Charan Singh and Others vs State of U.P.

Poonam Srivastav, J.—The instant appeal was preferred by five Appellants against judgment and order dated 12.5.1982, passed by VIIth Additional Sessions Judge, Aligarh in S.T. No. 213 of 1979 convicting Appellant Nos. 1 and 2 u/s 307, I.P.C. and sentencing them to seven years R.I., Appellant No. 4 u/s 324, I.P.C. to two years R.I., Appellant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 u/s 148, I.P.C. to two years R.I., Appellant Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5 u/s 324/149, I.P.C. to two years R.I. and Appellant Nos. 3, 4 and 5 u/s 307/149, I.P.C. to five years R.I. All sentences were directed to run concurrently.

During pendency of appeal, Appellants Charan Singh son of Udai Singh, Ranvir son of Ramhit and Devi Singh son of Chokhey Lal, are reported to be dead. Appeal on their behalf stands abated vide order dated 11.2.2009, I proceed to hear the instant appeal in respect of Appellants Risal Singh and Hukum Singh.

Sri. Hari Om Ojha, advocate, was appointed amicus curiae by this Court vide order dated 20.11.2009. Despite repeated orders, Appellants could not be arrested. There is a report of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aligarh mentioning that accused Risal Singh and Hukum Singh belong to district Mahamayanagar. Therefore, Superintendent of Police, Mahamayanagar, was requested to arrest them and produce before the Court but no report has been received so far.

Appellant Risal Singh was convicted u/s 307, I.P.C. and sentenced to seven years R.I., u/s 148, I.P.C. to two years R.I. and u/s 324/149, I.P.C. to two years R.I. Appellant Hukum Singh was convicted u/s 307/149, I.P.C. and sentenced to five years R.I. and u/s 324/149, I.P.C. to two years R.I.

There are four persons, namely Devendra Kumar, Veer Pal, Bhagwat Singh P.W. 1 and Jawahar Singh P.W. 2, who received injuries in the incident.

Appellant Risal Singh is alleged to be armed with katta. Appellant Hukum Singh is alleged to be armed with lathi. Occurrence is alleged to have taken place on 25.9.1978 at 11.30 a.m. in cattle market Path, Hathras, the then district Aligarh. First information report was lodged by Bhagwat Singh P.W. 1 on the same day at 11.50 a.m. at police station Sasni, district Aligarh. Police station Sasni is situated at distance of 6 miles. Injuries were examined by the doctor on the same day after 12 noon.

Injuries of Devendra Kumar examined by the doctor on 25.9.1978 at 12.25 p.m. are detailed hereinbelow:

B/B Self.

M.I. A raised black mole below lobule of right ear.

Injuries: (1) Two small rounded abrasions over right side of neck about 3.0 cm. below right earmeasuring 0.2 cm. x 0.25 cm. to 0.2 cm. - 0.25 cm. in an area of 2.5 cm. lying side by side.

(2) A small rounded abrasion over left sterno clavicular joint measuring 0.2 cm. x 0.20 cm.

(3) An abrasion over centre of chest at level of 7th costal cartilage just by side of median plane measuring 0.5 cm. x 0.2 cm. on right side.

Adv. X-ray: neck including upper part of the chest. A/P view.

Nature of injury and weapon kept U.O.

Duration - Fresh.

Injuries of Veer Pal examined by Dr. Nand Kumar, on 25.9.1978 at 12.35 p.m. are detailed hereinbelow:

B/B Self

M.I. A black mole in the centre of chest at level of 5th costal cartilage just right to median plane.

Injuries: (1) Multiple small rounded abrasion in right inter scapular region in an area of 7.0 cm. x 6.0 cm. with oozing of blood measurements varying 0.2 cm. - 0.25 x 0.2 cm. - 0.25 cm.

(2) Abrasion on right inter scapular region measuring 2.0 cm. x 0.2 cm.

Nature of injury No. 1 and object kept U.O.

Injury No. 2 was simple.

Duration - Fresh.

Injury No. 2 caused by friction.

Injuries of Bhagwat examined by the doctor on 25.9.1978 at 12.15 p.m.are detailed hereinbelow:

B/B Ramesh Chandra C.P.No. 932.

M.I. A black mole on abdomen about 2.5 cm. below umbilicus.

Injuries: (1) Lacerated wound in right occipital region measuring 2.5 cm. x 2.0 cm. x scalp deep with fresh bleeding.

(2) Contusion over right deltoid region extending to right upper arm measuring 10.00 cm. 2.5 cm. with reddish discolour.

