State of U.P. vs Ram Singh and Others

The present State Appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 1041980 passed by the IV Additional Sessions Judge, Hardoi acquitting the respondents from the charges, under. Sections 147/148/323/201/ 302/149, IPC in Sessions Trial No. 293/1979.

The respondents were prosecuted by the Police of Police Station Sursa, district Hardoi under Sections 147/148/323/201/302/149, IPC in connection with an incident which had taken place on 2241979 at about 10 a.m. within the local limits of village Jaluwa Kheda, Police Station Sursa, district Hardoi, in which it is alleged that they committed the murder of Munna as well as Jai Chand.

The brief facts of the prosecution case are that there was some enmity between the deceased and the respondents about the nonreturning of some utensils which had been taken by the respondents but did not return the same to the deceased persons. It is said that Smt. Mayawati complainant was the daughter of Jai Chand deceased and the granddaughter of Munna ''deceased and both these persons lived in village Bareypur. Similarly respondents Ram Singh, Mewa Ram, Ram Roop and Khushi Ram are real brothers and they also reside in the same village Bareypur. The remaining two respondents Thalpur Prasad and Shri Ram are real brothers, and were the brotherinlaw of one Raja Ram who was killed earlier. Raja Ram was the real brother of respondents Ram Singh, Mewa Ram, Roop and Khushi Ram and, thus, it is said that the respondents entertained a suspicion that he was killed with the connivance and conspiracy of the deceased persons. It is said that the deceased had some cultivation in the village and one Subhash who was son of the Bua of the complainant, had come to the house of the complainant to help them in cultivation of their filed. It is further said that Subhash had come to the house of the complainant sometime before the occurrence in order to help the complainant and her father and grandfather in cutting the crop. On the date of occurrence i.e., 2241979 at about 8 a.m. Jai Chand as well as Munna deceased had gone to Jaluwa Kheda to see of f Subhash who was going to his village, lying in district Farrukhabad. It is further stated that after the departure of Jai Chand and Munna, one Ganga Ram and Bodil came to the house of the complainant Smt. Mayawati and enquired about her father. She informed that they would return after sometime and, therefore, both these persons stayed there and waited at the house of the complainant for their return. It is further said that after one and a half hour the grandmother of the complainant asked the complainant to accompany Ganga Ram and Bodil in order to see as to why Jai Chand and Munna did not return to the house. It is said that the grandmother of the complainant also asked Ganga Ram and Bodil who were sitting at her house to accompany her to Jaluwa Kheda. It is said that all these persons then started to village Jaluwa Kheda to find out the whereabouts of Jai Chand and Munna. It is further alleged that as soon as they could hardly cover a distance of 25 steps ahead of grove of Jagdish, they heard some commotion and then they proceeded further and saw that accused Ram Singh, Mewa Ram, Ram Roop, Khushi Ram, Thakur Prasad and Shri Ram were chasing her grandfather on the Pagdandi and also they were giving blows to him from their respective weapons. It is said that at that time Ram Singh was armed with Kanta, Ram Roop was armed with a Bhala and Mewa Ram and Khushi Ram were armed with Banka while Thakur Prasad and Shri Ram had Lathis. It is further alleged that Ram Singh then gave a Kanta blow to Munna but Munna started running away but ultimately he fell down in the field of Gulzari and accused Ram Singh then sat on his chest and exhorted accused Khushi Ram to chop off the head of Munna deceased as the deceased was responsible for the murder of his brother Raja Ram. It is said that accused Khushi Ram chopped off the head of Munna. It is also alleged that Jai Chand was standing at some distance and he remained standing there while his father Munna was chased and killed by the respondents. It is further stated that after committing the murder of Munna, the other respondents Mewa Ram, Ram Roop, Thakur Prasad and Shri Ram who were standing at a distance of about 2030 passes from Jai Ghana, rushed towards Jai Chand and Ram Roop gave Bhala blow to Jai Chand and when he tried to run away the respondents assaulted Jai Chand by Banka and Kanta. Accused Khushi Ram remained standing where the deadbody of Munna was lying and after assaulting and killing Jai Chand accused Ram Singh took off the Shirt, Tahmat Banyan which the deceased Jai Chand was wearing. It is also alleged that in the meantime hearing the cries several persons reached there and then the accused persons ran away from the spot. It is also alleged that Ram Singh took the chopped off head of Munna also. The complainant thereafter rushed to Police Station Sursa where she lodged a report Ext. Ka1 at 2.30 p.m. The distance of Police Station is six miles from the place of the incident.

The investigation was entrusted to PW 7, S.I. Jora Singh. As the First Information Report was lodged in his presence therefore, he recorded the statement of Mayawati and Smt. Dalkora at the Police Station itself and thereafter he proceeded to the scene of occurrence and reached there and prepared Panchayatnama on the deadbody of Jai Chand Ext. Ka5 and other relevant papers Exts. Ka6 and 7. He also prepared the inquest report of Munna Ext. Ka8 and other relevant papers Ext. Ka9 and Ka10 and sent the deadbodies of the deceased to the mortuary for postmortem examination. He also collected the bloodstained and plain earth from the place of incident and prepared Fard in respect thereof. He also recovered bloodstained Shirt, Tahmat and Banyan near the place of the incident where the deadbody of Jai Chand was lying. These articles were said to belong to deceased Jai Chand. He also recorded the statements of the witnesses and prepared siteplan Ext. Ka19. After completing the investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted chargesheet against the accused persons.

