Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 123 (ALL)

RAM PRATAP SINGH v. STATE OF U P

2009-01-15

AMAR SARAN, R.N.MISRA

body2009
AMAR SARAN, J. This criminal ap peal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 22. 11. 1982 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Deoria convicting and sentencing the appellant Ram Pratap Singh to imprisonment for life under sec tion 302 IPC. However, by the same judg ment, the co-accused Munni Singh, Baij Nath Singh and Surendra Singh were acquitted of the charges under sections 302/34ipc. 2. Briefly, the prosecutions case was that at about 12. 30 in the night intervening 3/4. 12. 1980 when the informant Chhote Lal Singh along with his grand-father, Ram Lachhan Singh, the deceased were sleeping in the verandah (Osara) of their house, his uncle Ram Narain Singh and his cousin brother Vyas Singh were sleeping on the verandah (Osara) of the adjoining house, the appellant Ram Pratap Singh armed with bomb, co-accused Munni Singh and Baij Nath Singh armed with guns and Surendra Singh carrying a lathi arrived there. The accused persons challenged Ram Lachhan Singh by hurling abuses and thereafter appellant Ram Pratap Singh hurled a bomb on him. On this the infor mant and others woke up. Ram Lachhan Singh died on the spot as a result of the bomb injury. The accused persons were identified in the torch light and in the light of the lantern, which was burning there in the verandah. The accused ran away from the spot threatening to shoot down or to hurl bombs on the witnesses. They were not followed by the witnesses out of fear. 3. The report of this incident, which was scribed by Vyas Singh, was lodged at about 6. 15 AM on 4. 12. 1980 at PS Ru-drapur, which was at a distance of about 4 miles, by Chhote Lal Singh. The pending civil and criminal litigation between the parties was said to be the cause of the inci dent. The Check FIR (Ext. Ka-1) was pre pared by PW 1 HC Davan Chaubey. He also made the GD entry (Ext. Ka-2 ). 4. P. W. 5, S. O. Virendra Kumar Singh, Second Officer at the police station, who was the investigating officer of the case started investigating the case. He reached the spot of incident at about 7-8 A. M. and took the dead body of the de ceased Ram Lachhan Singh, which was lying at the doorstep of the informant, in possession. He also prepared the inquest report (Ext. He reached the spot of incident at about 7-8 A. M. and took the dead body of the de ceased Ram Lachhan Singh, which was lying at the doorstep of the informant, in possession. He also prepared the inquest report (Ext. Ka-7), photo laash (Ext. Ka-8), challan laash (Ext. Ka-9 ). He also prepared the site plan (Ext. Ka-10 ). He also collected the plain and bloodstained earth (Ext. Ka il and 12) and also picked up pieces of bomb (Ext. Ka 13) and burnt Rajai, Chadar and Dari etc. (Ext. Ka 14 ). 5. The investigating officer also ex amined Ram Narain Singh and Vyas Singh on the same day and on the next day he was shown the lantern and torches of the witnesses and he prepared their recovery memos (Ext. Ka 4 and 5 ). The accused sur rendered in Court on 19. 12. 1980. He sub mitted the charge sheet after completion of the investigation (Ext. Ka-15 ). 6. The body was sent for post mortem examination and the autopsy was conducted by PW 4, Dr. Chandra Bhushan Singh at 1. 30 PM on 5. 12. 1980 at the district hospital, Deoria. The body was brought in a sealed condition by Constable Achbar Singh. 7. According to the doctor, the de ceased was about 60 years in age. The death had taken place one and a half days prior to autopsy. Rigor mortis was present. The doctor found the following ante-mortem injuries on the body of the de ceased: "1. Lacerated wound 3-3/4" x 1-1/2" x bone deep on the right side of head, just above the right ear. Blackening present around the wound. 2. Lacerated wound 1-1/4" x 1" on the right forearm, medial part, 4" above the right wrist. Blackening and charring present. 3. Multiple abrasions on the right forearm extending up to the right arm. Blackening and charring pre sent. 4. Blast injury 8" x 5-1/2" x abdomi nal cavity deep on the right side of abdomen, 6" below the nipple and extending upto the inguinal liga ment. Blackening and charring present upto the right side of chest near the nipple. 5. Multiple abrasion in an area of 4" x 3" with blackening and charring on the right thigh, anterior part. 8. Blackening and charring present upto the right side of chest near the nipple. 