal Code and Bhimsen
was cited as a prosecution witness in that case and
Ramratan did not like that.
Bhimsen and his father brought some gram
for sale on the night between l\fay 7 /8, 1959, to
Pili Bangan. Bhimsen returned to the village to
bring more gram and came back at about 10/11 A.M.
on the . 8th on his tractor-trolly along. with his
brother Ram Partap. The gram was to be s'Jld
through Roopram and was stacked in front of his
shop in the mandi. Ram Partap was apparently
not interested in the sale and had wandered away
leaving his father Jawanaram and his brother
Bhimsen at the shop. · Shortly before 3 P.llr. while
the gram was being weighed by Lekhram weighman, the three appellants and two others (namely,
Moman and Ramsingh) came up there armed with
guns. Ramratan shouted that the enem} should
not be allowed to escape as Bhimsen was tryinir to
enter the shop of Roopram to save himself on
seeing these persons. Before, however, Bhimsen
could enter the shop of Roopram, Ramra.tan came
in bet)f(Jelf 11<!f4 fireil !lot 4inl. froJll .fl<' distance .of
1961
~
11.,,.;aw.
. ": v.·--.
The SI,,,,~
R,iJas/hn
Wanchoa J,
.. -~''" -
'fi-o/"'
v.
·
'/YwStot#Oj
. l!.,;..tllmi
W.w""' J.
•
..
592
SuPR!ME COURT ma>ORTS
(1962]
about 5 feet,
Bhim

## Text

•
//IQl
5!JO
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
RAMRATAN AND OTHERS
v.
THE STATE OF. RAJASTIIAN
(1962j
(K. N. \VANonoo, ICC. DAs GUPTA and
J. c. SHAH, JJ.)
Ei·ititnu~SiNJk witn~s-Corroborafion-lndian Evirltftca
!let, 1872(1of1872), s.157.
The appellant• were convicted on a charge of murder on
the sole testimony of one \4/itness.
A not her prosecution witness
deposed that the former witness told him immediately after
tbe incident that the appellants were responsible for the murder.
The question \vhich arose \Vas 'vhether it \vas necessary for the
former witness also to depose in Court tlrat he had told the
names of the murderers to the other witness immediately after
the occurrence or \vhcrher his former statement be proved under
s.157 of the Indian Evidence Act to corroborate his testimony
without his deposing a bout it in Court.
lleld, that it was
not necessary under s. 157 of the
Evidence Act that the witness to be corroborated must also say
in his testimony in court that he had made the former statement
to
the witness who was corroborating him.
What s.157
required was that the witness to be corroborated must give
evidence in court of some fact and if that was done his testi•
mony in court -relating to that fact could be corroborated by
any former statement made by him relating to the same fact.
Mt. Misri v.
Emperor, A.LR. 1934 Sind 100 and
Nazar Singh v. The State, A.LR. 1951 Pepsu 65, held as
wrongly decided.
As a grneral rule a court may act on the testimony of a
single witness, though ui:corroborate~ and the question whether
corroboration of the test1n1ony of a single \vHness \\.'a3 or \Yas
not necessary must depend on the circumstances of each case.
Vemireddy Satyanarayan Reddy v. The Stale oj llyderabad,
(1956) S.C.R. 247, di,tinguished.
Vedivelu Thevar v. The State of Madras, (1957) S.C.R.
981, follnwed.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JuRrsmcTIO:); : Criminal
Appeal No. 2'18 of 1960.
Appeal by special leave from the jutlgmenta.nd
order datt>tl October 31, 1960, of the Raj-istha.n High
Court in D. B. Criminal Appeal No. 290 of 1960 and
p, J3. Criμli.Jjal Murcjcf Referc!!OC No. 7 of 1960,
-
-
......
3S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
•
I
•
~
• •
•
.591
R. L. Anand, O. L. Sareen and R. L. Kohli, for
the appellants.
