Umed Singh and Others vs The State of Haryana

S.S Dewan, J.—Umed Singh, Jai Dev, Smt. Santosh and Smt. Santra Appellants along with their co-accused namely Karambir, Joginder, Smt. Bedo and Suraj Bhan were throught to trial before the Court of Session at Sonepat. The learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the aforesaid four accused of the charges and while holding Umed Singh and Jai Dev Appellants guilty of the offence u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Smt Santosh and Smt. Santro u/s 302 read with Section 149 of the India Penal Code, sentenced each of them to life imprisonment. Feeling aggrieved, they have challenged their convictions and sentences by filing Criminal Appeal No. 193-DB of 1986 The State of Haryana filed Criminal Appeal No. 550-DBA of 1986 against the acquittal of the aforesaid four accused. This judgment will govern both the appeals.

About one year prior to the present occurrence, there was a fight between Narinder Singh deceased of this case with his elder brother Umed Singh, now one of the accused and in that occurrence Jagbir Singh son of Umed Singh was killed. Narinder Singh deceased and Rajinder Singh were arrested and challaned by the police. In that case the deceased and Rajinder Singh were released on bail and the accused felt sore against the complainant party on that account.

The prosecution case is that on 30th August, 1984, at about 1.30 P M., Smt. Vedo widow of Narinder Singh deceased and her two daughters Kamlesh and Anita were sitting on a cot lying in front of their house in the area of village Katlupur. Narinder Singh was returning from the village Chaupal, where villagers had gathered since the Block Development Officer visited the village and when he reached in front of the house of Umed Singh, the accused party variously armed, came out from the house of Umed Singh. A lalkara was raised by the accused party to take revenge from Narinder Singh for the murder of Jagbir Singh. The deceased was then surrounded by the accused. It is alleged that Jai Dev accused opened the attack by giving a kassi blow on the head of Narinder Singh and when he fell down, then Bedo, Santosh and Santro held him down and Umed Singh gave Pharsa blows on his face and throat. Suraj Bhan gave a lathi blow on his forehead followed by Joginder who gave Ballam hlows on his belly and throat. Karambir gave Kulhari blows on the head and back of Narinder Singh and Jai Dev gave a Kassi blow at his back. As and when Smt. Bedo and her daughter Kamlesh tried to rescue Narinder Singh, Suraj Bhan gave a lathi blow on the left shoulder of Bedo and Santro gave a teeth bite on the left shoulder of Kamlesh who in return gave a teeth bite on the left shoulder of Santro. Smt. Vedo and her daughters raised hue and cry but nobody came forward to their help Narinder Singh succumbed to his injuries on the spot Saheb Singh Chaukidar of village Katlupur met Gian Chand, Assistant Sub Inspector of Police Station, Rai at Pio Maniari Chauk and apprised him of the said incident. The police party rushed to village Katlupur and found the dead body of Narinder Singh lying at the place of occurrence.

The Assistant Sub Inspector Gian Chand recorded the statement Ex. PA of Smt Bedo and on the basis of that statement formal F.I.R. Ex. PA/1 was recorded at Police Station, Rai. The visual plan Ex. PK of the place of occurrence was prepared. Gian Chand held inquest Ex PE/1 and sent the dead body of Narinder Singh to the mortuary for autopsy. The bloodstained earth was also taken into possession from the spot. The accused were searched by the Inspector Arjan Singh but they were not traceable. They were, however, subsequently arrested on 1.9.1984 and 4 9.1984. Umed Singh and Jai Dev accused were interrogated by the said Investigating Officer and they have suffered disclosure statements leading to the recovery of Pharsa Ex. P.6 and Kassi Ex P 7 from the specified places of concealment.

Dr. H R. Singal PW 4 medically examined Kamlesh and Smt Bedo on 30th August, 1984 at about 9 P M. and found two injuries on the person of Kamlesh and one simple injury on Smt. Bedo as detailed in the medico legal reports Exs PC and PD respectively.

Dr O. P. Mittal PW 5 conducted autopsy on the dead body of Narinder Singh on 31st August, 1984 at 9 A M. and found 7 incised wounds and one stab wound as detailed in the post-morterm report Ex PE. Death was opined to be due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of injuries to the vital organs i.e. the brain and large vessels of neck and multiple fractures which were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature The probable time that elapsed between injuries and death was stated to be within a few minutes and between death and post-mortem within 24 hours. Dr. Mukesh Kumar PW.3 examined Santosh wife of Umed Singh accused on 1st September, 1984 at 10 15 P.M. and found one simple injury on her person as detailed in the medico legal report Ex PB After necessary investigation, the accused were challaned and committed.

