State of U.P. vs Phundan and Others

G.D. Dube, J.—This appeal has been preferred by the State against the judgment and order of fifth Additional Sessions Judge, Meerut

acquitting the Respondents of the charges levelled against them Under Sections 147, 148, 302 read with Section 149 and 307 read with Section

149 of Indian Penal Code.

The prosecution started on the report of Jagmal, PW 4 lodged in Police Station Khekara district Meerut at 4 p.m. on Ist August, 1976. The

maker of this report stated that he is resident of village Ganauli P. S. Khekara. His brother Paiem Singh PW 1 resides in that village. Jagmal got

some land of his father-in-law in district Ghaziabad. Hence he used to reside at the residence of his father-in-law. It has been alleged that father-in-

law of Jagmal had three daughters, hence his father-in-law had devided all the properties amongst daughters. There was a dispute between the

family members of the three daughters about the land. It has been alleged that at about 7 a.m. on Ist August, 1976 Paim Singh came with fodder

from his field to his house. At that time Phundan. Khemchand, Dhumee, Lakhmee, Rampal, Gyanee, Meeree, and Baigan assaulted Paim Singh

and his wife Phulwati by lathi, Ballam and Kripali. On receipt of information about this assault the witness came to his village and took the injured

to the police station. Smt. Phulwati died on the way to the hospital.

The investigation had taken up by PW 9 Vishwanath Singh Chauhan. He had sent Paim Singh to the hospital for medical examination. He

prepared inquest report of the dead body of Smt. Phulwati and sent the body for mortuary in a sealed cloth for post mortem. He had also

conducted other investigation. It transpires that the later part of the investigation was conducted by Kishan Tandon PW 8 He had interrogated

Paim Singh on 30th August, 1976 and thereafter submitted the chargesheet.

Paim Singh was examined by Dr. S. K. Gupta PW 6. The injuries found on his person are noted in detail in the body of judgment of the trial

court. However, it is noteworthy that doctor had opinined that the injuries of Paim Singh were fresh in nature.

The postmortem of the dead body of the deceased lady was conducted by Dr. Bal Kishan Bhardwaj, PW 7 at 4.30 p.m. on 2nd August, 1976.

Doctor had found two punctured wounds on mestroid region and fore arm respectively. There were some lacerate wounds and bruises. In all 16

injuries bad been found on the person of the deceased. It was opined that the death was caused due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of

multiple injuries.

In order to prove his case the prosecution had examined 9 witnesses in all. PW 1 Paim Singh, PW 2 Bhooley and PW 3 Gandhi were examined

as eye witnesses PW 5 Prahlad Singh, head constable had registered the case. The role of other formal witnesses has been already stated above.

The accused had pleaded not guilty to the charges. They had not produced any witness in defence.

The learned sessions Judge observed after appraising the prosecution evidence that there was sufficient delay in lodging the report. The learned

sessions Judge also came to the conclusion that probably Paim Singh was injured in another incident. On this basis the very edifice of the

prosecution story was doubted. It was also observed that even the injured witness was interrogated by the investigating officer after one month No

satisfactory explanation bad been given for the delay in the interrogation

The learned Counsel for state had taken us through the statement of witnesses and the judgment of trial court It was argued by him that on

account of hostile attitude of the villagemen there was none to lodge the report. Hence injured could go to the police station only after Jagmal

arrived from Ghaziabad and took the two injured to police station for lodging the report. It was also urged that Paim Singh had gone to Ghaziabad

for treat ment. Hence he was not avialble for interrogation.

We have heard the learned Counsel for the Respondents also.

The statement of Jagmal indicates that his village Madhawpur where he lives in connection with management of property of his father-in-law is

situated at a distance of 10 km. from Ginauli where his other family members reside. He stated that two persons had gone to this village and had

informed him about this incident. If these two persons were able to go to village Madhawapur then they could have easily gone to the police station

itself and lodge the report.

No explanation had been furnished by the prosecution as to way Paim Singh was not interrogated up to 30th August, 1976. Paim Singh has

admitted in bis cross examination that when he went to police station he was in full sense and able to talk. His injuries were mostly on his limbs. In

such a situation the investigating officer could have easily interrogated this Paim Singh at the police station. The inordinate delay in interrogation of

Paim Singh by the investigating officer makes his statement unreliable. We are fortified in this respect by the observation of the Supreme Gourt in

Balakrushna Swain Vs. State of Orissa, .

It is also noteworthy that Dr. S. K. Gupta PW 6 has clearly stated that all the injuries of Paim Singh were fresh. We do not agree with his

opinion that fresh injuries could be of 12 hours duration. The lower court has rightly observed that after 12 hours the colour of contusion starts

changing. The colour of injury No. 12 being multiple contusion was reddish. The injury Nos. 4, 6 and 7 were also reddish contusions The colour of

these contusions clearly indicate that they could be within 6 hours. We find that the learned Sessions Judge bad rightly come to the conclusion that

injury of Paim Singh could not have been caused at 7 a.m. on the date of occurrence.

We have seen above that the report of this case had been lodged after a long delay. There was already existing enmity between the party.

Hence the lodging of the report after deliberation with the purpose of falsely implicating enmies cannot be ruled out.

For the reasons mentioned above we find that the view of the trial court was probabale. There is no justification to interfere in the judgment

and order of the trial court.

The appeal is dismissed.