Muneshwar Singh vs State of U.P.

M.C. Jain, J.—This appeal has been preferred by the accused-Appellant Muneshwar Singh against the judgment and order dated 28.7.1999 passed by Sri Azizur Rahman, Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Kanpur Nagar in Sessions Trial No. 88 of 1991 whereby he has convicted the accused-Appellant u/s 302, I.P.C. and has sentenced him to death for triple murder of his wife, mother-in-law and another lady.

The genesis of the prosecution case was the first information report Ext. Ka-1 lodged by Vinod Bajpai P.W. 1 at Police Station Kidwai Nagar, Kanpur Nagar on 13.10.1990 at 12.45 a.m. The incident took place in between the night of 12/13.10.1990 at about 11.30 p.m. at his house No. 127/12U, New Nirala Nagar, Kanpur Nagar. The prosecution case was that the informant was the original resident of village Sidhi Itara, Police Station Sachendi, district Kanpur Nagar. For the last about 10-11 years, he was living in New Nirala Nagar, Police Station Kidwai Nagar where he used to run a she-buffalo dairy. On 12.10.1990 at about noon time, the aunt of Babu Mishra of his village, Baij Nath''s wife, her daughter Manju and son-in-law Muneshwar Singh (accused-Appellant) came to his house. Muneshwar Singh was resident of Mohamdabad, district Farrukha-bad and he was a constable at Ghaziabad. These persons informed him that they had come for some medical treatment and would stay at his house in the night. He agreed to it as they belonged to his village. At about 10 p.m., informant Vinod Bajpai, his sister Aruna and mother lay down in their Chhappar after taking meals. Muneshwar Singh and his wife Manju lay down in the eastern Chhappar. Babu Mishra''s aunt and Baij Nath''s wife slept on a cot in the courtyard. The informant''s brother Arun was sleeping at the door. Shrieks and cries were raised at about 11.30 p.m. which awoke the informant and others. There was light of electricity. It was seen that Muneshwar Singh was striking blows with a Sabbal (a sharp edged digging instrument) on his mother-in-law and the other lady lying with her. The informant and his mother came out and raised shouts. Residents of the locality, namely, Kishore Dutt Bajpai, Babloo Panwala, Mewa Lal Yadav and others collected at the scene and saw that the accused was assaulting his wife Manju too. On seeing the collected persons, he started running but was apprehended. It was found that the mother-in-law of the accused and another lady had died whereas Manju (wife of the accused) was in precarious condition. Sabbal wherewith the accused had done the job was lying nearby. Informant Vinod Bajpai got a report scribed by Digvijay Singh Chauhan and took the same to the Police Station where he lodged it. The accused was kept apprehended at the spot.

The investigation of the case was taken up by S.I. Chandra Bhushan Pandey P.W. 10 in whose presence the F.I.R. had been made. He reached the spot along with S.I. Jayanti Prasad Rawat P.W. 12, S.I. Janki Prasad and other police personnel. Injured Manju who was alive by then was sent to hospital. The spot was inspected. The Panchyatnama of the two dead ladies was got prepared by him through S.I. J. P. Rawat P.W. 12. The accused-Appellant was taken into custody. His clothes had blood stains. They were taken in possession. He was sent to Police Station. The blood stained earth and simple earth was collected from the spot. The weapon of offence (Sabbal) was also taken in possession. It also had blood stains.

Manju also died in the hospital on 13.10.1999 at 2.20 a.m.

The dead bodies of all the three ladies were subjected to post-mortem. It was Dr. Ashok Upadhyay P.W. 8 who conducted autopsy on the dead body of deceased Manju on 13.10.1990 at 3 p.m. She was aged about 38 years. The following ante-mortem injuries were found on her person:

Lacerated wound 4 cm. bone deep on right side head 7 cm. above right ear, hematoma below scalp present.

Stitched wound 1 cm. along with one stitch on right cheek, 5 cm. lateral to right area of nose.

Stitched wound 3 cm. along with three stitches on left cheek 2 cm. lateral to left area of nose.

Stitched wound 2-1/2 cm. with 4 stitches on left side of central line of chin, lower jaw fractured.

Stitched wound 2 cm. along with one stitch on upper lip just below left area of nose.

Contusion 9 cm. on left shoulder on its top.

Abraded contusion 5 cm. 1/4 cm. on outer side of right upper arm 4 cm. below top of shoulder.

Abrasion 5 cm. 3 cm. on right side waist above iliac crest.

Abraded contusion 2 cm. 1 cm. on right side neck below angle of right jaw.

She died due to coma, shock and hemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem injuries sustained by her.

The post-mortem over the dead body of Smt. Kishori wife of Baij Nath Singh had been conducted by Dr. A. K. Tewari P.W. 9 on 13.10.1990 at 4 p.m. she was aged about 50 years. The following ante-mortem injuries were found on her person:

Incised wound 5 cm. 2 cm. bone deep on forehead right at the level of hair line.