S. K. Kapur and T. M. Sen, for the respondent.
1961. September 13. The Judgment of the.
Court was delivered by
WANcHoo,J.-This is an appeal by special
leave from the judgment of the Hajasthan High
Court. It arises out of an incident in which
Bhimsen was murdered on l\fay 8, 1959 at Mandi
Pili Bangali shortly bofore 3 P .11r.
The prosecution
story briefly was that there was bad blood between
Ramratan appellant and the members of the family
of Bhimsen on account of panchayat elections in
which they had supported rival candidates. Another
cause for enmity was that some time before the
occurrence, Ramratan appellant was prosecuted
under s. 307 of the Indian Penal Code and Bhimsen
was cited as a prosecution witness in that case and
Ramratan did not like that.
Bhimsen and his father brought some gram
for sale on the night between l\fay 7 /8, 1959, to
Pili Bangan. Bhimsen returned to the village to
bring more gram and came back at about 10/11 A.M.
on the . 8th on his tractor-trolly along. with his
brother Ram Partap. The gram was to be s'Jld
through Roopram and was stacked in front of his
shop in the mandi. Ram Partap was apparently
not interested in the sale and had wandered away
leaving his father Jawanaram and his brother
Bhimsen at the shop. · Shortly before 3 P.llr. while
the gram was being weighed by Lekhram weighman, the three appellants and two others (namely,
Moman and Ramsingh) came up there armed with
guns. Ramratan shouted that the enem} should
not be allowed to escape as Bhimsen was tryinir to
enter the shop of Roopram to save himself on
seeing these persons. Before, however, Bhimsen
could enter the shop of Roopram, Ramra.tan came
in bet)f(Jelf 11<!f4 fireil !lot 4inl. froJll .fl<' distance .of
1961
~
11.,,.;aw.
. ": v.·--.
The SI,,,,~
R,iJas/hn
Wanchoa J,
.. -~''" -
'fi-o/"'
v.
·
'/YwStot#Oj
. l!.,;..tllmi
W.w""' J.
•
..
592
SuPR!ME COURT ma>ORTS
(1962]
about 5 feet,
Bhimsen got injured and fell down
and died soon after. Jawanaram raised his hands
and asked tb0 assailants not to' kill Bhimscn but
Hansraj appellant fired at him causing a wound on
his left hand, which resulted in a compound
fracture.
Maniram also fired at Jawanaram but
he dropped on the ground and pellets hit Lckhram
weighman ·\\·ho was standing behind Jawanaram.
Thereafter all the assailants ran away. Roopraru
had shut up hiB shop when th() incident took pl11-ce
and he only came out when e\·orything was o\•er .
• Tawananm askod him to sond telegram to police
~tation Suratgarh and told him thP- names of the
five assailants. Thereafter Jawanarnm started for
the police outpost in Pi.Ii Bangan to make a !'"port;
hut Ra.msingh constablo mot him on the
wa~· at a
short dist.'l.nce from the shop of Rooprnm. Thereupon Jawanaram made a report (Ex. P-1) to
Ramsingh then and there. Whil<' this report was
being rccordecl, Ram Partap also tumcd up.
After
the report had been recorded, Jawanaram was sent
to tho hospital where his injuries were examined
at 3·30 P.111.
Ramsingh constable went to· the
spot after recording the report and found the dead
body of Bhimsen lying in front of Roopram's shop.
It appears that head-constable Govind Singh had
gone outside and returned at 5 P.~!. and started
investigation thereafter. The Sub-inspector arrived
on tho scone at about 6 P.M. and took over the
investigation and completed it.
Thereafter the
three appcllnnts and two others who have been
acquitted by the SeSllions ,Tudgo were prosecuted
for this murd<'r. 'fhc case of the appellants was
that they had not committed this offence and that
-they had beon implicahJd on account of enmi•y.
They examined no evidence in defence.
