Ramayan Singh and Others vs State

Surendra Singh, J.—Challenged in this appeal is the judgment and order dated 5.11.1982 passed by Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Deoria in Sessions Trial No. 67 of 1981, State of U.P. v. Ramayan Singh and Ors. convicting and sentencing the Appellants under Sections 302, 302/34, I.P.C. for the life imprisonment.

THE FACTS

An incident is said to have taken place on 27.11.1980 at about 10: 00 hours. In this incident one Ram Briksha (deceased) was killed.

Harkesh (informant), is the brother-in-law (Sala) of the deceased lodged the F.I.R. at 10: 30 hours at the police station Rampur Karkhana, district Deoria, u/s 302/34, I.P.C. vide Case Crime No. 164 of 1980. The distance of the police station from the place of incident is one and a half miles.

The allegations as contained in the F.I.R. are as follows:

� The litigation regarding the landed property was pending in the civil court Deoria between Appellant No. 1, Ramayan Singh and the deceased Ram Briksha;

� It is alleged that on 27.11.1980, at 10: 00 hours, the deceased Ram Briksha, accompanied by his brother-in-law (Sala) Harkesh was going to Deoria in connection with his case and to some other places for settling marriage of his daughter;

� When they reached on the main road near the shop of one Deep Lal, Appellants emerged out from the shop of Deep Lal and Appellant Ramayan Singh threw a bomb at the deceased as a result of which, he fell down on the C.C. Track of the road;

� Harkesh (informant) on seeing this ran towards west and in the meantime, Appellant No. 2 Udai Bhan fired his country made pistol upon the deceased and thereafter it is alleged that Appellant No. 3 Bhawan Singh has also fired his country made pistol on the back of the deceased. The incident is alleged to have been seen by all those persons accompanied with the victim;

� It is alleged that the informant Harkesh was also chased by Appellants No. 2 and 3 up to some distance;

� Informant Harkesh is said to have gone to the police station Rampur Karkhana when he was told by a passenger of the jeep about the death of Ram Briksha where he lodged written F.I.R.

The police investigated the case and submitted the charge-sheet (Ex.Ka-13) on 10.12.1980 against the accused Appellants. The case was committed to the sessions'' court and was registered as S.T. No. 67 of 1981, State of U.P. v. Ramayan Singh and others.

The charges were framed by the Sessions Judge, Mainpuri on 21.5.1981. The Appellants were charged u/s 302, I.P.C. read with Section 34, I.P.C. Later on charges were amended on 10.8.1981. Appellant Nos. 2 and 3 were charged u/s 302, I.P.C. read with Section 34, I.P.C. while Appellant No. 1 was charged u/s 302, I.P.C.

Since the Appellants abjured the charges, therefore, the trial proceeded against them.

In order to cement the charges and prove its case, the prosecution examined the following witnesses:

� Harkesh (P.W. 1): Informant;

� Jitai (P.W. 2);

� Ram Lachhan (P.W. 3);

� Dr Rajendra Singh (P.W. 4): Who conducted the post-mortem examination;

� Lakshmi Chaukidar (P.W. 5);

� Ganga Singh (P.W. 6): The Investigating Officer.

Among others, the prosecution filed the following documents:

� Written report (Ex. Ka-1);

� Post-mortem report of the deceased, Arun Kumar (Ex. Ka-2);

� Post-mortem examination report (Ex. Ka-3);

� Chik F.I.R. (Ex. Ka-4);

� Copy of the G.D. (Ex. Ka-5);

� Inquest report (Ex. Ka-6);

� Site plan (Ex. Ka-10);

� Recovery memo of blood stained and plain earth (Ex. Ka-11);

� Recovery memo of tikli/ ripit of bomb and pieces of paper (Ex. Ka-12);

� Report of the chemical examiner (Ex. Ka-14).

The statements of the Appellants were recorded u/s 313, Cr.P.C. on 16.10.1982. They denied their involvement in the incident and said that they have been falsely implicated due to enmity.

