Ram Pratap Singh vs State of U.P.

Amar Saran, J.—This criminal appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 22.11.1982, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Deoria convicting and sentencing the Appellant Ram Pratap Singh to imprisonment for life u/s 302, I.P.C. However, by the same judgment, the co-accused Munni Singh, Baij Nath Singh and Surendra Singh were acquitted of the charges u/s 302/34, I.P.C.

Briefly, the prosecution''s case was that at about 12.30 in the night intervening 3/4.12.1980 when the informant Chhote Lal Singh alongwith his grandfather, Ram Lachhan Singh, the deceased were sleeping in the verandah (osara) of their house, his uncle Ram Narain Singh and his cousin brother Vyas Singh were sleeping on the verandah (osara) of the adjoining house, the Appellant Ram Pratap Singh armed with bomb, co-accused Munni Singh and Baij Nath Singh armed with guns and Surendra Singh carrying a lathi arrived there. The accused persons challenged Ram Lachhan Singh by hurling abuses and thereafter Appellant Ram Pratap Singh hurled a bomb on him. On this the informant and Ors. woke up. Ram Lachhan Singh died on the spot as a result of the bomb injury. The accused persons were identified in the torch light and in the light of the lantern, which was burning there in the verandah. The accused ran away from the spot threatening to shoot down or to hurl bombs on the witnesses. They were not followed by the witnesses out of fear.

The report of this incident, which was scribed by Vyas Singh, was lodged at about 6.15 a.m. on 4.12.1980 at P.S. Rudrapur, which was at a distance of about 4 miles, by Chhote Lal Singh. The pending civil and criminal litigation between the parties was said to be the cause of the incident.

The Check F.I.R. (Ext. Ka-1) was prepared by P.W. 1 H.C. Davan Chaubey. He also made the G. D. entry (Ext. Ka-2).

P.W. 5, S.O. Virendra Kumar Singh, Second Officer at the police station, who was the Investigating Officer of the case started investigating the case. He reached the spot of incident at about 7-8 a.m. and took the dead body of the deceased Ram Lachhan Singh, which was lying at the doorstep of the informant, in possession. He also prepared the inquest report (Ext. Ka-7), photo laash (Ext. Ka-8), challan laash (Ext. Ka-9). He also prepared the site plan (Ext. Ka-10). He also collected the plain and bloodstained earth (Exts. Ka-11 and 12) and also picked up pieces of bomb (Ext. Ka-13) and burnt Rajai, Chadar and Dari etc. (Ext. Ka-14).

The Investigating Officer also examined Ram Narain Singh and Vyas Singh on the same day and on the next day he was shown the lantern and torches of the witnesses and he prepared their recovery memos (Exts. Ka-4 and 5). The accused surrendered in Court on 19.12.1980. He submitted the charge-sheet after completion of the investigation (Ext. Ka-15).

The body was sent for post-mortem examination and the autopsy was conducted by P.W. 4, Dr. Chandra Bhushan Singh at 1.30 p.m. on 5.12.1980 at the District Hospital, Deoria. The body was brought in a sealed condition by Constable Achhaibar Singh.

According to the doctor, the deceased was about 60 years in age. The death had taken place one and a half days prior to autopsy. Rigor mortis was present. The doctor found the following ante-mortem injuries on the body of the deceased:

Lacerated wound 3-3/4" x 1-1/2" x bone deep on the right side of head, just above the right ear. Blackening present around the wound.

Lacerated wound 1-1/4" x 1" on the right forearm, medial part, 4" above the right wrist. Blackening and charring present.

Multiple abrasions on the right forearm extending upto the right arm. Blackening and charring present.

Blast injury 8" x 5-1/2" x abdominal cavity deep on the right side of abdomen, 6" below the nipple and extending upto the inguinal ligament. Blackening and charring present upto the right side of chest near the nipple.

Multiple abrasion in an area of 4" x 3" with blackening and charring on the right thigh, anterior part.

On internal examination, it was discovered that there was a big haematoma under injury No. 1 and fracture of the right temporal and parietal bones on the right side. The 11th and 12th ribs on the right side were found fractured. The intestines were lacerated. In the abdominal cavity 9 pellets and a cotton piece were found. Multiple lacerations were found in the kidneys. The cause of death was reported to be shock and haemorrhage on account of the aforesaid injuries. The Doctor further clarified that all these injuries could have been caused by a bomb and even injury No. 4 alone was sufficient for causing death. These injuries could have been caused on the mid-night of 3/4.12.1980.