The prosecution, in support of its case, examined nine witnesses in all. Out of them PW 1 Smt. Mayawati and PW 4 Ganga Ram are the witnesses of fact. P W 2 Subhash Chandra was examined to prove that he was in the village in order to cut the crop and on the date of incident he was returning to his village and Jai Chand as well as Munna deceased had accompanied him to village Jaluwa Kheda. PW 3 Mani Lai Shukla stated that he brought the dead bodies to the mortuary for postmortem examination. P W 5 Sita Ram Shukla, Head Moharrir proved the First Information report, chik report and other relevant en tries of the General Diary. PW6Dr. J. K. Verma examined the injuries of PW 1 Smt. Mayawati and proved the injury report, Ext. Ka4. P W 7 Jora Singh, S.O. Incharge, Police Station Sursa conducted investigation in the case and submitted chargesheet against the accused persons. PW 8 Dr. A. K. Mehrotra conducted the postmortem examination on the dead bodies of the deceased and proved the postmortem reports Ex. Ka22 and Ka23. PW 9 Raghuraj Singh, Clerk Constable, Police Lines, Hardoi proved the General Diary entries of the Police Lines.

On the other hand the accusedpersons denied the prosecution case and stated that they have been falsely implicated in this case due to enmity.

The learned Additional Sessions Judge, after considering the evidence on record came to the conclusion that the testimony of the eyewitnesses is not worthy of reliance and, therefore, he acquitted the accused persons vide judgment and order dated 1041980.

The State feeling aggrieved from the said judgment and order, filed the present appeal.

We have heard the learned Counsel for the State as well as Shri S. K. Mehrotra Counsel for respondents.

The State Counsel contended that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, has committed an error in appreciating the evidence of the two eyewitnesses and has wrongly recorded the finding that these two eyewitnesses are not worthy to be relied upon. The learned Additional Sessions Judge while appreciating the evidence of these witnesses pointed out several infirmities, contradictions and improbabilities in their statements. PW 1 Smt. Mayawati in her statement clearly stated that her father as well as grandfather left the house at about 8 a.m. alongwith Subhash and after their departure Ganga Ram from village Antwa and Komi 1 of village Jaluwa Kheda came to her house and asked about her father as well as her grandfather. She further stated that then she informed them that they had gone to village Jaluwa Kheda and that they would return back within a very short interval and on this they decided to wait for her father as well as grand father. PW 4 Ganga Ram, in his statement clearly stated that he reached the house of the deceased persons in order to take loan and within 2 to 3 minutes of his reaching another person also reached there who disclosed his name as Bodil. He further stated that after sometime Munna as well as Jai Chand came out from his house alongwith his relation and after some talks Munna asked him to wait for sometime and then they left the place of village Jaluwa Kheda. The statement of PW 4 Ganga Ram clearly belies the prosecution case that PW 4 Ganga Ram reached the house of the deceased persons after their departure to village Jaluwa Kheda. On the other hand the statement of PW 4 Ganga Ram clearly shows that when he reached the house of the deceased persons then Munna as well as Jai Chand both were present and he had also some talks with them There is no explanation why he was asked to remain there specially when there was no other work except that he wanted Rs. 50/ as loan. Bodil was not examined by the prosecution in this case. The story of the prosecution that these two persons reached after the departure of the complainant''s father and grandfather also stands belied by .the circumstance that Bodil is a resident of village Jaluwa Kheda and if he came from Jaluwa Kheda then they must have met in the way. Apart from this the learned Trial Judge also pointed out that the medical evidence did not support the prosecution case. PW 1 Smt. Mayawati clearly stated that she saw that all the accused persons were chasing her grandfather Munna and were inflicting injuries upon him with their respective weapons but surprisingly enough their is no other injury except one incised wound and abrasions on the deadbody of Munna. She further stated that thereafter Ram Singh accused gave Kanta blow to her grandfather but the Doctor also did not find any such Kanta blow on the deadbody of the deceased Munna. She further stated that Munna thereafter fell down and then Khushi Ram chopped off his neck with the help on knife. The Doctor found one incised wound alleged to have been caused by Khushi Ram and the other injuries were abrasions which could be caused by dragging. Again PW 1 Mayawati stated that after killing her father Jai Chand, accused persons took away Shirt, Tahmat and Banyan of her father but on the other hand PW 4 Ganga Ram has clearly stated that the Banyan which Jai Chand was wearing remained on the deadbody of Jai Chand and no one stripped it off from his body. According to the prosecution case Munna was chased by two of the accused persons namely Ram Singh and Khushi Ram and the accused persons remained standing at about 2530 paces from the place of Jai Chand and Jai Chand also remained standing there and did not try to run away when the accused persons were chasing Munna. It is further alleged that after killing Munna the accused persons rushed towards Jai Chand and started assaulting him. As pointed out above, it is not possible to believe that Jai Chand remained standing there and did not try to run away. Apart from this, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, after considering the testimony of these witnesses in great detail, recorded a finding that the statements of these two witnesses cannot be relied upon and it appears that they were not present at the time of the occurrence. The State Counsel failed to point out any such illegality or perversity in the judgment and order passed by the Trial Judge. We have also perused the statements of the eyewitnesses and we find ourselves in full agreement with the finding recorded by the Trial Judge and, therefore, in our opinion the State Appeal has no force and is, therefore, dismissed.

The State Appeal is, therefore, dismissed. The respondents are on bail. Their bail bonds are hereby discharged.