Tho main prosecution evidence consisted of
the statementa of Jawanara.m, his son Ram Partap,
Roopram e.nd Lckhram as to what happened at the
spot. Jawanaram related the whole story as given
4pove. ~J?artap ,aiq that he had oomo ne&r
...... -.
•
........
~
-ii
{
•
.....
I
r
•
3S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
593
the spot on seeing the assailants going that way
and hid himself at some distance and saw the
incident from there. Roopram's statement was
that he shut up his shop as soon as he heard some
noise outside and did not see the assailants. When
he came out, however, he was told by Jawanaram
the names of the five assailants and saw Bhimsen
lying dead.
He had also heard three reports of
gunshots from inside his shop. He saw Jawanaram
and Lekhram were also there injured and Jawanaram went away shortly after for making the report .
Sometimci thereafter the police came to the spot
and started investigation. Lekhram stated that he
was there weighing the p-ram.
Four or five persons
armed with guns came there and shouted and fired
two or three times with the result that Bhimsen,
Jawanaram and he were injured and Bhimsen died
immediately. But he was unable to say whether
the five persons in the dock were the assailants.
Because of certain answers that he gave in crossexamina tion this1witness was treated as hostile by
the prosecution.
The Sessions Judge relied on the statem<mt of
Jawanaram and convicted the three appellants.
He however, gave the benefit of doubt to the other
two assailants and acquitted them. He did not
rely on the statement of Ram Partap as he was
of the view that Ram Partap did not arrive in
the Mandi till about 6 i'.M.
He also did not relv
on the statement of Lekhram, which in any case
was useless in so far as the connection of the
appellants with the crime was concerned. As to
Rooprnm he held that his statement that Jawanaram had told him the names of the assailants
immediatelv after the incident was over when he
came out -of his shop could not be used as corroboration of the statement of Jawanaram under s. 157
of th0 Indian Evidence Act, as Jawanaram had not
sairl in his statement in Court that he had told
Hoopram the names of the five assailants
He was
also doubtful whether the report (Ex. P-I) was
1961
Ramratan
'·
The State of
Rajas than
Waneh10 J.
Rtl1Tlr•t.,.
v.
Tht Stau af
Raj41than
Wanch"' ].
594
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1962]
'-"''
recorded at 3 P.M. and thonght that it might havo
been recorded any time up to 6 r.~r. But oven 80
ho placed full reliance on the evidence of Jawana·
ram only and convicted the three ·appellants,
sentencing Ramratan to death and tho other two
to imprisonment for life.
This was followed by an appeal to the High ~
Court by the convicted pcrnons.
The SeBSions
Judge also made a reference for the confirmation
of tho sentence of death pMserl on Ramratan.
The High Court dismissed the
app~al. It also
accepted the cd<lcnce of Jawanarnm in the main.
The High Court was further of opinion that Ram
Part.ap was in Pili Bo nga.n when the inci:lent took ....
place having come there with his brother Bhimsen
at about 10/11 A.lI. ; but the High Court did not
t.hink it fit to relv on his evidence as to the actual
incident., for it tliought that he had not been able
to sec it properly from where he said he was
hiding. Further the High Court did not consider the
evidence of Lekhram of much value as jt. did not
connect the appellants with the crime. But the High
Court was of tho opinion that Roopram's state. ,,.
mcnt that ,Jawanaram had told him immediately
after tho occurrence the names of the five assailants
was admissible in evidence and could be used to
corroborate
the st<J.tement of Jawanaram. The
High Court thought that this statement of Roop·
ram was admissible under s. 6 as well as under
~. 15i of the Evidence Act. The High Court there·
fore uphelcl the conviction on the evidence of
Jawan11ram corroborated as it was by tho evidence
of Roopram.
Tho High Court h:wing refused to
grant a certificate, the appellants applied to this
Court for special leavo which was granted; and
that is how the matt<)r has come up before us.
.......
