State of U.P. vs Shivnath Singh and Others

M.C. Jain, J.—The State of U.P. has come up in appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 30.11.1981 recorded by Sri Gaya Prasad, the then Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Mainpuri in Sessions Trial No. 245 of 1981. He acquitted the three accused Respondents Shiv Nath Singh, Badshah Singh and Brajraj Singh of the charges under Sections 148 and 302, I.P.C. read with Section 149, I.P.C.

The relevant facts may be noted. The deceased was one Rati Bhan Singh and the incident occurred on 15.11.1980 at about 4 p.m. near the culvert of village Sovanpur, Police Station Bevar, district Mainpuri. The F.I.R. was lodged by P.W. 1 Arvind Singh, an eye-witness, the same day at 6.15 p.m. The distance of the Police Station from the place of occurrence was about five miles. The case of the prosecution as per the F.I.R. and the evidence adduced in the Court was that the deceased Rati Bhan Singh was resident of village Todarpur and had informed the police of Police Station Bevar about the involvement of the accused Respondents in the murder of a barber in that village. Consequently, the accused Respondent Shiv Nath Singh was called by the police and interrogated. Rati Bhan Singh was doing pairvi in that case. For this reason, the accused Respondents started harbouring grudge against the deceased Rati Bhan Singh. On the fateful day and time the deceased Rati Bhan Singh, P.W. 1 Arvind Singh and P.W. 2 Samer Jeet Singh were going from Bevar to the village Todarpur on cycles. Two unknown cyclists were also going ahead of them, when they reached near a heap of earth in the neighbourhood of the bridge of Sovanpur, Rati Bhan Singh lagged behind a little on his cycle. P.W. 1 Arvind Singh and P.W. 2 Samer Jeet Singh and two known persons went a bit ahead of him. When they reached near the Sheesam tree beyond the bridge of village Sovanpur, they saw the three accused Respondents with two unknown persons sitting beneath the Sheesam tree. P.W. 1 Arvind Singh and P.W. 2 Samer Jeet Singh passed the Sheesam tree and then heard the sound of firing from behind them. Turning to the backside, they saw that the three accused Respondents opened 3-4 shots on Rati Bhan Singh with their country made pistols due to which he fell down by the side of the pavement along with cycle. Shiv Nath Singh and others pointed their pistols towards Arvind Singh and Samar Jeet Singh on spotting them standing and held out that they would meet the same fate if they dared to proceed further. Thereafter, the accused persons ran away. Then Arvind Singh and Samar Jeet Singh went near Rati Bhan Singh and found him dead. The incident was also witnessed by the persons working in nearby fields and passersby. Arvind Singh sent Samar Jeet Singh to village Todarpur to pass on information of the incident at the house of the deceased and himself tarried near the dead body. The family members of Rati Bhan Singh came to the spot. Arvind Singh then went to the Police Station Bevar and made over written report of the incident on the basis of which a case was registered and investigation started at the hands of P.W. 6, S.I. Mohammad Khan who proceeded to the spot instantaneously, but could not prepare the inquest report owing to darkness of the night. The inquest report was prepared the following morning and the dead body was ultimately sent for post-mortem which was conducted on 16.11.1980 at 4 p.m. by P.W. 4 Dr. J. P. Gupta. 4 gunshot wounds of entry and 3 of exit were found on the person of the deceased besides an abrasion over right side of back. Gunshot wounds of entry were on right lateral surface in chest, left side of back and left side of abdomen, posteriorily lateral side.

The defence was of denial and of false implication due to enmity.

Besides documentary evidence and formal witnesses including the Investigating Officer and the doctor conducting autopsy on the dead body of the deceased, the star eye-witnesses of the prosecution were P.W. 1 Arvind Singh, P.W. 2 Samar Jeet Singh and P.W. 3 Hem Singh. The evidence adduced by the prosecution did not commend itself to the learned trial Judge who recorded acquittal. Consequently, the matter is in appeal before this Court.

We have heard Sri R. S. Maurya, learned A.G.A. from the side of State in support of the appeal and Sri Ravindra Singh, learned Counsel for the accused Respondents in opposition thereof. According to the learned A.G.A., the learned trial Judge committed grave error in ignoring the trustworthy evidence of as many as 3 eye-witnesses which was in conformity with medical evidence. On the other hand, the submission of the learned Counsel for accused Respondents is that the presence of so-called eye-witnesses at the spot was wholly doubtful. They were not only interested witnesses, but were partisan too and their testimonial assertions were not in agreement with the medical evidence as contained in the autopsy report.

