Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 2197 (ALL)

STATE OF U P v. SURENDRA SINGH

2003-09-19

M.C.JAIN, ONKARESHWAR BHATT

body2003
M. C. JAIN, J. The State has come up in the appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 1-9-1981 recorded by Sri Ikramul Bari, the then IV Addl. Sessions Judge, Bijnor in Sessions Trial No. 412 of 1980. The two respondents, namely, Surender Singh and Smt. Sanyogita were tried before the Court below. The charges against Surender Singh were under Sections 302 and 392 IPC whereas Smt. Sanyogita faced trial under Section 302 IPC read with Section 120-B IPC. 2. The deceased was Devi Singh alias Bhullan Singh. He used to reside in village Shahpur Sukha, P. S. Kiratpur, District Shahjahanpur and was aged about 35 years. Sanyogita accused lived nearby. In between the house of deceased and that of Sanyogita, a ruined Ghair existed. Devi Singh deceased had developed illicit relation with Sanyogita and used to spend a lot of money on her Smt. Vidyawati PW 1 (wife of Devi Singh deceased) became aware of it and after great pursuation succeeded in stopping the visits of Devi Singh to Smt. Sanyogita. Sanyogita resented it she was deprived of the financial benefit. The incident took place in between the night of 4/5. 6 1980 at the house of deceased Devi Singh. Since about a month before the incident, the accused Surender Singh, resident of a nearby village Sarkara Kheri started visiting the house of Sanyogita. Devi Singh objected to his visits several times and two days before the incident, he had again objected to his visit to the house of Sanyogita. He had asked Sanyogita also not to indulge in such immoral activities. Sanyogita then abused Devi Singh and Surender Singh also left offering threats to Devi Singh. This was the earlier background allegedly leading to the incident. 3. In between the fateful night and time at about 11. 30 Oclock, deceased Devi Singh, his wife and their children were sleeping in their inner courtyard. Surender Singh scaled southern wall of the house Smt. Vidyawati PW 1 woke up by sound but before she could intervene, the accused Surender Singh gave two Tabal blows in the left side of the neck of Devi Singh who met an instantaneous death. Vidyawati in the meantime got up from her cot but she was held by accused Surender Singh by her hand and he tried to drag her to the room, saying that he would kill her too. Vidyawati in the meantime got up from her cot but she was held by accused Surender Singh by her hand and he tried to drag her to the room, saying that he would kill her too. He made her to part with one earring and removed the other one from her ear believing the same to be gold. Vidyawati raised alarm. Om Prakash PW 3, Jamraj Singh PW 4 and Jagat Singh PW 6 and many other persons were attracted by her alarm to the house of Devi Singh deceased. These three named witnesses saw accused Surender Singh running away from the house of Devi Singh. They also noticed him making some sign to Sanyogita who was present at her door. Vidyawati got written the FIR by Surender Singh son of Jagdeo Singh and sent it through him to the police station where as case was registered at 2. 15 a. m. on 5-6-1980. The distance of the police station from the place of occurrence was 2 kms. S. O. Dharamveer Singh Tyagi PW 7 was present at the police station when the case was registered. The investigation was taken up by him. He visited the spot and busied himself with the activities related to investigation. The dead body, after being sealed, was sent for post-mortem which was conducted on 6-6-1980 at 9 a. m. by Dr. B. B. Sharma PW 8. 4. Two incised wounds on left side of the neck, each measuring 10 cm x 2 cm x vertebra deep, 6 cm from left ear were found on the person of the deceased. The direction was horizontal. Both the injuries were parallel to each other and also parallel to left mandible. The trachea was incised and larynx carotid artery and left jugular vein were also cut. There was also fracture of third cervical vertebra. The death was the result of shock and haemorrhage produced by these injuries. 5. Apart from Doctor, Investigating Officer and other formal witnesses, the prosecution relied on the testimony of deceaseds wife Vidyawati PW 1 as eyewitness. On Prakash PW 3, Jamraj Singh PW 4 and Jagat Singh PW 6 claimed themselves to have seen Surender Singh running away from the spot with Tabal (weapon of the offence ). Om Prakash PW 3 also stated that he was Sanyogita standing at her door to whom Surender Singh made some gesture or sign. On Prakash PW 3, Jamraj Singh PW 4 and Jagat Singh PW 6 claimed themselves to have seen Surender Singh running away from the spot with Tabal (weapon of the offence ). Om Prakash PW 3 also stated that he was Sanyogita standing at her door to whom Surender Singh made some gesture or sign. All the three witnesses allegedly had flashing torches. 