(3) 5 small rounded abrasions on the posterior aspect of left deltoid region measuring 0.2 cm. x 0.25 cm. x 0.2 cm. x 0.25 cm. in an area of 6.0 cm. x 5.0 cm.

(4) 6 small rounded abrasions in the left lumber region in an area of 7.0 cm. x 5.0 cm. with inflammatory swelling around.

Nature of injury Nos. 3 and 4 kept U.O.

Duration- Fresh

Injuries were caused by hard and blunt object and friction.

Adv.:

(i) X-ray left shoulder A/P - Lat. view.

(ii) X-ray lumber region A/P view.

Injuries of Jawahar Singh examined by the doctor on 25.9.1978 at 12 noon are detailed hereinbelow:

B/B Nawab Singh.

M.I. A big birth mark over the centre of...(P.T.) a little left to the median plane.

Injuries:

(1) Multiple small rounded abrasion right deltoid region upper arm in an area of 24.0 cm. x 8.0 cm. measuring varying 0.2 cm. x 0.25 cm. - 0.2 cm. x 0.25 cm.

(2) Multiple small rounded abrasion over dorsal aspect of right forearm along, entire length measurement varying 0.2 cm. x 0.25 cm. - 0.2 cm. x 0.25 cm.

(3) 3 small rounded abrasions over base of right middle ring and little fingers measuring 0.2 cm. - 0.25 cm. x 0.2 cm. x 0.25 cm.

(4) Multiple small rounded abrasions on the right side of chest in an area of 6.0 cm. x 5.0 cm.

(5) 4 Small rounded abrasions in the right lower axillary region in an area of 8.0 cm. x 5.0 cm.

Nature of injuries and nature of weapon kept U.O.

Duration- Fresh.

Adv.

X-ray right arm A/P Lat. view.

Prosecution examined as many as seven witnesses, namely Bhagwat Singh P.W. 1 and Jawahar Singh P.W. 2 who were injured. Narottam Singh P.W. 3, Fauji Singh P.W. 4 who was Investigating Officer, Dr. N.K. Sharma P.W. 5. Head Constable Badri Prasad P.W. 6 and Shashi Kant P.W. 7 are other two formal witnesses.

First argument of the Counsel for Appellants is that first information report is ante-timed since admittedly occurrence took place at 11.30 a.m., first information report is said to have been lodged within 20 minutes of the incident at police station Sasni, which is situated at distance of six miles.

Second argument is that on perusal of injury report, it transpires that the injured were examined after 12 noon, which would mean that they were not examined after preparation of majrubi chitthi. Thus, it is evident that first information report was not in existence at the time when their injuries were examined by the doctor. This is another circumstance to show that first information report was not in existence at the time when injuries were examined by the doctor.

Third argument is that injuries caused to the injured are reported to be simple in nature. There was no supplementary injury report. There was no intention to cause murder, therefore, conviction u/s 307, I.P.C. is completely uncalled for and liable to be quashed.

Learned A.G.A. has disputed each and every arguments advanced on behalf of Appellants and submitted that in fact all the injured were sent to hospital directly but first informant was brought by constable for medical examination before the doctor.

This argument is not acceptable for the reason that injuries of first informant were examined by the doctor prior in time whereas other injured were examined subsequently. Therefore, the normal conclusion is that first informant who was brought by a constable after F.I.R. was lodged, alternatively the injured who were examined subsequently and brought by family members was on a different time. Either time of injury report or the F.I.R. is not the same as shown in the documents. Thus, injuries of other injured become doubtful.

Learned Counsel has placed evidence of first informant wherein he has completely changed the version of the first information report.

All along a close reading of the first information report and cross-examination of first informant, prosecution story narrated during the trial discloses entirely a different story one disclosed in the first information report. It is apparent that either statement of first informant is not worth reliance or narration of the first information report stands falsified. Besides, two injured, namely Veer Pal and Devendra Kumar were not examined during the trial.

Taking into consideration this aspect, case of prosecution becomes doubtful coupled with the fact that statement of the doctor also does not establish prosecution version beyond doubt. There is contradictory stand in the first information report and statement of eye-witness account. The doctor admitted that he was not able to examine the injured properly on account of presence of family members of the injured witnesses.

In view of the aforesaid discussion. I do not find it safe to uphold conviction. Judgment and order dated 12.5.1982, passed by VIIth Additional Sessions Judge, Aligarh, in S.T. No. 213 of 1979, is set at naught. The Appellants need not be taken in custody. Sureties and bail bonds of Appellants are discharged. The instant appeal is allowed.