5. Multiple abrasion in an area of 4" x 3" with blackening and charring on the right thigh, anterior part. 8. On internal examination, it was discovered that there was a big haematoma under injury No. 1 and fracture of the right temporal and parietal bones on the right side. The 11th and 12th ribs on the right side were found fractured. The intestines were lacerated. In the abdominal cavity 9 pellets and a cotton piece were found. Multiple lacerations were found in the kid neys. The cause of death was reported to be shock and haemorrhage on account of the aforesaid injuries. The Doctor further clari fied that all these injuries could have been caused by a bomb and even injury No. 4 alone was sufficient for causing death. These injuries could have been caused on the mid-night of 3/4. 12. 1980. 9. Apart from the aforesaid formal witnesses, PW 1, HC Davan Chaubey, P. W. 4, Dr. Chandra Bhushan Singh, P. W. 5, SO Virendra Kumar Singh, the prosecution has examined two eyewitnesses, viz. Chhote Lal Singh, the informant of this case and grand-son of the deceased and P. W. 3 Vyas Singh, who was also the grand-son of the deceased and cousin brother of the infor mant. 10. P. W. 2, Chhote Lal Singh has de posed that on the date of incident at about 12. 30 AM the informant Chhote Lal Singh and his grand-father, the deceased Ram Lacchan were lying in the Osara where the cattle were tied. In the adjoining verandah Vyas Singh and Ram Narain Singh were sleeping. On hearing the talks of the ac cused, he woke up. A lantern was burning in the verandah, which helped this witness to recognise the four accused. The weapons assigned to the accused were as mentioned in the FIR. At that time Vyas Singh and Ram Narain Singh also woke up. Munni Singh cried out that the deceased was their enemy and. he should be killed. Then the appellant Ram Pratap Singh hurled a bomb on the deceased Ram Lachhan Singh, which led to his death. The accused fled by the southern lane threatening that if they were followed, they would kill the wit nesses. Chote Lal got the report scribed by Vyas Singh, which was marked as Ext. Ka-3. he should be killed. Then the appellant Ram Pratap Singh hurled a bomb on the deceased Ram Lachhan Singh, which led to his death. The accused fled by the southern lane threatening that if they were followed, they would kill the wit nesses. Chote Lal got the report scribed by Vyas Singh, which was marked as Ext. Ka-3. Previous enmity due to civil and criminal litigation was said to be the cause of this incident. PW 2 states that he was to receive the share of Smt. Sahodra, who was his paternal grand-mother. The accused Munni Singh and Ram Pratap had got a forged saie deed of the property made. A civil suit was pending between Chhote Lal Singh, and Munni Singh and Ram Pratap Singh. Munni Singh had executed a sale deed in favour of accused Baij Nath and Surendra Singh. Two years prior to the instant mur der, the four accused had fired at this wit ness, the deceased Ram Lacchan and Ram Narain Singh about which a case was pending. Two or three months before his murder the deceased had given an appli cation to the S. P. Deoria as he feared dan ger to his life from the four accused. P. W. 3 Vyas Singh stated that the de ceased Ram Lachhan Singh was his grand father, who was sleeping in the verandah (Osara) of his house. On hearing some noise, this witness who was sleeping in the nearby verandah woke up and flashed his torch, whereupon he saw all the four ac cused persons Munni Singh, Baij Nath Singh, Ram Pratap Singh and Surendra Singh. Ram Pratap Singh hurled a bomb, which struck the deceased, who died as a consequence thereof. He also produced the torch by which he saw the incident in Court. In his defence the appellant has agreed that cases were pending from both sides, however, he denied the other allegations. He claims that he has been falsely impli cated on account of Pattidari. He has not led any evidence in defence. 12. We have heard Shri Rajesh Ji Verma, learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional Government Advocate and perused the judgment and record of this case. He claims that he has been falsely impli cated on account of Pattidari. He has not led any evidence in defence. 12. We have heard Shri Rajesh Ji Verma, learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional Government Advocate and perused the judgment and record of this case. Shri Verma submits that on the same evidence three persons have been acquitted and it would be imprudent and unsafe for the Court to convict the appellant on the basis of the same evidence. It is further submitted that the light had been introduced subsequently and the same was not shown in the site plan and admittedly the lantern and torches of the witnesses were produced before the inves tigating officer in the morning of 5. 