Incised wound 6 cm. 1-1/2 cm. bone deep right side forehead above the eyebrow, underlying bone fractured depth upto brain.

Incised wound 4 cm. 1 cm. bone deep on right side forehead obliquely on temple, 2 cm. away from injury No. 2.

Incised wound 4-1/2 cm. 1-1/2 cm. bone deep outer side, 5 cm. above the ear.

Incised wound 1 cm. 1/2 cm. on the root of nose underlying frontal bone found fractured in places.

She also died due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem injuries.

The post-mortem over the dead body of Shiv Kali wife of late Rajjan Misra was also conducted by Dr. A. K. Tewari P.W. 9 on 13.10.1990 at 5 p.m. She was aged about 60 years. The following ante-mortem injuries were found on her person:

Contusion 3 cm. 1-1/2 cm. over bridge of nose, nasal bone fractured.

Contusion 6 cm. 3 cm. middle of chin, mandible bone fractured.

Lacerated wound 3 cm. 1/2 cm. bone deep on occipital bone, behind and above the right ear.

Contused swelling 8 cm. 6 cm. on face and left temple, underlying haematoma present.

She had died due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem injuries.

On conclusion of investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted against the accused-Appellant who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. At the trial, the prosecution examined as many as twelve witnesses besides relying on documentary evidence. Out of them, Vinod Bajpai P.W. 1, Arun Bajpai P.W. 2, Mewa Lal Yadav P.W. 3, Kishore Dutt Bajpai P.W. 4, Babloo alias Kallo P.W. 5, Aruna Devi P.W. 6 and Smt. Manorma P.W. 7 were examined as eye-witnesses. The rest were doctors, Investigating Officer and other police personnel. The accused did not tender any evidence. The evidence adduced by the prosecution commended itself to the learned trial Judge who found the accused to be guilty of this triple murder and he sentenced him to death. Aggrieved, the accused-Appellant has preferred this appeal. Learned Additional Sessions Judge has also made a reference for confirmation of death sentence u/s 366 Cr. P.C. It is in this way that the matter is now before this Court.

We have heard Sri P. N. Mishra, learned senior advocate on behalf of the accused-Appellant and learned A.G.A. from the side of State. The evidence on record has also been carefully scrutinized by us. We propose to deal with different aspects of the case hereinbelow having regard to the arguments advanced across the bar.

In the first instance, it is significant to state that the prosecution has not been able to prove any motive on the part of the accused to commit this ghastly crime. We are aware that motive is not evidence in a case, but at the same time, motive satisfies the judicial mind about the authorship of a particular crime. It was a night offence. The prosecution case was that in the day time, the accused-Appellant had come to the informant''s house with his wife, mother-in-law and friend of his mother-in-law to stay there in the night on the plea that they had come for medical treatment and they had missed the train for back journey. It was for this reason that they had to stay at the informant''s house in the night. Such a background does not provide any clue as to what could have actuated the accused-Appellant to commit the murder of three ladies in the night. In ordinary course, he could achieve his object by coaxing them to some lonely place on some pretext after reaching Kanpur and then could have murdered them. It has come in the testimony of Vinod Bajpai P.W. 1 that he had never come to his house earlier. It sounds to be improbable that without being familiarized with the topography of the house of the informant, the number of inmates of the house and surroundings of the locality, he would have taken into his head to murder the three ladies in the night. So, the absence of motive on the part of accused-Appellant for the commission of such ghastly crime gives a serious jerk to the prosecution case which calls for a very cautious scrutiny of the evidence put forth by the prosecution to prove him to be guilty.

Secondly, we note that out of seven witnesses examined by the prosecution five turned hostile. They were Mewa Lal Yadav P.W. 3, Kishore Dutt Bajpai P.W. 4, Babloo alias Kalloo P.W. 5, informant''s sister Aruna Devi P.W. 6 and his mother Smt. Manorma P.W. 7. All of them were named as eye-witnesses in the F.I.R. As is apparent, Aruna Devi P.W. 6 and Smt. Manorma P.W. 7 were inmates of the house where the incident took place. The statement of both of them, of course, is that they awoke on shouts at about 11.30 p.m. and saw that two ladies had died and condition of third one, namely, Manju was precarious. But their clear statement is that they did not see the accused-Appellant striking blows on any of the victim ladies. They only saw that persons outside their house had caught hold of the accused. It is also found from a close scrutiny of the evidence of Vinod Bajpai P.W. 1 and Arun Bajpai P.W. 2 that they also could not see actual assaulting of the three ladies by the accused-Appellant. The statement of Vinod Bajpai P.W. 1 is that he had been awaken by his mother and when he awoke, the accused was running and had covered distance of about 4 or 6 paces but he was caught hold of by the residents of the locality. He himself did not apprehend him. He also could not say as to who were the persons who apprehended him. The statement of Arun Bajpai P.W. 2 is that his mother and sister had awaken him and by that time, the accused had run away to a distance of 10 paces outside the door. So, the conclusion cannot be escaped that these two witnesses, upon whose testimony the prosecution case rests, also did not see the actual assault. An important fact has emerged from the testimony of Arun Bajpai P.W. 2 that there was no boundary wall or door at his inhabitation comprising the dairy of she-buffalo and anybody could come or go without any hindrance or check. Judged in this view of the matter, possibility could not be ruled out of the three ladies having been assaulted by someone else or others and the running of the accused-Appellant could be innocent.

