The State of U.P. vs Rameshwar Singh and Others

S.I. Jafri, J.—State of U.P. has filed this appeal against the judgment and order dated 29-11-1977 passed by Sri Ramji Lal IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Etah vide his judgment and order thereby purging the Respondents Rameshwar Singh, Raja Ram, Sher Singh, Ishwari, Ram Chandra, Soran and Raghubir Singh of the charges under Sections 396/147, 302 and 302/149 IPC in S.T. No. 19 of 1976,

It is a case of dacoity with murder in which seven persons from the side of complainant and one unknown dacoit were killed in shooting and one person from the side of complainant was injured. Complainant in the instant case is Babu Ram who lost his two sons, namely, Panna Lal and Tula Ram in the incident.

The facts as revealed by the prosecution are that on 27-9-1975, at about 5 p.m. in village Chandanpura, hemlet of village Bahooranpur, P.S. Sidhpura, District Ltah, Babu Kam (complainant, alongwith Dmanath, Babu, Jaivir Singh, Ram Sahai, Bankey Lal, was sitting at the chaupal of Bankey Lal exchanging friendly chat. Panna Lal son of the complainant and cousin Jayanti Prasad were conversing while sitting in front of the house of Pyare Singh. It was about that time that Kamta Kachi, resident of the same village, all of a sudden appeared at the scene in the company ot 8 or 9 miscreants from the eastern side whereas his brother Neksey alongwith 9-10 miscreants emerged from the side of the hut of Rameshwar Ahir and they launched a concerted attack at the house of Pyare. Miscreants, in tne first instance, shot down Panna Lal son of the complainant, Jayanti Prasad slipped inside the house out of fear and on being chased, he climbed on the roof of the house The dacoits chased Jayant Prasad and they shot down Jayant Prasad at the root of the house. Thereafter, all the dacoits targetted the house of the uncle of Babu Ram (complainant) and they shot down Pyare, his wife Smt. Triveni and his grand son, namely, Dharmendra as well as nexts son of the complainant, namely Tula Ram who was at that time present at the house of Pyare. On hearing the reports of firing, Dilla, alias Ram Dayal brother of Pyare Singh was attracted to the scene and he also was prayed on by the dacoits. Smt. Ram Lali, wife of Jayant Prasad son of Pyare, succeed ed to smuggle out of the house alongwith her son from the backdoor of the house whom also the dacoits were looking for. Dina Nath, a gun licensee of the village positioned himself vis-a-vis the dacoits and opened tire at the dacoits. Meanwhile, number of witnesses, namely, Dinanath, Bankey Lal, Ram Sahai, Jaivir Singh, Lala Ram, Lekhraj, Ramnath, Todi, Mulayam, Kishan Pal and Ramlal etc. were attracted to the scene of occurrence. Tne dacoits con tinued their looting spree at the house of the uncle of Babu Ram complainant for about 2-3 hours and they made away with licensed gun of Pyare along with other valuables. In the incident, one of the dacoits, namely, Shiv Shan- ker as was obvious from the engraving on his hand, was also killed in the firing opened by Dinanath aforesaid. Some oi the dacoits had also sustained injuries in the firing. According to the prosecution case, all the dacoits were attired in Khaki uniform. In the incident, Ram Sahai, uncle of Babu Ram had also sustained injuries. All the accused persons were recognised by the witnesses excluding unknown dacoits.

Report of the occurrence scribed by Jaivir Singh at the dictation of Babu Ram complainant was lodged at the Police Station by Matroo, the village Chaukidar where it was registered at 7:30 a.m. on 28-9-1975. On receipt of the written report, Panna Lal PW 4 registered a case in the General Diary of the Police Station u/s 396 IPC Investigation of the case was entrusted to S.I. Om Prakash Yadav, PW 5. He arrived at the scene of occurrence alongwith S.I.C.B. Sharma, A.S.I. Hari Singh Tyagi and the police force. We need not reiterate the precise details and would prefer to dwell on those facts which bear on the merit of the case. The Investigating Officer deputed the police force to huntdown the accused persons. He interrogated Smt. Ram Lali, widow of Jayanti Prasad. He also removed Ram Sahai injured for medical examination to Civil Hospital, Etah. He inspected the place of occurrence and prepared the side plan. Lateron. he interrogated other witnesses. He collected fire cartridges and other articles from the scene and prepared recovery memos. Dina Nath. who had braved the dacoits, produced fired cartidges and the Investigating Officer took them also into his possession and prepared recovery memos. S.I., C.B. Sharma prepared inquest reports of the body of the deceased and sent them for post mortem examination.

Autopsy on the dead bodies was conducted by Dr. S. Prasad, Dr. S.N. Bhatnagar, Dr. R.S. Gupta, Dr. R.R. Sharma, Dr. J.P.S. Chauhan.