The ocular testimony consists of Smt. Bedo PW.1 and Kamlesh PW. 2. Gian Chand Assistant Sub inspector PW 12 and Inspector Arjan Singh PW. 14 are the main Investigating Officers The remaining evidence is of formal nature. When examined u/s 313, Criminal Procedure Code, the accused denied the prosecution allegations and pleaded false implication in the case. Jai Dev accused pleaded alibi. Umed Singh accused, however, gave his own version that on the fateful day while his daughter-in-law, Smt. Santra accused was cutting wood in front of his house, Narinder Singh deceased came there in dunken brawl and misbehaved with her and that in order to save her honour, he (Umed Singh) caused some injuries to the deceased with a Pharsa.

8 Balwan Singh, Rohtash Kumar, Chet Ram, Siri Kishan Verma, Rajinder Kumar, Sube Singh Head Constable and Anand Sarup were examined by the accused in defence.

The learned Counsel for the Appellants argued that mere ipse dixit of eye-witnesses who were interested and inimical is not sufficient to maintain the conviction and sentence of the Appellants and the Court must look for independent corroboration of their statements. We find no merit in the contention advanced by the learned Counsel It is no doubt true that Smt Bedo and Kamlesh P Ws were interested in the deceased but that by itself is no ground for discarding their statements straightaway nor does it warrant a search for independent corroboration of their statements. However, there is no gain-saying the fact that their testimony has to be viewed with caution and requires close scrutiny. The number and location of injuries on their persons leave no doubt whatsoever in our mind about their presence at the time of occurrence. By and large, their testimony does not suffer from any material infirmity.

The only improvement that the eye-witnesses made on their previous statements and which the learned Counsel for the Appellants considered rather material were with regard to the presence of injuries on the person of the deceased. In the F. I. R. Ex. PA/1, some of the injuries alleged to have been received by the deceased at the hands of Umed Singh and Jai Dev Appellants were not specified by Smt. Bedo, but at the trial she had explained as to how and on which part of the body, the deceased received injuries by the said Appellants. This is simply an omission and can hardly be described as improvement. One does not expect the first informant to supply every minute detail in the First Information Report. What she stated at the trial amounts to an amplification of her statement given in the First Information Report and this cannot be considered an improvement much less material deviation from the version given in the earlier statement The fact that the names of the Appellants and the weapons used by them find mention in the First Information Report which appears to be spontaneous, further strengthens the intrinstic readability of the testimony of Smt. Bedo in this regard. The testimony of Smt. Bedo finds further corroboration from the testimony of Kamlesh PW.2 and also from the medical evidence and the recovery of blood-stained earth from the place of occurrence.

The learned Counsel next argued that there is considerable delay in lodging of the First Information Report which must have been utilised by the complainant party in connivance with the investigating Officer, in evolving a twisted and fabricated version involving falsely their enemies though otherwise innocent. There is no doubt about the fact that there was some delay in lodging of the First Information Report but that by and large stands explained. It emerges from the evidence on record that the police party headed by the Assistant Sub Inspector Gian Chand was present at Chauk Pio Maniari on the G. T. road in connection with the patrol duty and Saheb Singh Chawkidar met him and apprised him of the said incident. Gian Chand then rushed to the place of occurrence and recorded the statement of Smt. Bedo On the basis of that statement, formal F. I. R. Ex. PA/1 was recorded at the Police Station, Rai, at 7 P. M. on the same day. The Special Report reached the Ilaqa Magistrate at 10.05 P.M. The witnesses were bound to take more than usual time both on account of the death of Narinder Singh and also on account of the injuries sustained by them. An hour or two''s delay, there might have been in lodging of the First Information Report and the trial Court took due account of this delay. We are, however, of the opinion that the delay, if any, in lodging the First information Report has not at all contributed to the false implication of Umed Singh and Jai Dev Appellants in the crime or the false introduction of the persons as eye-witnesses of the occurrence.