We have carefully scrutinized the evidence on record in the light of the arguments advanced from the two sides and have also bestowed our thought to the concomitant circumstances. To begin with, it deserves mention that though motive is not essential to be proved in a case of direct evidence but at times it satisfies the judicial mind about the authorship of a particular crime. Further, when the prosecution comes up with a motive, it is required to be tested as to whether it could form the foundation for commission of a crime by a particular accused. In the case at hand, the motive assigned by the prosecution against the accused Respondents for commission of murder of Rati Bhan Singh as disclosed by latter''s son-in-law P.W. 1 Arvind Singh was that a month before the incident a barber, resident of village Todarpur had been murdered and Rati Bhan Singh had passed on information to the police that the present accused Respondents had committed that crime and he was also doing pairvi in that case. We do not think that it could form sufficient motive for the accused Respondents to have murdered Rati Bhan Singh. It is not known whether investigation in that case had resulted in submission of charge-sheet against all or any of them. It was far fetched that simply because of information having been passed on to the police by Rati Bhan Singh that they were the murderers of the barber, they would hasten to commit another murder of the so-called informer. We are of the view that the motive assigned by the prosecution for commission of the murder of Rati Bhan Singh was weak and frail.

Secondly, there did not appear to be any common bond amongst the three accused Respondents which could have joined them in perpetrating this crime of the murder of Rati Bhan Singh. The stand of accused Respondent Badshah Singh was that he had old enmity with the accused Respondent Shiv Nath Singh and litigation was going on. The same was the stand of the accused Respondent Shiv Nath Singh who pleaded enmity and litigation not only with Badshah Singh but with accused Respondent Braj Raj Singh also. All the accused Respondents as also P.W. 2 Samar Jeet Singh belonged to village Todarpur. When subjected to cross-examination, P.W. 2 Samar Jeet Singh could not deny that Shiv Nath Singh had lodged so many complaints against Badshah Singh. To come out of the difficult situation, he only pleaded ignorance. To come to the point, there did not appear to be any common bond amongst the three accused Respondents to join hands for this crime.

Superficially, it could be said that the three eye-witnesses supported the prosecution version, but their testimonial assertions did not answer the test of reliability and their presence at the spot was quite doubtful. P.W. 1 Arvind Singh informant was the own son-in-law of the deceased. To explain his presence at the spot, he stated that on the date of incident Rati Bhan Singh had summoned him from his village through some one at Bevar and he had, therefore, reached Bevar to meet him from his village which was at a distance of about 9 miles. He met Rati Bhan Singh at about 2.30 or 3 p.m. at Bevar crossing. He could not name the person who went to call him. He also did not enquire from him as to for what purpose he had been summoned by his father-in-law. He had not told him as to what spot he had to see his father-in-law at Bevar. Even when he allegedly met his father-in-law Rati Bhan Singh at Bevar crossing, he did not enquire from him the purpose of summoning him. He also did not ask his father-in-law as to from where he himself had reached Bevar. According to him, Rati Bhan Singh simply asked him to accompany him to his house and at about 3 p.m. he, Rati Bhan Singh and Samer Jeet Singh started from Bevar to the village. It is also in his statement that Samer Jeet Singh met in the market at about 3 p.m. He admitted that Chetram Kahar was living at the house of Rati Bhan Singh but could not say whether he contested the election of Pradhan against Shiv Nath Singh accused at the instance of Rati Bhan Singh. To come to the point, the reason assigned by P.W. 1 Arvind Singh for his presence at the spot was not at all convincing.

P.W. 2 Samar Jeet Singh claimed to have gone to Bevar on the fateful day for purchasing cloth and he was returning therefrom when he allegedly joined Rati Bhan Singh and P.W. 1 Arvind Singh for return journey when he allegedly met them in Bevar market crossing at about 1.30 p.m. According to him, he did not have any talk either with Rati Bhan Singh or Arvind Singh so long he remained in Bevar as well as in the way. It is also in his statement that the incident took place on the day of Bevar Market, which falls on Tuesday and Friday. The incident, however, took place on Saturday. Therefore, the very purpose for which he had allegedly gone to Bevar, i.e., marketing, as per his own saying is clearly falsified. The deceased Rati Bhan Singh was present in the office of Sub-Registrar Bhogaon from 1 to 2 p.m. that day as per the copy of sale deed Ex. Kha-1 whereof he was an attesting witness. The deceased was having a cycle with him and naturally he must have proceeded to Bevar from Bhogaon by his cycle. The distance of Bevar from Bhogaon being 17-18 Km., he would have taken at least 1-1/2 hours in covering this distance. Therefore, the meeting of P.W. 2 Samar Jeet Singh with him at Bevar market crossing at about 1.30 p.m. was not possible and for the same reason, the meeting of P.W. 1 Arvind Singh with the deceased at about 2 or 2.30 p.m. is also belied. However, P.W. 2 Samar Jeet Singh did not state before the Investigating Officer that he met the deceased and Arvind Singh in Bevar. Rather he claimed that when he was putting on chain of his cycle at the bridge of Majhola, Rati Bhan Singh and his son-in-law Arvind Singh met him who were coming on cycles. Two falsehoods fight between themselves. It was wholly artificial that he had actually met the deceased in Bevar and was returning with him when he allegedly witnessed the incident.