The defence has not produced any oral evidence but has filed the following documents which are as follows:

� Copy of the G.D. (Ex. Kha-1);

� Copy of the F.I.R. lodged by informant, Harkesh against Appellants Ramayan Singh and Udai Bhan (Ex. Kha-2);

The Additional Sessions Judge by his judgment dated 5.11.1982 convicted the Appellant No. 1,Ramayan Singh u/s 302, I.P.C., Appellants No. 2 and 3, Udai Bhan and Bhagwan u/s 302, I.P.C. read with Section 34, I.P.C. The Appellants were sentenced to imprisonment for life. Hence the present appeal.

THE DECISION

We have heard Sri Umesh Vats, counsel for the Appellants and Sri A.K. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State.

The prosecution in order to prove its case has examined six witnesses, out of them, three witnesses, namely, Harkesh (P.W. 1), informant, Jitai (P.W. 2) and Ram Lachhan (P.W. 3) are the eyewitnesses. The rest of the witnesses are formal in nature.

The evidence of Harkesh (P.W. 1), the informant that he used to visit off and on, the house of the deceased to look after his agriculture.

He deposed that on the relevant date, he alongwith the deceased Ram Briksha, Jitai (P.W. 2), Ram Lachhan (P.W. 3) and one, Nirmal were going to Deoria and to another places for settling marriage of the daughter of the deceased. When they came on Deoria-Kasia Road near the shops, the Appellants emerged from the shop of one Deep Lal and Ramayan Singh threw a bomb at the deceased and Appellant No. 2 Udai Bhan fired his country made pistol on the back of the deceased from a close range.

Both, P.W. 2 Jitai and P.W. 3 Ram Lachhan have supported the prosecution case and also they have deposed the same version of P.W. 1.

Admittedly, Harkesh (P.W. 1) is closely related to the deceased. Jitai (P.W. 2) is also somehow related to the deceased. Their evidence about going to Deoria alongwith the deceased and the occurrence taking place at the time mentioned in the F.I.R. is believed and, therefore, he is a natural witness. There was No. reason for him to spare the real assailants and falsely implicate the accused Appellants. Even if, he had inimical terms with the Appellants No. 1 and 2, their evidence cannot be rejected on the sole ground that they are related or partisan witness. There is No. evidence to declare Ram Lachhan (P.W. 3), interested or inimical witness. There is No. reason for Ram Lachhan (P.W. 3) to depose against the accused Appellants and falsely implicate them.

Dr. Rajendra Singh (P.W. 4) had conducted the post-mortem on 28.11.1980 at 11 a.m. on the dead body of deceased,Ram Briksha. He found the following ante-mortem injuries on his person:

(i) Lacerated wound 25 cm. x 15 cm. vertebra column deep on the back of neck and back of upper part of thorax. All blood vessels muscle cervical vertebrae and upper thrombosis vertebra were fractured into pieces. Tissues were highly ecchymosised, surrounding skin blackened scorched and occipital region hair were scorched. Spinal cord badly lacerated and torn into pieces.

(ii) Gunshot wound 3.5 cm. x 3.5 cm. x chest cavity deep on back of left side of thorax two cm. lateral to vertebral spine and 8 cm.

below left angle left scapula. Surrounding skin blackened and scorched.

(iii) Multiple abraded contusion 4 cm. x 4 cm. on the left side of forehead just above left eyebrow.

(iv) Lacerated wound 1 cm. x 1 cm. x bone deep on the back of the first finger of left hand fracture found.

(v) Lacerated wound 1 cm. x 1 cm. x bone deep on dorsum of left middle finger having a fracture underneath.

Dr. Rajendra Singh (P.W. 4) had proved the post-mortem report and had deposed that injury No. 1 was possible by blast of a bomb and injury No. 2 by a firearm. According to him, rest of the injuries were possible due to fall on the hard substance. He further deposed that the death was possible on 27.11.1980 at 11 a.m.

Lakshmi (P.W. 5) is a village Chaukidar and is not an eye-witness. He was examined to prove the sending of the dead body in a sealed-cover alongwith the relevant papers.

Ganga Singh (P.W. 6) was the Investigating Officer of the case. He had proved the chik F.I.R. (Ex. Ka-4), G.D. (Ex. Ka-5), Inquest report (Ex. Ka-6), seizure of iron nuts (Ex. 1) and blood stain earth from the place of occurrence. He also proved the site plan (Ex. Ka-10).

