Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1120 (ALL)

RAJENDRA v. STATE OF U. P.

2018-05-04

MUKHTAR AHMAD, RAM SURAT RAM (MAURYA)

body2018
JUDGMENT & ORDER : 1. Heard Sri Viresh Misra, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Amit Mishra, for the appellants, Sri Brajesh Kumar Yadav, A. G. A., for State of U. P. and Sri Pravendra Kumar Chauhan, for the complainant. 2. Rajendra, Radhey Shyam and Jitendra sons of Sooraj Prasad (the appellants) have filed this appeal, against their conviction and sentence passed by Second Additional Session's Judge, Farrukhabad, dated 18.01.1986, in S. T. No. 527 of 1984, State vs. Rajendra and others, (arising out of Case Crime No. 115 of 1984, under Section 302/34 IPC, P. S. Mohammadabad, district Farrukhabad), convicting them under Section 302/34 IPC and awarding sentence of imprisonment for life. 3. On the basis of written complaint (Ex-Ka-1) of Om Chandra Pathak, FIR (Ex-Ka-14) of Case Crime No. 115 of 1984 was registered by Head Moharir Narottam Singh (PW-5) at PS Mohammadabad, on 18.05.1984 at 4:05 AM, against Rajendra, Radhey Shyam and Jitendra sons of Sooraj Prasad (the appellants). It has been stated in the complaint that first informant had an enmity with the accused and litigation between them was going on. In the night, he, his cousin Ram Gopal son of Dulare Lal, his sister-in-law Smt. Gyan Devi wife of Ram Gopal and Chhote son of Kailash Chandra were threshing wheat crops at the thresher of Ram Ratan. Gyan Prakash son of Ram Ratan was present at the tube-well. Electricity light was on at the tube-well. At about 2:30 AM, Rajendra and Radhey Shyam sons of Sooraj Prasad armed with axes and Jitendra son of Sooraj Prasad armed with gun came there from eastern side. They began to pull Ram Gopal, who was inserting chaff in thresher. Ram Gopal get rid of from them and began to run towards village in north. Then Jitendra opened gunshot which caused injury to Ram Gopal on back, due to which he fell down in the field of Ram Ratan. Then Rajendra and Radhey Shyam caused axes injuries to him. On their hues & cries and sound of the gunshot, Madan Gopal son of Ram Chandra, Fateh Chandra son of Ram Ratan, Deep Chandra son of Radhey Shyam, Achhe Lal son of Ranjeet Singh came on the spot. Then Rajendra and Radhey Shyam caused axes injuries to him. On their hues & cries and sound of the gunshot, Madan Gopal son of Ram Chandra, Fateh Chandra son of Ram Ratan, Deep Chandra son of Radhey Shyam, Achhe Lal son of Ranjeet Singh came on the spot. Aforesaid persons challenged the accused, then they ran away from the spot towards tube-well, leaving the axe in the head of Ram Gopal, while firing and threatening that at present, one person was killed in revenge of their brother. No body will be spared. If any one will become witness then he would also be murdered. Dead body of Ram Gopal was lying in the field. 4. After registration of FIR, In-charge Inspector Ram Singh Yadav (PW 4) started investigation. He came on the spot on 18.05.1984, in morning, conducted inquest (Ex-Ka-2-A) of the deceased and sent the dead body for postmortem through constable Madan Lal and Mahabir. He prepared challan lash, photo lash, letters to R. I. and CMO (Ex-Ka-3 to Ka-7). He prepared recovery memo (Ex-Ka-8) of the axe, lying in head injury of the deceased. One empty cartridge of 12 bore was found, from the spot and its recovery memo (Ex-Ka-9) was prepared. He took blood stained and plane earth from the place where dead body was lying and its recovery memo (Ex-Ka-10) were prepared. He prepared site plan (Ex-Ka-11). Thereafter, he recorded the statement of Gyan Devi and Prakash Chandra the eye witness. He submitted charge sheet (Ex-Ka-12) on 29. 05. 1984, on which, cognizance was taken. 5. Dr. K. K. Jagtyani (PW-3) conducted postmortem of Ram Gopal on 18. 05. 1984 at 4:15 PM and prepared postmortem report (Ex-Ka-2), in which the following antemortem injuries were shown :- (i) Incised wound of 13 cm x 4 cm x cranial cavity deep on right side of head, 3 cm above right ear, brain came out. (ii) Incised wound of 10 cm x 2 cm x bone deep, on right side of face involving the right ear internal part. (iii) Incised wound 4 cm x 1 cm x bone deep, on right side of face below the low lip. (iv) Incised wound 3 cm x cm x scalp deep, on back of head right side. (v) Incised wound 9 cm x 2 cm x bone deep, on right side back of head, 3 cm below to injury no. 4. (iii) Incised wound 4 cm x 1 cm x bone deep, on right side of face below the low lip. (iv) Incised wound 3 cm x cm x scalp deep, on back of head right side. (v) Incised wound 9 cm x 2 cm x bone deep, on right side back of head, 3 cm below to injury no. 4. (vi) Incised wound 8 cm x 1 cm x bone deep, behind of right ear. (vii) Incised wound 4 cm x 2 cm x muscle deep, on back of neck lower part. (viii) Incised wound 11 cm x 3 cm x muscle deep on back of right upper arm. (ix) Incised wound 4 cm x 1 cm x muscle deep on right buttock lower part. (x) Gun shot wound of entry, nine in numbers, in an area of 7 cm x 5 cm on middle part of back of the chest, involving both sides of mid line depth, skin to muscle to cavity deep, direction back to front. (xi) Linear abrasion, three in numbers on outer side of right upper arm, size smaller 2 cm x. 2 cm to largest 9 cm x . 