6. As the prosecution evidence did not appeal to the trial Judge, he recorded the impugned judgment of acquittal which has been assailed by the State in this appeal. 7. We have heard Sri R. S. Maurya, learned A. G. A. from the side of State and Sri Vinay Saran, learned counsel for the respondents. The record of the case has been summoned before us which we have carefully perused. On careful consideration, we are of the firm opinion that there is no infirmity or illegality in the finding of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Judge. We shall set out reasons in this behalf in the succeeding discussion. 8. It was a night incident. Though the motive is not evidence in a case, but it satisfies the judicial mind about the authorship of a particular crime. In the case at hand, the motive assigned by the prosecution for the commission of crime in question does not have the attraction of logic. The prosecution case and evidence is that illicit relations between the deceased and Sanyogita had come to an end because Vidyawati PW 1 had been able to prevail upon her husband. Therefore, she (Sanyogita) had allegedly developed illicit relations with another person - Surender Singh accused. Devi Singh deceased himself having illicit intimacy with Sanyogita earlier could hardly have any moral authority to object to the affair between Surender Singh and Sanyogita. Surender Singh who was enjoying illicit relationship with Sanyogita with the consent of the latter could also not have thought of murdering Devi Singh, the former paramour of Sanyogita. In fact, the motive assigned by the prosecution is like a square peg in a round hole. Greater possibility, on the other hand, is of the accused respondents having been nominated as culprits knowingly falsely or merely on suspicion. It has to be kept in mind that Vidyawati PW 1 was an aggrieved person, inasmuch as her husband was earlier involved in amorous affair with Sanyogita. Greater possibility, on the other hand, is of the accused respondents having been nominated as culprits knowingly falsely or merely on suspicion. It has to be kept in mind that Vidyawati PW 1 was an aggrieved person, inasmuch as her husband was earlier involved in amorous affair with Sanyogita. She might have thought of avenging herself by implicating Sanyogita as well as her new paramour for the murder of her husband. 9. That apart, the testimony of Vidyawati PW 1 was that Surender Singh accused was seen by her in the first instance on the south of the cot and that he assaulted Devi Singh when he was on the west of the cot i. e. towards the head of the victim. In that position he would have been almost at the top of the head of the victim. She was categorical that he was on the side of the head of her husband when he gave two Tabal blows to him. The two horizontal incised wounds sustained by the deceased on left side of neck could not be caused from the side of her head. The same could be caused either from north or south of the cot. According to the evidence of Vidyawati PW 1, the head of the deceased was towards the western side. 10. The subsequent conduct assigned by her to the accused Surender Singh was also difficult to be believed. A person who had come to murder and had accomplished him job would not stay at the scene of the crime any longer merely to obtain earrings of the witness - Vidyawati PW 1, believing the same to be of gold. There could have hardly be any purpose in his pulling Vidyawati to her room, saying that he would kill her also. If he wanted to kill her, he could have done so at that very spot, instead of dragging her to the room and then making her to part with her earrings. Learned trial Judge has rightly observed that this part of the story was introduced in order to show that she had sufficient time and opportunity to see and recognize the assailant. Further, he had allegedly reached the courtyard by scaling the southern wall of the house. Learned trial Judge has rightly observed that this part of the story was introduced in order to show that she had sufficient time and opportunity to see and recognize the assailant. Further, he had allegedly reached the courtyard by scaling the southern wall of the house. He could have easily escaped