Apart from the aforesaid formal witnesses, P.W. 1, H. C. Davan Chaubey, P.W. 4, Dr. Chandra Bhushan Singh, P.W. 5, S. O. Virendra Kumar Singh, the prosecution has examined two eye-witnesses, viz. Chhote Lal Singh, the informant of this case and grandson of the deceased and P.W. 3 Vyas Singh, who was also the grandson of the deceased and cousin brother of the informant.

P.W. 2, Chhote Lal Singh has deposed that on the date of incident at about 12.30 a.m. the informant Chhote Lal Singh and his grandfather, the deceased Ram Lachhan were lying in the osar where the cattle were tied. In the adjoining verandah Vyas Singh and Ram Narain Singh were sleeping. On hearing the talks of the accused, he work up. A lantern was burning in the verandah, which helped this witness to recognise the four accused. The weapons assigned to the accused were as mentioned in the F.I.R. At that time Vyas Singh and Ram Narain Singh also woke up. Munni Singh cried out that the deceased was their enemy and he should be killed. Then the Appellant Ram Pratap Singh hurled a bomb on the deceased Ram Lachhan Singh, which led to his death. The accused fled by the southern lane threatening that if they were followed, they would kill the witnesses. Chhote Lal got the report scribed by Vyas Singh, which was marked as Ext. Ka-3. Previous enmity due to civil and criminal litigation was said to be the cause of this incident. P.W. 2 states that he was to receive the share of Smt. Sahodra, who was his paternal grandmother. The accused Munni Singh and Ram Pratap had got a forged sale deed of the property made. A civil suit was pending between Chhote Lal Singh and Munni Singh and Ram Pratap Singh. Munni Singh had executed a sale deed in favour of accused Baij Nath and Surendra Singh. Two years prior to the instant murder, the four accused had fired at this witness, the deceased Ram Lacchan and Ram Narain Singh about which a case was pending. Two or three months before his murder the deceased had given an application to the S. P., Deoria as he feared danger to his life from the four accused.

P.W. 3 Vyas Singh stated that the deceased Ram Lachhan Singh was his grandfather, who was sleeping in the verandah (osara) of his house. On hearing some noise, this witness who was sleeping in the nearby verandah woke up and flashed his torch, whereupon he saw all the four accused persons Munni Singh, Baij Nath Singh, Ram Pratap Singh and Surendra Singh, Ram Pratap Singh hurled a bomb, which struck the deceased, who died as a consequence thereof. He also produced the torch by which he saw the incident in Court.

In his defence the Appellant has agreed that cases were pending from both sides, however, he denied the other allegations. He claims that he has been falsely implicated on account of pattidari. He has not led any evidence in defence.

We have heard Shri Rajesh Ji Verma, learned Counsel for the Appellant and the learned Additional Government Advocate and perused the judgment and record of this case.

Shri Verma submits that on the same evidence three persons have been acquitted and it would be imprudent and unsafe for the Court to convict the Appellant on the basis of the same evidence.

It is further submitted that the light had been introduced subsequently and the same was not shown in the site plan and admittedly the lantern and torches of the witnesses were produced before the Investigating Officer in the morning of 5.12.2008. The evidence as to exhortation was conflicting and unreliable.

The motive for the incident is inadequate because the sale deed had been executed by Smt. Sahodra in favour of Baij Nath and Surendra of which the Appellant was only a witness and not a direct beneficiary.

There was good reason for false implication of the Appellant as the informant P.W. 2 and his supporters were losing the case in the civil courts in respect of Smt. Sahodra''s property. The incident in which the firing is said to have taken place earlier in which all the four accused persons were nominated were actually cross-cases. No witness of the locality has supported the prosecution case.

On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate submits that there was reliable evidence to connect the Appellant with this crime. Adequate benefit to the accused had already been given after the three co-accused persons were acquitted, and so far as the Appellant was concerned the main role of hurling the bomb on the deceased which resulted in his death was assigned to him. The report was not lodged with any delay as the incident took place after mid-night of 3/4.12.1980 and the report was lodged at 6.15 a.m. the next morning by the informant P.W. 2, Chhote Lal Singh. The medical evidence is consistent with the eye-witness account and there is no reason for false implication of the Appellant in this case.

So far as the question of acquittal of the co-accused Munni Singh, Baij Nath Singh and Surendra Singh is concerned, we are of the view that the law in India is clear that falsus in uno falsus in omnibus is not applicable. An explicit and active role of hurling the bomb on the deceased which resulted in his death was assigned to the Appellant Ram Pratap Singh, and the learned trial Judge has already given benefit of doubt to the other three accused as their presence at the spot could not be corroborated by the presence of any injuries of the deceased which were attributable to the weapons assigned to these accused. There was conflicting evidence with regard to exhortation, as has been pointed out by the counsel for the Appellant himself. For all these reasons we are of the view that acquittal of the other three accused persons provide no ground for acquitting the Appellant Ram Pratap Singh in this case.