Thirdly, it is there in the testimony of Vinod Bajpai P.W. 1 that Sabbal in question was there at his house and it was being used for fixing pegs to tether she-buffaloes. It is not easily understandable that the accused-Appellant could locate the Sabbal in no time without disturbing the sleep of inmates of the house as well as of three victim ladies, though he had never been to the house of the informant earlier.

Fourthly, the authenticity of the F.I.R. is rendered to be doubtful by the own statement of Vinod Bajpai P.W. 1. What he has stated is that the report had been got written by a resident of the locality and he had simply signed it. It means that the contents of F.I.R. were not based on his personal knowledge. Moreover, we have noted that there is a yawning gap between the contents of the F.I.R. and the statement of the informant Vinod Bajpai P.W. 1 made in the Court. As per the former, he had seen the accused first striking Sabbal blows on his mother-in-law and another lady lying together on a cot and then on his own wife Manju. However, what he stated in the Court was that he had only seen the accused running and actual assault was not seen by him.

Fifthly, it is apparent from the post-mortem report of the three ladies that they received injuries from two types of weapons-blunt object and sharp edged weapon. Sabbal is sharp edged iron instrument. The ante-mortem injuries sustained by all the three ladies do not reconcile with the weapon allegedly used by the accused. It appears as if two types of weapons had been used, blunt as well as sharp edged. Obviously, therefore, medical evidence is in conflict with the prosecution story as sought to be put forth through the oral evidence.

Sixthly, it is alleged that there were blood stains on the clothes of the accused-Appellant as well as Sabbal. But there is no chemical examination report in this behalf. Had there been chemical examiner''s report that stains were of human blood, it would have lent some credence to the prosecution version.

Seventhly, it is worthwhile to state that the mother-in-law of the accused-Appellant and another lady were allegedly sleeping at point ''F'' shown in the site plan. The wife of the deceased was allegedly sleeping at point ''E''. The distance between two points was about 10 paces. The accused-Appellant was allegedly the sole assailant who assaulted three ladies. Indeed, he could not have struck at both these points at one and the same time. His operation of striking blows either at the point ''E'' or ''F'' would have alarmed all others and it could not have then been easily possible for him to strike blows at the other point. Judged in this perspective, the greater possibility is that the assailants were more than one who struck at point ''E'' and ''F'' simultaneously in a big way, as otherwise simultaneous striking of blows on three ladies cannot be explained.

Eighthly, it is also an important fact to be taken note of that no injuries were found on the person of the accused-Appellant, though it is alleged that he was apprehended at the spot by the persons collected there who were many in number. Had he been so apprehended at the spot immediately after committing this ghastly crime of brutal murder of three ladies, he would have ordinarily been given a thrashing as a natural and immediate reaction of his captors. This is a circumstance which, in some measure, goes against the prosecution and in favour of the accused.

On reckoning with the different aspects of the case analytically in a judicial manner, we form the opinion that the prosecution case could not be deemed to be proved to the hilt to return a verdict of guilty. Many things have gone unexplained and are lost in the womb of obscurity. No doubt, a very serious crime was committed in which three ladies were brutally murdered, the court of law is to be guided by legal evidence adduced before it. The shocking nature of the crime cannot induce an instinctive reaction against dispassionate examination of law and evidence. The well settled law of criminal jurisprudence is that it is for the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. The criminal jurisprudence follows the eternal principle that any number of culprits may go scot-free but not a single innocent person should be punished. The present case against the accused-Appellant seems to be largely built on suspicion only. The element of doubt very much persists. Therefore, on over all consideration of the evidence and attending circumstances, we would allow this appeal.

In view of the discussion made hereinabove, we allow this appeal and set aside the impugned judgment whereby the accused-Appellant Muneshwar Singh has been held to be guilty for the offence of triple murder and sentenced to death. The accused-Appellant Muneshwar Singh is hereby acquitted. He is in jail. He shall be set at liberty if not wanted in any other connection.

The reference made by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is rejected.

Let a copy of this judgment along with the record of the case be immediately sent to the Court below for needful compliance under intimation to this Court within two months positively.