2 cm. On the internal examination, left parietal bone, temporal bone, right frontal & occipital bones were found having cut fracture. Brain and its membrane and skull bone were found cut. Both pleura were ruptured. About 1-1 liter blood was present in the chest cavity. Upper and lower jaws were fractured. About 150 gm semi-digested food was found in stomach. Gases and pasty matter was present in the small intestine. One big shot was recovered from the chest wall and four big shots were recovered from the chest cavity. In the opinion of Doctor the cause of death was shock and hemorrhage as a result of antemortem injuries. 6. On committal, the case was registered as S. T. No. 527 of 1984 and was tried by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Farrukhabad, who framed charges against the appellants on 19. 02. 1985. The appellants denied the charges and claimed trial. In order to prove the charge, the prosecution examined Smt. Gyan Devi (PW-1), an eye witness, Prakash Chandra (PW-2), an eye witness, Dr. K. K. Jagtyani (PW-3), to prove postmortem report, Ram Singh Yadav (PW-4), Investigating Officer, Narottam Singh (PW-5), to prove check FIR, and Madan Lal (PW-6), who carried dead body for postmortem. In order to prove the charge, the prosecution examined Smt. Gyan Devi (PW-1), an eye witness, Prakash Chandra (PW-2), an eye witness, Dr. K. K. Jagtyani (PW-3), to prove postmortem report, Ram Singh Yadav (PW-4), Investigating Officer, Narottam Singh (PW-5), to prove check FIR, and Madan Lal (PW-6), who carried dead body for postmortem. Om Chandra Pathak was murdered as such he was not examined as the witness. 7. After completion of evidence of prosecution, all the incriminatory materials and facts were put to the appellants under Section 313 CrPC. The appellants denied and stated that they were falsely implicated due to enmity. They examined Praksh Chandra Katiyar (DW-1) to prove that Electricity Connection No. 260, which was given to Harish Chandra, Ram Ratan and Rama Adhar in 1971 was disconnected on 08.08.1980 for nonpayment of bill. 8. After hearing the parties, Additional Sessions Judge, by the impugned judgment, found that Rajeshwar, brother of the accused was murdered, 11 month prior to this incident, in which Ram Gopal (the deceased) and Om Chandra (the first informant) were made accused as such the accused had motive to cause murder of Ram Gopal. Suggestion of the accused that Ram Gopal had several enmities with other persons and was murdered by some unknown person, has not been accepted. Smt. Gyan Devi (PW-1) and Prakash Chandra (PW-2) who are reliable witnesses, have proved the charges against the appellant. Their testimony is fully corroborated with medical evidence. At the place of occurrence, new connection no. 599 was taken in the name of Ram Ratan on 12. 03. 1983, since then bill was regularly paid. From the statements of eye witnesses and Investigating Officer, running of thresher through electricity, lighting of electric bulb on the tube-well and presence of the deceased and the witnesses on the spot was proved. On these findings, the appellants were convicted under Section 302/34 IPC and sentenced as mentioned above. Hence, this appeal has been filed. 9. The counsel for the appellants submitted that this was a night incident and no one had seen it. Smt. Gyan Devi (PW-1) was a young lady belonging to brahmin caste. Her presence at the place of occurrence at 2:30 hours is highly improbable. Subsequent behavior of Smt. Gyan Devi (PW-1) also disproved her presence inasmuch as her husband was murdered but she remained a silent spectator. Smt. Gyan Devi (PW-1) was a young lady belonging to brahmin caste. Her presence at the place of occurrence at 2:30 hours is highly improbable. Subsequent behavior of Smt. Gyan Devi (PW-1) also disproved her presence inasmuch as her husband was murdered but she remained a silent spectator. She did not even go to the dead body nor removed the axe from the head. No blood was found on her clothes. Statement of Smt. Gyan Devi (PW-1) that she had gone there to give meal to her husband, is not liable to be believed inasmuch as the deceased had a young son of about 17 years old and if necessary he would have gone to give the meal, in night hours. The prosecution case is that on the day of occurrence power supply was from 22:00 hours as such the deceased must have taken meal, before going to the thresher. In postmortem report (Ex-Ka-2) semi-digested food was found in the stomach of the deceased, from which it is proved that he might have been murdered before mid night. It has come in evidence that there were several enmities of the deceased in the village, he might have been murdered by unknown person. The appellants have been falsely implicated as the deceased was an accused in the murder case of the brother of the appellants. Prakash Chandra Katiyar (DW-1) has proved that Electricity Connection No. 260, which was taken in the names of Harish Chandra, Ram Ratan and Rama Adhar in 1971 was disconnected on 08. 08. 