12. 2008. The evidence as to exhortation was conflict ing and unreliable. 13. The motive for the incident is in adequate because the sale deed had been executed by Smt. Sahodra in favour of Baij Nath and Surendra of which the appellant was only a witness and not a direct benefi ciary. 14. There was good reason for false implication of the appellant as the infor mant PW 2 and his supporters were losing the case in the Civil Courts in respect of Smt. Sahodras property. The incident in which the firing is said to have taken place earlier in which all the four accused per sons were nominated were actually cross-cases. No witness of the locality has sup ported the prosecution case. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate submits that there was reliable evidence to connect the appel lant with this crime. Adequate benefit to the accused had already been given after the three co-accused persons were acquit ted, and so far so the appellant was con cerned the main role of hurling the bomb on the deceased which resulted in his death was assigned to him. The report was not lodged with any delay as the incident took place after mid-night of 3/4. 12. 1982 and the report was lodged at 6. 15 AM the next morning by the informant PW 2, Chhote Lal Singh. The medical evidence is consis tent with the eyewitness account and there is no reason for false implication of the ap pellant in this case. 15. 12. 1982 and the report was lodged at 6. 15 AM the next morning by the informant PW 2, Chhote Lal Singh. The medical evidence is consis tent with the eyewitness account and there is no reason for false implication of the ap pellant in this case. 15. So far as the question of acquittal of the co-accused Munni Singh, Baij Nath Singh and Surendra Singh is concerned, we are of the view that the law in India is clear that falsus in uno, is omnibus in omnibus. An explicit and active role of hurling the bomb on the deceased which resulted in his death was assigned to the appellant Ram Pratap Singh, and the learned Trial Judge has al ready give benefit of doubt to the other three accused as their presence at the spot could not be corroborated by the presence of any injuries of the deceased which were attributable to the weapons assigned to these accused. There was conflicting evi dence with regard to exhortation, as has been pointed out by the Counsel for the appellant himself. For all these reasons we are of the view that acquittal of the other three accused persons provide no ground for acquitting the appellant Ram Pratap Singh in this case. 16. The presence of witnesses at the place was wholly natural and the infor mant was sleeping in the same verandah (Osara) next to his grand-father Ram Lach-han Singh, the deceased at the time of inci dent. There is mention of light in the FIR. Mere omission of light in the site plan, is no ground for holding that no light was avail able at the spot. The accused and the witnesses were well known to each other. There could be no doubt about their identities as they were also raising a cry when the crime was committed. In this connection the investigating of ficer has given an acceptable explanation in his cross-examination that he was not shown the torches or lantern on 4. 12. 1980 because the informant and the witnesses had gone along with the dead body for the post-mortem examination. 17. It could also not be said that this was a case of absence of motive. It is nota ble that the parties were at loggerheads because of the pending property dispute between them. 12. 1980 because the informant and the witnesses had gone along with the dead body for the post-mortem examination. 17. It could also not be said that this was a case of absence of motive. It is nota ble that the parties were at loggerheads because of the pending property dispute between them. In this connection it was alleged that the co-accused Munni Singh and Ram Pratap had got a forged sale deed of Smt. Sahodras land (which the infor-mant Chotey Lal and the deceased were to inherit) manufactured in their favour. Then Munni Singh executed a sale deed in fa vour of the. co-accused Baij Nath and Surendra Singh. There were earlier crimi nal cases between the parties. 