It was argued on behalf of accused Appellants that medical evidence does not support the evidence of eye-witnesses. First inconsistency pointed out is that absence of digested or semi-digested food in the stomach of the deceased while in the F.I.R. it was alleged that the informant and the deceased had started their journey after taking breakfast and milk. No. doubt milk was not found in the stomach. Dr. Rajendra Singh (P.W. 4) has found during post-mortem examination that stomach was ruptured and 40 pellets had penetrated in it. The possibility of the liquid like milk having oozed out from ruptures caused by penetration of pellets, cannot be ruled out. It was next argued that injuries No. 3, 4 and 5 as noted by the Doctor were caused by some blunt object and the witnesses have not said in their evidence that blunt object was ever used by the assailants which indicates that none of the witnesses have seen the incident of murder. Dr. Rajendra Singh (P.W. 4) has deposed that the injuries mentioned above were on the left side of the body of the deceased and were possible by a single fall on hard blunt object. Thus the medical evidence of P.W. 4 does not support the argument advanced by the defence counsel. Moreover, it is not possible for the witnesses to note each and every act of the accused in such circumstances. Therefore, the presence of injuries No. 2,3 and 4 does not falsify the prosecution version. These were possible by a fall on the road, which was a hard substance.

We find that medical evidence is No. way at a variance with the ocular version. The direct evidence of the witnesses finds full support from the medical evidence of P.W. 4, Dr. Rajendra Singh. Learned Counsel for the defence has vehemently argued that the prosecution evidence is insufficient and unreliable to establish the place of murder. It is further contended that in the absence of the serologist report, it cannot be assumed that the blood which is alleged to be recovered from the place of incident was of human origin. The dead body was found on the C.C. Track of the road, i.e., from the place stated by the witnesses. There is No. suggestion from the side of the defence that it was found somewhere else.

The blood was recovered from that place and sent to chemical examination (Ex. Ka-14). Ex. Ka-14 is the report of chemical examiner. On perusal of this report, it is further argued that the earth was found blood stained.

In our view, the said report and the evidence of five witnesses as well as the Investigating Officer establish the fact that Ram Briksha (deceased) was done to death at the place as alleged by the prosecution witnesses.

Indisputably, one, Vishwanath has also received injuries in this occurrence and he would have an important witness. But non-examination of Vishwanath does not demolish the evidence of the witnesses adduced before the trial court and the present prosecution evidence cannot be rejected simply on the ground that one of the injured witness has not been examined.

It is true that Vishwanath was important witness and Investigating Officer should have traced him out and recorded his version but omission on his part will not render the evidence of other witnesses unbelievable or unacceptable.

Indisputably, there are some discrepancies regarding actual manner of assault and position of the deceased at the time of the incident, but the witnesses supported the prosecution case on all the material points. Over much importance cannot be given to minor discrepancies which do not go to the root of the matter and shakes the basic version of the prosecution witnesses, therefore, cannot be annexed with undue importance. Moreso when all the important probabilities ''factor echos'' in favour of the version narrated by the witnesses.

In other words the witnesses supported the prosecution case on all the material points and, therefore, their evidence cannot be rejected on minor discrepancies, if any. Undoubtedly, there is some improvement made by the prosecution during the trial but those are not such improvement which demolishes the prosecution evidence. Nevertheless, if the improvement is on the material point and is without basis, then it could have been one of the grounds to create doubt regarding the credibility and acceptability of the prosecution case.

Laches on the part of the Investigating Officer is also No. ground to reject the truthfulness of the prosecution case.

We find that evidence of Harkesh (P.W. 1), Jitai (P.W. 2) and Ram Lachhan (P.W. 3) on the point of the actual occurrence and the role played by the accused Appellants is consistent, probable, natural and is supported by the medical evidence.

In our opinion, the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.

ORDER

In view of our conclusion, the appeal against the judgment and order dated 5.11.1982 passed by Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Deoria in Sessions Trial No. 67 of 1981, State of U.P. v. Ramayan Singh and Ors. is dismissed. The Appellants are on bail. Their bail is cancelled. They will be taken into custody forthwith to serve out the sentence.