The presence of witnesses at the place was wholly natural and the informant was sleeping in the same verandah (osara) next to his grand-father Ram Lachhan Singh, the deceased at the time of incident.

There is mention of light in the F.I.R. Mere omission of light in the site plan, is no ground for holding that no light was available at the spot. The accused and the witnesses were well known to each other. There could be no doubt about their identities as they were also raising a cry when the crime was committed.

In this connection the Investigating Officer has given an acceptable explanation in his cross-examination that he was not shown the torches or lantern on 4.12.1980 because the informant and the witnesses had gone alongwith the dead body for the post-mortem examination.

It could also not be said that this was a case of absence of motive. It is notable that the parties were at loggerheads because of the pending property dispute between them. In this connection it was alleged that the co-accused Munni Singh and Ram Pratap had got a forged sale deed of Smt. Sahodra''s land (which the informant Chhote Lal and the deceased were to inherit) manufactured in their favour. Then Munni Singh executed a sale deed in favour of the co-accused Baij Nath and Surendra Singh. There were earlier criminal cases between the parties.

In view of these circumstance that repeatedly the Appellant was involved alongwith other co-accused in the disputes between the parties, it could not be said that the accused had been falsely implicated only because there was litigation between the parties, and that the Appellant Ram Pratap Singh had stood as a witness in the suit for cancellation of the sale deed filed by the complainant, and the prosecution witnesses were losing some of the cases before the S. D. M., Commissioner and the Civil Court. Moreover, Ram Pratap Singh was also arrayed as an accused in the earlier case between the parties even if that was a cross-case from both sides, which had taken place 2-3 months before the murder of Ram Lachhan Singh, the deceased. He has asked for providing security against the aforesaid four accused persons. There was no reason for falsely implicating Ram Pratap Singh or for his having been assigned the main role of hurling the bomb on the deceased, if he was not actually involved in this crime.

There is no serious conflict in the evidence of exhortation. The submission of the learned Counsel for the Appellant that in the F.I.R. exhortation is alleged in an omnibus manner. In the evidence of P.W. 2, it is stated that Munni Singh exhorted and in the evidence of P.W. 3, Vyas Singh there is no mention of exhortation.

We do not think that much could turn on these minor conflicts, the presence of which only show that the testimony of the witnesses is natural and untutored. In any case, by way of abundant caution, the co-accused, who were assigned the role of exhortation have been acquitted.

Similarly, we think nothing turns on the minor discrepancy as to whether the informant had woken up after he heard some noise after the hurling of the bomb as mentioned in the F.I.R. or as was sought to be elicited from P.W. 2, Chhote Lal Singh in his cross-examination that he woke up on the talks of the accused and it was not of much significance whether the witnesses had woken up earlier or a little later. As the accused were well known to the witnesses, there could be no reason to hold that the witnesses could not have recognized the accused if they had woken up on the hurling of the bomb. The testimony of the witnesses could not be shaken on such minor discrepancies and contradictions.

The absence of independent witnesses of the locality was also not material because in the middle of the night the witnesses when the deceased was sleeping in the verandah (osara) of the informant and the adjoining verandah (osara) of Ram Narain Singh, the present witnesses, i.e., Chhote Lal Singh and Vyas Singh and none else would have been the natural witnesses at the spot.

It is also well known that people are extremely reluctant to become witnesses in cases involving Ors. as they do not want to get entangled in the enmities between the parties. Also there was no need for multiplying the witnesses and producing them. The medical evidence clearly corroborates the prosecution version as the doctor has clearly observed that all the injuries have been caused by hurling of the bomb and injury No. 4 was sufficient for causing the death of the deceased. The recoveries also corroborate the prosecution version. The F.I.R., which was lodged at 6.15 in the morning at police station, Rudrapur, which was four miles away, was also prompt in the circumstances.

In this view of the matter, we see no illegality in the order dated 22.11.1982, passed by the learned trial Judge, Deoria convicting and sentencing the Appellant to life imprisonment u/s 302, I.P.C. The appeal, therefore, fails and is accordingly dismissed.

The Appellant is on bail. His bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged. He shall be taken into custody forthwith to serve out the sentence awarded to him by the learned trial Judge.

Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deoria for compliance. The C.J.M. is also directed to send his compliance report within two months.