Two main contentions h:we bacn urged before ..
us on behalf of th0 appellants.
In the first place,
it is urged that the High Court was not ri.11ht in
tho "l'iew that the
statement of Roopram was
I
•
• -
_l
-
--------
I
3 S.C.R. · SUPREl\IE COURT REPORTS
595
admissible under s. 6 and s. 157 of the Indian Evidence Act and went to corroborate the statement of·
Jawanararn. Secondly, it is urged that once the
statement of Roopram is ruled out as inadmissible
there is only the statement of Jawanaram left to
connect the appellants with the crime and in the
circumstances of this case that solitary evidence
should be held insufficient to bring home the guilt
to the appellants.
The first question therefore that arises in the
appeal is whether the statement of Roopram to
the effect that Jawanararii told him immediately'
after the incident, when he came out of his ~hop·
that the appellants and two others were respons1b le
for the murder of Bhimsen and the
injuries ·to
Lekhrarn and himself, is admissible, either under
s. 6 or under s. 157 of the Indian Eviden ce Act.
We do not think it necessary to consider whether
this statement of Roopram is ··admissible under
s. 6 of the Evidence Act and shall confine ourselves to the question whether it can be admitted
uuder s. 157 as conoboration of Jawanaram's state- ·
ment. .Learned counsel -for the appellants in this
counec:t 1on relies on lift. Misri v. Emperor (1 ), and ·
Namr Singh v. The State I') which support him and
lay down that unless the witness to be corroborated
says in his statement in court that. he had told
certain things immediately after the incident to
anot lier person, that other person
cannot give
evidence and say that the witness had told him
certain things immediately after the incident. The
argument is that the corroboration that is envisaged by s .. 157 is of the statement of the witness in court that he had told certain things to
the person corroborating the witness's statement,
and if ,the witness did not say in court that
ho had told certain things to that person, that
person cannot state that the witness had told him
certain things immediately after the incident and
(!) A.l,R. l934Sind JOO.
(2) A.I.R. 1951Pepsu66.
J9SI
Ramratan
v.
The State of
Rc,josthan
rvanchoo J.
I
1961
Ramratan
v.
TM State of
Rqfasthan ·
Jr anchoo .] •
. ,
. '
596.
-SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1962]
thus corroborate
him. -We are· of opinion that
this contention is incorrect.
Section 157 is in these terms:-·
"In order to corroborate •the testimony
of a witness, any former statement made by
such witness relating to the same fact, or at
aboutthe time when the fact took place, or
before any authority legally competent to in-
:
vestigate the fact, may be proved."
It is clear that there are only two things which
are essential for this sec~ipn to apply. The first is
that a witness should have given testimony with
respect to some fact. Tlle second is that he should
have made a statement earlier-with respect to the
same fact at or about the time when the fact· took·
place or before any ·authority legally compotent
to investigate the fact. lf these two· things are
present, the former statement can be proved to -
corroborate the testimony of the witness in' court.
The former statement may be in writing or may be
made orally to some person at or about the time
when the fact took; .place, if it is made orally to
some person at . or about the time when the
fact took. place,.', that person · would be competent to depose to the former statement and cm:roborate the testimony of the witness in court.
There is nothing
in s. 157 which requires that
before the corroborating witness deposes to the
former statement the witness to be corroborated
must also say in his testimony in court that' he had
made that former statement to the witness who is
corraborating him. · It is true that· often' it does
happen that the witness to be· corroborated says
that he had made a former statement about the
fact to some person and then that person steps into
•
the witness-box and says· that the witness to be
corroborated had madea statement to him about the
fact at or about the time when the fact -took place.
