Munni Lal vs State of U.P.

A. N. Dikshita, J.—The appellant, Munni Lal son of Ram Nihor Kewat has filed this appeal against the judgment and order dated 3031979 passed by Sri M. M. H. Siddiqui, Addl. Sessions Judge, Gyanpur, Varanasi in Session Trial No. 109 of 1977 convicting him under Section 395 read with 397 1 and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for 7 years.

2 It is alleged by the prosecution that the appellant in company of about 10 or 12 persons committed a dacoity in the night between 13/4th Seotember 1974 at about 12 in the night at the house of Ram Lakhan Yadav village Manga PattiSughne. It is also alleged that they started assaulting Rai Karan, his brother with Lathi aad Ballam, Ram Lakhan was sleeping on the northern door of the house. He immediately got up from his sleeo and went towards the western side lighting his torch, when suddenly one of the dacoits fired a shot and one pellet hit his forehead. Raising an alarm, he ran towards the village. One of the dacoits managed to enter into the house through the roof and after reaching inside the house opened the northern door. Thereafter the dacoits entered and looted the house The informant then put the fire into the heap of Sanai lying on the northwestern side of the house. On the raising of the alarm, Ram Sumer Yadava Ram Kishore Gaderia, Ram Autar Yadava raising alaram and lighting torches'' reached the spot. After looting the house of Ram Lakhan Yadava, the dacoits looted the house of one Punwasi Gaderia. All the villagers who had assembled reached there. One of the dacoits exhorted to extinguish the lisht and ran away. A chase was given. Dacoit, Munni Lal son of Ram Nihore Kewat was surrounded, beat and cought, while the other dacoits fled awav The dacoits were recognized in the light of lantern and with the burning of the Sanai. Munni Lal was detained at the spot as two constables on night patrol duty had reached there. Injuries were received by Ram T akhan Yadav Raj Karan and brother''s daughter Meeta. The first information report of the incident was lodged by Ran Lakhan at 5.30 a.tn at the Police Station Gopiganj, the distance being 6 miles. The report also discloses the articles which were looted during the commission of the dacoity.

3 The investigation started. Injured were sent for medical examination. Ram Lakhan was examined on 1491979 at 945 a.m. by Dr A. J Singh (PW 1) at the Primary Health Centre Gopiganj. Doctor found following injuries on his person :

Injury no I.Lacerated wound 1/4 cm x 1/4 cm x skip deep on the leftside of forebead 41/2 cm above the left eye brow." Clotted and dried blood present on the wound circular in shape. There is swelling of 4 cm x 3 cm around the wound. There is no mark of blackening and charring or tattooting around the wound.

Injury is under observation and to be confirmed after xray for the presence of shot and for the cofirmation of injury. Duration about 1/2 day old."

Raj Karan was also examined by the same doctor at 10 a.m. on 1491S/74 and the following injuries were found on his person.

(1) Contused wound 3 cm x i cm bone deep on the back head 4J cm above the right, the fresh clotted, blood present.

(2) Punctured wound 21/2 cm x 1/4 cm x thickness of the each on the front of right ear middle passing through and through margins are clear cut.

(3) Contused wound 3/4 cm x 1/4 era x skin deep on the left side of upper lip.

(4) Contused wound 10 cm x 1/4 cm x skin deep on the left side of upper lit 1/2 cm away from injury No. 3.

(5) Contusion 10 cm 2 cm on back of right shoulder.

(6) Contusion wound 33 cm x 2 cm on the babk running traversely on both side of midline 4 cm below injury No. 5.

(7) Contusion wound 10 cm x 2 cm on the left side back 10 cm below injury No. 6.

(8) Contusion wound 121/2cm x cm on the left side back exteuding beyond middle in 13 cm below No. 3.

(9) Contusion wound 9 cm x 2 cm on the back of right arm 12 cm below the left shoulder.

(10) Contusion wound 10 cm x 2 cm on the back of right arm 4cm below injury No. 9.

(11) Contusion wound 81/2 cm x 2 cm on the back of right arm 3 cm below injury No. 10.

(.12) Contusion 9 cm x 2 cm on the back of right forearm 6 cm below right elbow.

(13) Contusion swelling just below the knee. cm x 2 cm on the dorsum of right hand.

(14) Contusion swelling 6 cm x 21/2 cm on the part of right leg 11 cm below the knee.

(15) Contusion 6 cm x 2 cm on the part of left let 12 cm above the ankle.

(16) Abrasion 11/2 cm x 1 cm on the middle side of left ankle. Injury No. 1 is under observation. All the injuries are simple in nature. Injury No. 2 is caused by sharp edged and permitted weapon. All the injuries are caused by blunt weapon. Duration about 1/2 day old."