The so-called third eye-witness P.W. 3 Hem Singh could only be categorised as a chance witness and his alleged presence at the spot was shattered to pieces as was evident from the scrutiny of his cross-examination. According to him, on the date of incident he and his nephew Shyam Pratap were going to village Keshavpur to see a ''would be'' bridegroom. Shyam Pratap Singh was not his real nephew. According to him, he went to the house of Shyam Pratap resident of village Dhirpur Jyonta, district Farrukhabad a day before the incident. He could not say whether there was any straight way from Jyonta to village Keshavpur via Nabiganj. He also stated that he did not know Rati Bhan Singh and P.W. 1 Arvind Singh from before the incident. Nor did he know P.W. 2 Samar Jeet Singh from before. He insisted that he knew the accused persons from before. It came down from him that he had no relations in village Todarpur. He knew the accused persons as he used to come to the house of Virendra Singh. His version was that the names of Rati Bhan Singh, Arvind Singh and Samar Jeet Singh came to his knowledge at the place of incident and from the persons who had assembled there. This witness also stated that after the incident, he left the spot within two minutes leaving P.W. 1 Arvind Singh and P.W. 2 Samar Jeet Singh near the dead body. On the other hand, the statement of P.W. 2 Samar Jeet Singh was that he left the place of occurrence to pass on information at the house of the deceased leaving Hem Singh and Shyam Pratap Singh near the dead body. Such material contradictions had crept in simply because the witnesses had spoken out of their imagination to prop up the prosecution story. The fact is also there that no independent witness has been examined, though as per the statement of P.W. 1 Arvind Singh, 7-8 persons working nearby the scene of incident had also witnessed the incident.

Not only this, there is noticeable inconsistency between the ocular version and the medical evidence. As per P.W. 2 Samar Jeet Singh the accused persons had surrounded the victim from the front and had started firing. At that time, Rati Bhan Singh was facing east and the accused Respondents were facing west. As per the post-mortem, the three exit wounds were on the front side of the deceased and the entrance wounds over back side, suggesting that the deceased had been fired at from the back side. It would also be recalled that as per the prosecution case, the deceased was cycling when he was fired at by the accused Respondents. P.W. 4 Dr. J. P. Gupta who conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased ruled out this possibility that the injuries in question could have been sustained by the deceased while cycling and the shots being fired by the assailants from the ground.

There is yet another speaking improbability in the prosecution case. There were allegedly two other unknown culprits who were also armed with country-made pistols but they did nothing excepting flaunting their postils as per the statement of P.W. 1 Arvind Singh. The statement of P.W. 2 Samar Jeet Singh is also to the effect that they simply threatened him and other witnesses with their pistols that they would meet the same fate if they dared to proceed further. It is incongruent that they were simply there to make a show. It also does not fit in the scheme of things that despite having taken with them two unknown armed assailants, the accused Respondents did not avail of their services in doing the job. Instead, they took it upon themselves to cut short the life of the victim. If they could avail of the services of unknown armed assailants, they could accomplish the job through them without involving themselves.

Taking stock of entire prosecution evidence and the attending circumstances, we endorse the judgment recorded by the learned trial Judge who made a thorough discussion to come to the right conclusion. He has given cogent and convincing reasons which are sustainable. The conviction could not be pronounced simply because the prosecution examined there so-called eye-witnesses. The in-depth analysis of their testimony in conjunction with medical evidence exposed their falsity rendering it impossible to rely upon the prosecution story.

Endorsing the impugned judgment of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Judge, we hereby dismiss the appeal. The accused Respondents are on bail. They need not surrender.

A certified copy of this order along with the record of the case be sent to the court below for incorporating necessary entry in the concerned register under intimation to this Court within two months.