But in our opinion it is not necessary in view of the
words of s. 157 that in order to make corroborating
~
evidence admissible, the witness to be corroborated
must also say in his evidenc_e that he had made such
,
I
-
3 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
597
and such statement to the witness who is to corroborate him, at or about the time when the fact
took place. As we have said already whats. 157
requires is that the witneES to be corroborated must
give evidence in court of some fact. If that is
done, his testimony in court relating to that fact
can be corroborated under s. 157 by any former
statement made by him relating to the same fact,
and it is not necessary that the witness to be
corroborated should also say in
his statement
in court that he made some statement at or
about the time when the faet took place to
such and such person. The words of s. 157 are
in our opinion olear and require only two things
indicated by us above in order to make the former
statement admissible as corrobomtion. We are
therefore of opinion th'1t the Sind and Pepsu cases
were wrongly decided.
Now let us see what happend in this case.
Jawanaram was examined in court and stated
about a certain fact (namely, that the assailants of
Bhimsen, L"Ckhram and himself were five persons
whom he named). The testimony of Jawanaram
to be corroborated is his statement in court with
respect to
the fact that five persons attacked
Bhimsen, Lekhram and himself. Section 157 makes
his former statement with respect to the same
fact admissible provided that the statement was
made at or about the time when the fact took place
or before any legal authority competent to investigate the fact. In this case we are concerned
with the first of the two conditions necessary,
namely, whether he had made that former statement relating to the same fact at or about the time
when the fact took place. The former statement
which can be used as corroboration must be about
the fact namely that Jawanaram had seen five
persons attacking Bhimsen, Lekhram and himself
and must have been made at or about the time
when the fact took place i. e., when the attack
was made.
Now Roopram says that JawaMr,1m
1961
Ramratan
v.
1 he State of
Rajasthau
Wanchoo J.
1961
Rm111atan
v.
The StaJe of
Rajasthan
w ""'""" ].
598
SUPRE?>IE COURT REPORTS
[Hl62]
had mnde the fitatcment immediately after the incident was o\·er that five persons including the three
appellants had attacked Ilhimsnn, L<Jkhram and
himself. This was Jhcreforc a former statement of
Jawanamm nt or about the time when the fact took
place, namely, the attack by five persons on Bhimscn and othcrn.
This former statement can bo
proved by tho person to whom it was made and
cnn be usm! n.s
corroboration of the ovidcnco of
Jawanaram.
It was
not neccssarv beforo tho
statement of Roopram as to what he heard from
Jawanaram can be admissible for .fawanaram also
to say in his testimony in court that he hn.d t-0ld
Roopram immediately after the incident the names
of the five assailants of Bhimscn and others.
The
former statement which can be used as corroboration is the statement at or about the time the fa.ct
took place about which c\·idencc has been given
in court by tho witness to be corroborated. Section
15i docR not contemplate that before the former
statement can be proved in corroboratfon, the witnesH to be corroborated must also sav in his testimony that h~ hr1d made tho former statement.
Of course if tho witneso to be corroborated alRo
says in his testimony that ho had made the former
statement to someone that would add to th0 weight
of the eYidcnce of the person who gives evidence in
~orrobor'ltion, just as if the witness to be corroborated says in his evidence that he had made no former
statement to anyborly that may make the statement of any witness appearing as corroborating
witness as to the former statement of little \·aluc.
But in order to make tho former statement admissible under s. 157 it is not ncccssarv that the witness
to bo corroborated must also, besides making the
former statement at or about the time the fa.ct took
place, say in court in his tostimony that he had
made tho former statement. \Vo nro therr.fore of
opinion that even though Jawanarnm did not say in
his statement in court that ho had told Roopram
tho names of tho five ass1ihnts, Rooprnm'&
•J
3 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
599
evidence that J a wanaram had made such a statement
would be admissible under s. 157 in corroboration
of Jawanaram's testimony as t.o the fact that five
persons had attacked Bhimsen and others. As to
the value to be attached to this corroboration in the
present case, it is enough to say that Roopram is
an independent witness and even though Jawanaram
may not have said in evidence that he had told the
names of the assailants to Roopram (perhaps by
inadveitence as the High Court seems to think), we
agree with the High Court in accepting the statement of Roopram that Jawanaram had immediately named the five persons who had attacked
Bhimsen, Lekhram and himself. Thus the statement of Roopram corroborates the statement of
Jawanaram'in two ways: firstly, that there was an
incident in front of his shop in which Bhimsen was
murdered and Jawanaram and Lekhram were
injured, :i,nd secondly, proves the form er st1:1tement
of Jawanaram as to the persons who took part in
the incident, thus corroborating his statement in
court under s.157.