After concluding the investigation, charge-sheet was submitted by the Investigating Officer in the court.

Accused persons pleaded not guilty to the charge and attributed their false implication in the case to enmity.

The prosecution examined in all six witnesses and out of them, Ram Babu PW 1, Dinanath PW 2, Jaivir Singh PW 3 and Ram Sahai (CW 1) were examined as ocular witnesses of the occurrence.

Ram Babu, complainant has dwelt in length on the prosecution case. His testimony is lent full corroboration by Dinanath PW 2 Jaivir Singh PW 3, Ram Sahai, CW 1, Ram Sahai who is injured in the occurrence is also an eye witness. The learned Sessions Judge in the conspectus of the evidence coupled with facts and circumstances on the record, came to the conclusion that the prosecution had failed to substantiate the charges against the Respondents and, consequently they were purged of the charges and acquitted. We have shifted the findings arrived at by the trial court very carefully and we find that the learned Sessions has given cogent reasons in brushing aside the evidence adduced by the prosecution in support of its case as unreliable.

We propose to deal with each and every finding arrived at by the trial court vis-a-vis the facts and circumstances on the record of the case and the evidence adduced by the prosecution. The learned Sessions has drawn a conclusion that the First Information Report of the occurrence was prepared after the Investigating Officer had arrived at the scene of the occurrence. To adjudge the merit of this finding, we advert to the finding of the trial court on this point. According to Babu Ram, FIR was scribed by Jaivir Singh PW 3 at the dictation of Babu Ram at the village between 8-930 p.m. in the night and handedover to village Chaukidar Matroo which the village Chaukidar delivered at the Police Station next morning i.e. on 28-9-1975 at 7:30 a.m. The reason disabling the village Chaukidar to proceed to Police Station during the night was ascribed to a Nala who was in spate. In a gruelling cross exa mination which the complainant was subjected to, ha conceded that at the time of occurrence, the Chaukidar alongwith 10-15 persons had managed to come over to the scene of occurrence after crossing the very Nala who was described in spate. The trial court has rightly deduced from the above set of circumstances that Nala, being in spate, should not have been a stumblig block for the Chaukidar to start for the Police Station in the night or he should have been able to arrive at the Police Station in the early hours of the morn ing of 28-9-1975. The another circumstances relied upon by the trial court to the retriment of the prosecution case is the variance in the distance given in chick report by the Head constable and in the inquest reports prepared by the Sub-Inspectors C.B Sharrna, in as much as that in the chik report the distance between the place of occurrence and the Police Station is shown as six miles while in the inquest report the distance has been given as 10 miles. In view of this contrariety, it is deducible that when the preparation of the inquest reports commenced, the first information report was not in existence. This inconsistency further undermines the truthfulness of the prosecution case.

There is yet another aspect which adds further dimension to the falsity of the prosecution case. Admittedly, all the eye witnesses examined in the case were collaterals and highly partisan. It is eloquent enough from the FIR lodged in the case that number of independent witnesses were attracted to the scene of occurrence but curiously enough, none of them was examined in the instant case nor any plausible explanation is forthcoming on the record for their non-examination. What is further intriguing is the non-examination of Dina Nath, a gun licensee of the village, in whose firing one dacoit had been killed. If further aggravates the suspicion about the veracity of the prosecution case. It has also come in the evidence that accused persons were known to the wilnesses and village people. Hence to inspite confidence in the prosecution case, independent corroboration was a necessity. In the conspectus of the above discussions, it will not be safe to place implicit reliance on the testimony of interested witnesses short of independent corroboration from independent witnesses.

To cap it all, no motive in the first information report for the commission of the crime by the accused persons has been disclosed. At a later stage, the prosecution sought to impute motive in the statements recorded u/s 161 Code of Criminal Procedure which is too feeble to be accepted as a gospel truth without being strengthened from any other facts or circumstances on the record. Under the circumstances, it is difficult for us to hold that the Respondents had a motive to commit the crime.

We have devoted our thoughtful considerations to the facts and circumstances on the record. We have re-appraised the evidence of the witnesses adduced by the prosecution and upon a consideration, we feel that we cannot eschew the possibility that dacoity had taken place during the night but at the same time, we find ourselves unable to hold that the resDondents were the authors of the crime in the aforesaid dacoity vis-a-vis the fact that the witnesses examined in the case were collaterals and they wsre highly partisan and interested and that the prosecution failed to examined independent witnesses quo their availability Hence we hold that it were not the Respondents who fad participated in the occurrence

In the result, the appeal filed by the State of U.P. fails. The Judgment and order acquitting the Respondents by the trial court is affirmed. The Respondents are on bail. They need not surrender and their bail bonds are discharged.