18. In view of these circumstance that repeatedly the appellant was involved along with other co- accused in the disputes between the parties, it could not be said that the accused had been falsely impli cated only because there was litigation between the parties, and that the appellant Ram Pratap Singh had stood as a witness in the suit for cancellation of the sale deed filed by the complainant, and the prosecution witnesses were losing some of the cases before the SDM, Commissioner and the Civil Court. Moreover, Ram Pratap Singh was also arrayed as an accused in the earlier case between the parties even if that was a cross-case from both sides, which had taken place 2-3 months before the murder of Ram Lachhan Singh, the de ceased. He has asked for providing security against the aforesaid four accused persons. There was no reason for falsely implicating Ram Pratap Singh or for his having been assigned the main role of hurling the bomb on the deceased, if he was not actually in volved in this crime. 19. There is no serious conflict in the evidence of exhortation. The submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant that in the FIR exhortation is alleged in an om nibus manner. In the evidence of PW 2, it is stated that Munni Singh exhorted and in the evidence of PW 3, Vyas Singh there is no mention of exhortation. We do not think that much could turn on these minor conflicts, the presence of which only show that the testimony of the witnesses is natural and untutored. In the evidence of PW 2, it is stated that Munni Singh exhorted and in the evidence of PW 3, Vyas Singh there is no mention of exhortation. We do not think that much could turn on these minor conflicts, the presence of which only show that the testimony of the witnesses is natural and untutored. In any case, by way of abundant caution, the co-accused, who v/ere assigned the role of ex hortation have been acquitted. 20. Similarly, we think nothing turns on the minor discrepancy as to whether the informant had woken up after he heard some noise after the hurling of the bomb as mentioned in the FIR or as was sought to be elicited from PW 2, Chhote Lal Singh in his cross-examination that he woke up on the talks of the accused and it was not of much significance whether the witnesses had woken up earlier or a little later. As the accused were well known to the witnesses, there could be no reason to hold that the witnesses could not have recognised the accused if they had woken up on the hurl ing of the bomb. The testimony of the wit nesses could not be shaken on such minor discrepancies and contradictions. 21. The absence of independent wit nesses of the locality was also not material because in the middle of the night the wit nesses when the deceased was sleeping in the verandah (Osara) of the informant and the adjoining verandah (Osara) of Ram Narain Singh, the present witnesses, i. e. Chhote Lal Singh and Vyas Singh and none else would have been the natural witnesses at the spot. 22. It is also well known that people are extremely reluctant to become wit nesses in cases involving others as they do not want to get entangled in the enmities between the parties. Also there was no need for multiplying the witnesses and producing them. The medical evidence clearly corroborates the prosecution ver sion as the doctor has clearly observed that all the injuries have been caused by hurling of the bomb and injury No. 4 was sufficient for causing the death of the deceased. The recoveries also corroborate the prosecution version. The FIR, which was lodged at 6. 15 in the morning at police station Rudrapur, which was four miles away, was also prompt in the circumstances. The recoveries also corroborate the prosecution version. The FIR, which was lodged at 6. 15 in the morning at police station Rudrapur, which was four miles away, was also prompt in the circumstances. In this view of the matter, we see no ille gality in the order dated 22. 11. 1982 passed by the learned Trial Judge, Deoria convicting and sentencing the appellant to life impris onment under section 302 IPC. The appeal, therefore, fails and is accordingly dismissed. 23. The appellant is on bail. His bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are dis charged. He shall be taken into custody forthwith to serve out the sentence awarded to him by the learned Trial Judge. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deoria for compliance. The CJM is also directed to send his compliance report within two months. Appeal Dismissed. .