This is not therefore a case
where there is no corroboration of the testimony
of Jawanaram, even if he were the solitary witness of the incident itself.
As to the second point, namely, that we
should not accept the solitary testimony of
J awanaram in the circumstances of this case,
learned counsel relies on Vemireddy Satyanarayan
· ,..,.. Reddy v. The State of Hyderabad('). In that case
there was the solitary testimony of one witl\ess
and it was urged that he was an accomplice. This
Court held that he was not an accomplice but
remarked that "we would still want corroboration
on material particulars in this particular case, as he
is the only witness to the crime and as it would be
·
unsafe to hang four people on his sole testimony
~.unless we feel convinced that he is speaking the
truth." The reason why thi_s Court said so in that
(I) [1956] S. C.R. 247.
1~61
Ramratan
v.
The State of
Rqjasthan
Wanchoo J.
IHI
R.mratDi
Y.
The Stale •f
Rajasth.n
ivanch11 ].
600
SUPREaIE COVRT REPORTS
[1062]
case was that though the witness w.:1s not :m
accomplice hio position W<IS consid<'red somewhat
analogous to that of an accomplice though not
exactlv the same.
[t was in those circum$tanccs
that this Court saicl that corroboration in material
particulars would be required in the circumstances
of that case. We aro of opinion that those observations cannot be divorced from the context of that
case.
In the present case Jawanaram is neither
an accomplice nor nnything analogous to an accom·
pl ice; ho is an ordinary witness who was undoubtedly
present at the time tho in('idPnt.
took place.
The case of such a solitary witness was considered
by this Court in Vadii'elu 'l'lw.nr v. 1'11£ State of
Jlfadras (')and after referring to the <'arlicr case it
was held that as a general rule a court may act on
tho testimony of a singlo witness, tlwugh nncorrobora~d. It was further held that unless corroboration is insisted upon by :ltatntc. courts should
not iru;ist on corroboration except. in caRes where
the nature of tho testimony of the single witness
itself requireR as a rnle of prudence, that corruboration shoulcl be insisted upon, ancl that the quc~tion
whether corroboration of the tcstimony of a singlo
witness was or was not ncccss<try, must dqwnd
upon facts and circumstances of each ease. 'l'heso
are the general principles which we have to apply
in tho case of the testimony of a single witness,
like ,Tawanaram.
But as we have hcl<.l that in the
present case there is corroboratio11 of Jawanaram's
statement by his former statement deposer\ to by
Rooprnm, it is not 'i CUS<l of altogether uncorroborated testimony of a single witness.
In any caso the evidenco of Jawanarnm has
been considered by both the Sessions ,Judge and the
High Court, and the Sessions J udgc was prepared to
convict the appellants on tho sole teHtimony of
Jawanaram while the High Court has also accepted
that Wl!timony, though it has added that it is
corroborated by the statement of Roopram. In
(IJ [1957] S. C.R. 981.
'-... -
-
••
3S.C.R.
SUPREME COU,RT REPORTS
601
the circumstances when the evidence of Jawanaram
has been accepted by both the courts, with or
without corroboration, we see no reason to disagree
with the conclusion of the two courts as to the
value of Jawanaram's evidence. The criticism
made against the acceptance of the evidence of
Jawanaram has been considered by the two courts
and in spite of that criticism the two courts have
come to the conclusion that the evidence of Jawanaram is reliable.