Meeta Devi, wife of Ram Nath was examined on 1491974 at 10.30 a.m. and the following injuries were found on her body.

Injuries.(1) Contusion 5 cm X 21/2 cm on the part of left shoulder.

(2) Contusion 51/2 cm x 21/2 cm on the of left leg 2 cm below the knee.

(3) Contusion 10 cm x cm on the back of left shoulder.

All injuries are simple in nature caused by blunt weapon. Duration about 1/2 day old."

The prosecution in support of his case examined Dr. A. N. Singh PW 1, who has proved the medical report. It has been stated by PW 1 that the injuries were received by blunt weapon and by firearm. It is thus clear that injuries were found on the person of Ram Lakhan, Raj Karan and Meeta Devi as then is no dispute about it. PW 2 Ram Lakhan has corroborated the allegations in the FIR. He has received the firearm injuries. It is thus clear that a dacoity was committed at the residence of Ram Lakhan, where he sustained injuries. PW 3 Raj Karan has similarly corroborated the statement of PW 2 Ram Lakhan. He has also stated that the injuries were received at the time of the commission of dacoity. PW 4 Ram Sumer while supporting the version that a dacoity was committed at the residence of Ram Lakhan was not present there. He was present only at the time when the dacoits were fheing. From the above it is clear that a dacoity was committed at the residence of Ram i^akhan and that 3 perso is rnantioned above sustained injuries.

Learned counsel for the appeltaht Sri Shasank Shekhar has strenously submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove the involvement of appellant Munni Lal in the commission of dacoity. It is true that no witness has stated that they had seen Munni Lal at the time of the commission of dacoity. The only evidence against Munni Lal is that he was caught while fleeing. Another intriguing fact which has not been explained by the prosecution is about the other person, who was also arrested at the spot and tied with rope. The appellant is admittedly a resident of the same village and his house is situated at a distance of 1 furlong from the house of Ram Lakhan. It is incomprehensible that appellant Munni Lal would participate in the commission of dacoity without hiding his identity. No witness of the prosecution has stated even a word that Munni Lal had been hiding his identity or had admitted even to hide. Another startling fact which mitigates the truthfulness of the prosecution version is that Munni Lal had received injuries while being caught as is evident from the first information report. The appellant Munni Lal was not examined by PW 1 Dr. A. N. Singh. Ram Lakhan (PW 2), Raj Karan PW 3 and Ram Sumer (PW 4) all have testified to the fact that appellant Munni Lal had received injuries and from his knee the blood was oozing. Such injury has not been examined as well as explained by the prosecution. Another peculiar facts which belies common sense that all the dacoits ran towards the west. It was only appellant Mimni Lal who was running towards south. If this version of the prosecution is believed, then the another dacoit was also nabbed.

The appellant has tried to put forward a version that he has been implicated falsely on account of the construction of a house, which was resisted by Ram Lakhan. However plausible the defence version may be, it is incumbent upcm the prosecution to bring home the guilt of the appellant to the hilt even if the truthfulnesss the defence version is dis:ard;d but that by itself alone, would not establish the prosecution tory as n irated above. Further it has been stated by Ram Lakhan, Raj Karan and Ram Sumer that they had gone to the place from his house to the Police Station on a taxi. The distance as stated above is only 6 miles. They have left after the commission of the dacoity for about an hour. Neither PW 2 Ram Lakhan, nor PW Raj Karan has stated that before going for lodging the first information report, they had searched their house as to what jewellary and other belongings have been taken away by the dacoits. No doubt, the FIR be jewelled in itself the articles which were lotted. This FIR was not a written one and had been dictated by Ram Lakhan. True a person may remember the weight of the jewellary that has been taken away by committiag dacoity, but such detail as has been shown in the FIR about the jewellary and the other article without any search having been made inside the house mitigates the property of the prosecution version.

Before parting with this case, it has to be mentioned that there appears to be no serious effort on the part of the Investigating Officer to nab the other dacoits merely stating that the search was made and they could not found out. One of the alleged dacoits, the appellant Munni Lal, was caught on the spot, but no details seem to have been furnished by him as regards the other dacoits, which clearly shows that appellant Munni Lal was not aware about the identity of other dacoits. Implicit reliance. Thus cannot be placed on the witnesses produced by the prosecution. Rather their testimony has nowhere besieged Munni Lal with his presence at the time of the commission of the dacoity. The appeal thus deserves to be allowed, as the prosecution has failed to establish beyond doubt the guilt of the appellant.

In the result, the appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence of appellant (Munni Lai) is hereby set aside. He is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds are discharged.