Chunni Lal vs State of U.P.

D.K. Trivedi and I.P. Vashishth, JJ.—The present criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 13.3.1987 passed by the Sessions Judge. Faizabad, convicting Appellant Chunni Lal u/s 302, I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life in connection with an incident alleged to have taken place on 29.10.1985 at about 6.30 a.m. in village Dihwa Daulatpur, Police Station Ibrahimpur, district Faizabad.

It is said that about the month''s prior to the incident there was an altercation between the wife of the complainant Shri Ram (P.W. 1) on one side and one Jai Lal on the other and due to this quarrel, they were not on talking terms. It is alleged that Jai Lal was assaulted, he received injuries and later on succumbed to his injuries on 27.10.1985 and the complainant had also participated in the cremation of Jai Lal on 28.10.1985. On 29.10.1985 at abut 6.30 a.m. accused Chunni Lal came to the house of the complainant Shri Ram and started abusing him saying that it was Shri Ram who got his brother Jai Lal murdered and, therefore, he would also kill his son. It is alleged that after saying this Chunni Lal picked up his son and started thrashing him on the ''Jagat'' of the well. It is further alleged that Shri Ram, his wife as well as his daughter Gyanmati raised alarm and tried to save the boy but Chunni Lal Appellant threw the child into the well and ran away. According to the prosecution case the child was aged about 7 years. The complainant Shri Ram (P.W. 1) immediately jumped into the well and with the help of his wife and daughter brought out the body of his son but his son was found dead. The complainant thereafter went to the Police Station along with the dead body of his son and lodged the report Ext. Ka-1 al 10.05 a.m. on the same day at Police Station Ibrahimpur, district Faizabad. S.I. Brijraj Singh (P.W. 6) was present at the Police Station at the time of lodging of the First Information Report and, therefore, he immediately recorded the statement of the complainant and prepared the inquest report Ext. Ka-5 and other relevant papers Ext. Ka-6 to Ka-9 for autopsy on the dead body of the deceased and sent the dead body for autopsy through Constable Barsati. The Investigating Officer thereafter recorded the statements of the other witnesses and thereafter proceeded for the place of the incident and on reaching there he recorded statements of some other witnesses and prepared site-plan Ext. Ka-10. On 12.11.1985 the accused was arrested and after completing the investigation the Investigating Officer submitted charge-sheet against the accused.

The autopsy on the dead body of deceased Ganga Ram was conducted by Dr. Qazi Anwar Ahmad on 29.10.1985 at about 3.30 p.m. The Doctor found the following ante-mortem injuries on the dead body of the deceased:

(i) Contusion 3 � 1 cm. just below eye-lid.

(ii) Multiple abrasion in an area 12 � 3 cm. on right side back 8 cm. below injury No. 1.

(iii) Lacerated wound 3-1/2 � 1 cm. bone deep, 3 cm. below right elbow just on right front back.

(iv) Contused swelling 17 � 10 cm., left side skull just above the root of the left ear.

(v) Contused swelling 15 � 9 cm. right side skull, just above the root of the right ear.

On internal examination the Doctor found that the stomach was empty and faucal matter was present in the intestines.

According to the Doctor the death was caused due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem injuries. The post-mortem report is Ext. Ka-2.

The prosecution, in support of its case examined seven witnesses in all. Out of them P.W. 1 Shri Ram is the father of, the deceased, P.W. 2 Smt. Ashokmati is the mother of the deceased and P.W. 3 Gyanmati is the sister of the deceased and they are the witnesses of fact. P.W. 4 Ajay Kumar Shukla is the scribe of the First Information Report and P.W. 5 Dr. Qazi Anwar Ahmad conducted autopsy on the dead body of Ganga Ram and proved the post-mortem report Ext. Ka-2. P.W. 6 S.I. Brijraj Singh conducted investigation in the case and submitted charge-sheet against the accused. P.W. 7 Constable Barsati brought the dead body to the mortuary for post-mortem examination.

On the other hand the accused denied the prosecution case and stated that he has been falsely implicated in this case due to enmity. On behalf of the accused one D.W. 1 Thangani Das who was Pradhan of village Daulatpur Eksara was also examined.

The learned Sessions Judge, after considering the evidence on record came to the conclusion that the prosecution has successfully proved the guilt of the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt and, therefore, he convicted and sentenced the Appellant as mentioned above.

Aggrieved from the said judgment and order the Appellant filed the present appeal from jail. But as the Appellant was not represented by any counsel, therefore, we appointed Shri R.K. Dwivedi advocate of this Court as amicus curiae to argue the case on behalf of the Appellant.

The main submission of the learned Counsel for the Appellant is that the learned court below has committed an error in accepting the testimony of the abovementioned three eye-witnesses who admittedly belonged to one and the same family and are inimical to the accused. The learned Counsel for the Appellant further pointed out certain minor infirmities and contradictions in the statements of the witnesses and stated that in view of these contradictions the testimony of these three eye-witnesses was not worthy to be relied upon. We are quite unable to accept this contention of the learned Counsel for the Appellant. No doubt all the eye-witnesses namely P.W. 1 Shri Ram. P.W. 2 Smt. Ashokmati and P.W. 3 Gyanmati belonged to one and the same family but on this ground alone their testimony cannot be discarded specially when their own child was killed on 29.10.1985 at about 6.30 a.m. in the morning just in front of their house. All these witnesses are natural witnesses and their presence on the spot cannot be doubted. There is nothing on the record to show that they had any reason to falsely implicate the Appellant in this drastardly crime of murder. The first information report was also lodged soon after the incident at Police Station Ibrahimpur in which the entire incident is mentioned in great details and the Appellant has also been named as the accused. The prosecution case and the testimony of these eye-witnesses further find full support from the medical evidence and in these circumstances we are unable to accept the contention of the learned Counsel for the Appellant that the testimony of these eye-witnesses was not worthy to be relied upon. As pointed out above the testimony of these eye-witnesses, in our opinion, is worthy to be believed and the learned Sessions Judge has committed no illegality in relying on their statements and holding that the prosecution has successfully proved the guilt of the Appellant.

Learned Counsel for the Appellant further pointed out certain minor contradictions, for example according to him in the F.I.R., it is alleged that the accused dragged the deceased upto the well whereas before the Court it was said that he took the deceased to the well by catching hold of him. Further in the F.I.R. it is alleged that the complainant got down into the well but before the trial court the complainant P.W. 1 Shri Ram stated that he jumped into the well. All these contradictions are minor in nature and the same, in our opinion, cannot be said to adversely affect the prosecution case which is supported by the three eye-witnesses and the same also finds support from the medical evidence.

The learned Counsel for the Appellant further pointed out certain omissions and defects in the investigation but any laches in the investigation will not affect the credibility of the eye-witnesses. It is pointed out that the Investigating Officer did not take blood-stained earth just from outside the well and further he did not make any enquiries as to whether any other person lived with the accused or not. If the blood from outside the well was not taken by the Investigating Officer then on this sole ground the testimony of the eye-witnesses cannot be thrown out. The judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge is a well reasoned judgment and order and the same requires no interference and, therefore, the present appeal has no force and is liable to be dismissed.

The appeal is dismissed. The conviction and sentence awarded by the Sessions Judge, Faizabad, are hereby confirmed. He is in Jail. He is directed to serve out the sentence accordingly.