We agree with the estimate of
that evidence by the two courts and hold that
Jawanaram's evidence can be relied on in the
circumstances of this case. Two main points are
urged in this connection to shake the testimony of
Jawanaram. It is said that Jawanaram has introduced Ram Partap in the first information report
tmd that the Se~sions Judge at any rate did not
believe that Ram Partap was in Pili Bangan before
6 P.M.-thoug:h the High Court held otherwise.
Secondly, it is said that Jawanaram did not make
the first report at about 3 P. M. and the Sessions
Judge at any rate held that the report could h~ve
been made at any time upto 6 P.M.-tbrugh the
High Court held otherwise.
We have been taken through the evidence
in this connection and we agree with the High
Court that even though Ram Partap might not have
actually seen the incident he had definitely come to
Pili Bangan a.t about 11 A. M. with his brother
Bhimsen.
'.l'here is the evidence of Ram Singh
constable who says that Ram Partap came them
when the report (Ex. P-1) was being written at
. about 3 P.M., which is supported by the fact that
~ Ram Partap's presence is mentioned in the report.
The defence relied on a stetement in the inquest report (Ex.P-4) in which it is mentioned at the end that
Ram Partap son of Jawanaram also arrived during
the course of the completi10n of the inquest report
and was sent along with the corpse. This means
that Ram Partap was not present when the inquest
proceedings began and arrived there when they
I9fJ1
Ramratan
v.
ThPSlale of
Rajasthan
lVanchoo <1,
Ilamratan
v.
7he Staie of
Rn;cJthar.
602
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1962]
wcro coming to an end.
From this it. cannot be
inferred that Ram Partap was not in Pili Bangan
at all
hcforc G I'.~!. Th,•rc is ample evidence,
which the Hi!!h Court has right.ly believed, to show
that R.am Partap had come to Pili Rangan at about
IO or 11 A. ~1.
The other criticism with resp<·ct to tho time
when the report (Ex. P. I) was made is also in our
opinion unjustified and the High Court was right in
the view it took in that connection. There is no
doubt that Jawanaram
reached the hospital at
3-30 r.~1. as deposed to by Dr. Suderslmn Singh
and that he was sent by the police.
lt is obvious
therefore that ,Jawanarnm had contacted the police
beforo 3-30 r.)I. It stands to reason that if h<i
had c:ontactcd the policc beforo 3-30 P.M. ho must
bav<' made a report of the incident also and that i~
what exactly Ham Singh constable deposes.
'Vo
agree with the High Court that in tlw circumstances
there is no reason to disbelieve the statement of
Ram Sinirh constable. Tho Sessions Judge was
doubtful of the evidence of Ram Sinrrh beca•rne he
'lrnB of the view that documentary ovidenco from
tho police outpost at Pili Rangan had not been
produced in support of Ram Singh's statement.
Ram Singh was asked about it :md stated that
though Ex. P-1 did not bear the despatch number
as it was not sent to the outpost at all, ho must
havo made ontrics in the diary of the outpost about
his starting from there and his return and also about
the occurrence, though he did not remcm ber about
it. Aft-er this statement of Ram Singh, the Sessions
Judgo was not right in disbelieving him becauso of
the non-production of the entries from the outpost.
It would have been better if tho prosecution had
produced those entries ; hut even if the prosecution
rested upon the oral testimony of Ram Singh, the
Sessions Judge could and should himself havo sent
for those entries, if he was inclined to disLelio,·e the
oral testimony of Ram Singh constable who appoars
-
3 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
603
~"'to be a reliable witness. In the circumstances we
are of opinion that the view of the High Court that
the report was written at 3 P. 111. as stated by Kam
Singh constable is
correct.
The evid~nce of
Jawanaram therefore cannot be rejected on these
two grounds.
.. ,.