that way and would not have been fool enough to make his exit through the door of the house opening in the eastern side so as to provide opportunity to the witnesses to see him running away. 11. It was equally doubtful that Vidyawati PW 1 waking up from a deep slumber on a sound could be in a position to put her mental faculties in full working to see the assault on her husband. The inflicting of two blows with Tabal would not have taken much time. 12. The witnesses Om Prakash PW 3, Jamraj Singh PW 4 and Jagat Singh PW 6 stated that Vidyawati had told them that the murder was committed by Surender Singh accused, but Vidyawati did not say so. These three witnesses also did not say to the Investigating Officer that Vidyawati had told them any such thing. It is not free from doubt that Vidyawati had known about the identity of the assailant at the time of the occurrence. 13. The other witnesses examined by the prosecution have rightly been turned by the trial Court to be unreliable and unnatural. Vidyawati PW 1 stated that when she raised alarm, Surender Singh accused left her and fled through the door. Obviously, it would have been a matter of seconds between the raising of alarm by her and going out of the accused Surender Singh through the door. Jamraj Singh PW 4 and Jagat Singh PW 6 stated that they were at the Ghair of one of them Jagat Singh waiting for electricity to start the tubewell. The Ghair of Jagat Singh was said to be 40 paces towards west from the road junction on the south side of the house of the victim. The road junction was itself 40 paces south from the door of the victim. It was unbelievable coincidence that they had set out from the Ghair and had reached the road junction at the same time when Vidyawati had raised alarm. The road junction was itself 40 paces south from the door of the victim. It was unbelievable coincidence that they had set out from the Ghair and had reached the road junction at the same time when Vidyawati had raised alarm. Similarly, Om Prakash PW 3 had got up at the same time to urinate and heard alarm raised by Vidyawati. Jamraj Singh PW 4 and Jagat Singh PW 6 have also not been consistent as regards the exact spot from where they allegedly saw accused Surender Singh running away. Jagat Singh PW 6 stated that when he saw the accused Surender Singh, the accused Surender Singh was facing north and he was towards south from him. Indeed, he could not see his face when he was running away. Jamraj Singh PW 4 being with him also could not have a better opportunity to see the face of the culprit. Jagat singh PW 6 appeared to be a pocket witness of the police too as he admitted that he deposed in a number of cases on behalf of the police. He also admitted that Jamraj Singh PW 4 deposed with him in most of those cases. Jamraj Singh PW 4 himself tried to conceal this fact by denying that he had so deposed in several of those cases. Jagat Singh PW 6 also admitted that he had advanced Rs. 2500 to Farrukh Khan for purchase of land but that land was purchased by the accused Surender Singh and there was quarrel between him and Surender Singh accused in that connection. He also admitted that he had given crusher to Anand Swarup, that Anand Swarup had prosecuted Surender Singh accused for theft of groundnut and he had deposed in favour of Anand Swarup. He was obviously inimical against the accused Surender Singh and was wholly untrustworthy. Jamraj Singh PW 4 was intimate friends of Jagat Singh as was borne out from the evidence. They were ends of the same father Om Prakash PW 3 had allegedly joined the other two witnesses in chasing Surender Singh accused. It is doubtful that he had actually seen and recognized the accused Surender Singh running with Tabal as he claimed. 14. Our conclusion is that on the fluid and unsatisfactory evidence produced at the trial, the accused - respondents could not be held guilty of the offences of which they were charged. It is doubtful that he had actually seen and recognized the accused Surender Singh running with Tabal as he claimed. 14. Our conclusion is that on the fluid and unsatisfactory evidence produced at the trial, the accused - respondents could not be held guilty of the offences of which they were charged. The greater possibility was of their having been implicated either knowingly falsely or on suspicion. 15. On threadbare analysis of the evidence and related circumstances, we see no ground to differ from the conclusion arrived at by the learned trial Court. Finding no merit in appeal, we hereby dismiss the same. Appeal dismissed. .