Unable to offer any meaningful criticism against the testimony of the stamped witnesses, it was sought to be argued that Saheb Singh Chaukidar who was apprised of this incident by the witnesses, was given up by the prosecution as won over. This submission again can hardly hold water. It is well known that the evidence has to be weighed and not counted. The testimony of Saheb Singh could be nothing more than a pure duplication of what has been deposed by the injured witnesses. In these circumstances, we are of the view that non-production of Saheb Singh does not in the least detract from the prosecution case. The learned defence counsel then contended that no one of the adjoining householders has come to support the prosecution case. The eye-witnesses have categorically stated that in spile of their hue and cry no one from the neighbourhood came to the spot. In the premises, we are unable to see how the prosecution was obliged to call any other witness in the absence of any positive suggestion that somebody else had also witnessed the occurrence

As regards Smt Santra and Smt. Santosh Appellants, we are of the opinion that it is not certain that these Appellants, in fact, participated in the occurrence. Besides the testimony of two eyewitnesses, there exists no other objective circumstance to connect these Appellants with the crime. The injuries on the persons of the deceased and P Ws are such which the two Appellants Umed Singh and Jai Dev could have inflicted with their respective weapons. It is well known that there is a tendency on the part of the complainant party to throw the net wider to rope in the innocent relations of the culprits. Accordingly, out of abundant caution, we consider it safe to accord benefit of doubt to Smt. Santra and Smt. Santosh Appellants and acquit them of all the charges.

During the course of argumants, Mr Dara Singh contended before us, that once it was found by the trial Court that the prosecution witnesses had not given a truthful account qua the acquitted accused, namely Karambir Joginder, Smt. Bedo and Suraj Bhan, it was improper for it to maintain the conviction of the Appellants on the basis of the same tainted evidence. The contention appears to be untenable. The mere fact that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses was not firm and safe enough to be relied on with regard to the part assigned to the acquitted accused in the occurrence, was no ground to reject it mechanically against Umed Singh and Jai Dev Appellants also. The maxim falsus in uno falsus in omnibus is not to be bindly invoked in appraising evidence adduced in our Courts where witnesses seldom tell the whole truth, but often resort to exaggration, embellishments and padding-up, to support the story, however, true in the main. It is the function of the Court to disengage the truth from falsehood and to accept what it finds to be true and reject the rest It is only where truth and falsehood are inextricably mixed up, polluting beyond refinement, down to the core, the entire fabric of the narration given by a witness that the Court might be justified in rejecting his evidence in toto In the present case, the trial Court has not positively held that the eye-witnesses in their evidence had falsely implicated the four acquitted accused. It only found that qua the acquitted accused their evidence was infirm and the requisite confirmation of their evidence from independent sources was lacking. The case against Umed Singh and Jai Dev Appellants stood on a far better footing. The interested evidence of Smt. Bedo and Kamlesh P Ws had been sufficieatly corroborated by the medical and circumstantial evidence so far as the said two Appellants are concerned We have also a number of other subsidiary circumstances in support of the prosecution case noticed by the trial Court in the judgment under appeal.

About the defence version, the little said the better. There is not a tittle of evidence to support the cryptic plea of Umed Singh Appellants from its inherent incredibility that Narinder Singh deceased had misbehaved with his (Umed Singh''s) daughter in-law Smt. Santra and that in order to save her honour, he caused injuries to him with a Pharsa. The deceased and the witnesses had sustained as many as 11 injuries and all these injuries could not have been caused by Umed Singh alone. We are clearly of the view that the prosecution has established its version beyond any doubt against Umed Singh and Jai Dev Appellants. The nature of the injuries along with the designed and malicious intentent of the Appellants would leave no manner of doubt that the offence comes squarely within the ambit of Section 302 Indian Penal Code.

For the foregoing reasons, we find that the trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced Umed Singh and Jai Dev Appellants. Their appeal is hereby dismissed. In the result, Criminal Appeal No. 193-DB of 1986 qua Smt. Santra and Smt. Santosh Appellants is allowed for the reasons indicated above.

The State of Haryana has filed appeal against the acquittal of accused Karambir. Joginder, Smt. Bedo and Suraj Bhan. We do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the trial Judge who after due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case acquitted the said accused. The State Appeal No. 550-DBA of 1986 is, therefore, dismissed

Sd./- Harbans Singh Rai, J.