Lastly it was urged that Jawanaram had
named five assailants and at least two have been
acquitted, and that shows that J awanaram is not
wholly reliable. It is enough to point out that tho
Sessions Judge gave the benefit of doubt so far as
two accused persons were concerned. He did not
hold th~t Jawanaram's evidence was 'false with
respect to those two persons.
Apparently those
two persons did not take any active part in the
incident and that may have led the Sessions Judge
to give them the benefit of doubt; that is, however,
no reason for disbelieving the testimony of Jawanaram. We are therefore of opinion that the two
courts below were right in relying on Jawanaram.
His evidence is corroborated undoubtedly by other
witnesses to the extent that the incident did take
place at the shop of Roopram; his statement that
the three appellants and two others were the
assailants is corroborated by his former statement
made immediately after the incident was over and
deposed to by Roopram. In the circumstances we
are of opinion that the appellants have been rightly
convicted.
Two of the appellants (namely, Maniram and
Hansraj) have been sentenced to imprisonment for
life while Ramratan has been sentenced to death
The reason why Ramratan has been sentenced t~
death is that he was the man who shot Bhimsen.
He was also the leader of this group and the
enmity was directly between him and the members
of the family of Jawanaram. We agree with
the
High Court that there are no extenuating
1961
Ramratan
v.
The Stale of
Rajasthan
Wanchoo ],
Jlam1.:i,ta11
v.
7 lu .~ta:t of
j(f!IUl//z111
I Var.. /,ao J.
JfJCJ
604
SUPREME COUH.T REPOHTS
[ I9G2
circumstances which would justify the r<'dudion of
scntc,nce of death passed on Ramrntnn.
' ~
The appeal therefore fails and is hcn·by dismissed.
Appeal dism·isscd.
DR. H. ::;. IUKHY AXD OTHERS
i·.
THE NE\V DELIH illCNICIPAL CO:\Ii\HTTEE
(HHC\"AXESHWAR PRASAD SrxnA, C .. J ••
P.B. GAJE:>!Dt\AGADKAI\ and itAGHl:BAR DAYAL, ,JJ.)
Jfent control-Fi.ration of sta;u.{anl rent - .1faintai1tability
of app!iw.tion--Relotion of land and tenant, •f "'"'tial-Dellti
and Ajmer Rent Comrul Act, JVJi (3S of J[}ii:!), as. :?(c), i(g),
~(j), $, J~-l'unja/, Municipal Act, 1!1/1 (l'unJab Ill uf JUJJ),
ss.18, .J7.
'l'hc respondent ?vfunicipal Con1mittee, in pursuance of a
resolution pas~d by it, called for tenders and put the re~pon.
dents, y.·hu ntade the highest offers, into pos:;cssion of certain
shops and premises on a1nounts varying from lls. 135-S..U to
Rs. 520 p<1yable for every month. After they had continued
in possession for sorne years on payrncnt of the said amounts,
dcscriUed as reuts in the rt"Ccipts, the appellants applied under
s.H of the Deliti a11d • .\.jn1er !lent Control 1\cr,
1~52, for
stand.trdis.'ltion of rent.
fherc \\·ere ad1nittedly no contracts
of transfer in , .. ·riting signed and attc .. -,tcd in rhc rnanner
prescri!Jcd by s.47 of the Punjab Mu:iicipai Act, 1911.
The
respondent took the preH1ninary objection that the applications
y.·cre 11ot n1aintainable as there was no relation of landlord and
tenant between the parties withi?1 the 1neaning of the !lent
Control Act. The trial court found in favour of the appellants
Out the I-ligh Court in the exercise of its revi:;ional jurisdiction
set aside tile decision of the trial court.
field, that it \\'as evident" from the definitions of the
terms 'landlord', 'prcrnises and tenant' contained in ss. 2(c),
2(g) and 2(i) that the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act,
19.52, that the Act applied only to such letting of premises as
created an intere~t iu the property, \vhatever its duration, and
gave rise to the relation of l;mdlord and tenant between the
parties ..
..
..
•
,(