1980 for nonpayment of bill. From which it is fully proved that on the date of occurrence neither thresher was running nor bulb was lightening. Presence of Smt. Gyan Devi and Prakash Chandra (PW-1 and 2) at the place of occurrence at 2:30 hours is highly improbable. The deceased has already mortgaged his land and was doing service as a truck driver, entire story of threshing wheat crop was false and concocted. Investigating Officer has not depicted the place of witnesses and place, where bulb was lightening at the time of incident. It was a night incident and in the absence of light, it was not possible to identify the accused. In postmortem report, gunshot injury was shown on the back but Dr. K. K. Jagtyani (PW3) in his statement has stated that gunshot injury was on the chest. It was a night incident and in the absence of light, it was not possible to identify the accused. In postmortem report, gunshot injury was shown on the back but Dr. K. K. Jagtyani (PW3) in his statement has stated that gunshot injury was on the chest. Thus oral testimony is not corroborated with medical evidence. Independent witnesses were withheld. Trial Court has illegally relied upon the pass-book, issued by Electricity department, filed on 04.01.1986, when the case was listed for final arguments, without confronting the appellants with this document under Section 313 Cr. P. C. This document was not admitted in evidence nor any chance of rebuttal was given to the appellants. He relied upon judgment of Apex Court in Inspector of Customer, Akhnoor Vs. Yash pal and another, (2009) 4 SCC 769 , in which it has been held that without putting the incriminatory material to the accused under Section 313 Cr. P. C. , no reliance can be placed upon it. 10. We have considered the arguments of counsel for the parties and examined the record. According to Smt. Gyan Devi (PW-1), Rajeshwar, brother of the accused was murdered, 11 months prior to this incident, in which Ram Gopal (the deceased) and Om Chandra (the first informant) were made accused as such the accused had motive to cause murder of Ram Gopal. In cross-examination, she stated that her father-in-law was three brothers, namely Ram Dulare, Bal Kishan and Ram Kishan. In 1968, on the complaint of Amar Chandra son of Ram Kishan, a criminal case was initiated against the accused and his brother, which was compromised. In 1983, Prem Datta son of Bal Kishan has lodged another criminal case against the accused. In respect of civil litigation, she has stated that these litigation were not between them. Thus motive for offence is proved. So far as the papers relating to civil litigation filed by the appellants, are concerned, it was not between the family of the deceased and accused. However, enmity may be a motive for false implication also particularly when real assailants were unknown. As such we have to examine as to whether charges against the appellants were proved. 11. So far as the papers relating to civil litigation filed by the appellants, are concerned, it was not between the family of the deceased and accused. However, enmity may be a motive for false implication also particularly when real assailants were unknown. As such we have to examine as to whether charges against the appellants were proved. 11. In order to prove the charges, the prosecution has examined two eye witnesses of the incident, namely, Smt. Gyan Devi (PW-1), widow of the deceased and Prakash Chandra (PW-2), the owner of the thresher and pumping set, where in incident had occurred. Smt. Gyan Devi (PW-1) stated that Rajeshwar, brother of the accused was murdered, 11 months prior to this incident, in which Ram Gopal (the deceased) and Om Chandra (the first informant) were made accused as such the accused had motive to cause murder of Ram Gopal. In the night at about 2:30 AM, she was present on the tube-well of Ram Ratan, where apart from her, her husband Ram Gopal, Om Chandra Pathak, Chhote and Prakash Chandra were also present. Her wheat crop was being threshed. Bulb was lightening. Moon light was also there. Her husband was inserting wheat crop in thresher. Om Chandra was removing wheat from thresher. Chhote Lal was carrying wheat crop, from the place, it were heaped to the thresher. At that time, Rajendra, Radhey Shyam and Jitendra came from eastern side. Rajendra and Radhey Shyam were armed with axes and Jitendra was armed with gun. They came near tube-well and went to Ram Gopal, her husband. Radhey Shyam and Rajendra pulled Ram Gopal. Ram Gopal get rid of from them and fled towards north-west. Then Jitendra opened fire from his gun, which caused injury to Ram Gopal on his back, due to which he fell down in the field of Ram Ratan. Rajendra and Radhey Shyam caused axes injuries to her husband. On their hues & cries and sound of the gunshot, Madan Gopal, Fateh Chandra, Deep Chandra, Achhe Lal and others came on the spot. Aforesaid persons challenged the accused, then the accused abused and said that today they had taken revenge of their brother. Now they will kill all. If any one will become witness then he would also be murdered. Jitendra shot two fire on the spot. Due to these injuries, Ram Gopal died on the spot. Aforesaid persons challenged the accused, then the accused abused and said that today they had taken revenge of their brother. Now they will kill all. If any one will become witness then he would also be murdered. Jitendra shot two fire on the spot. Due to these injuries, Ram Gopal died on the spot. Om Chandra Pathak lodged FIR of the incident. She has verified signatures of Om Chandra Pathak on the complaint (Ex-Ka-1). On spot empty cartridge and axe was lying, inserting in the head of Ram Gopal. Her husband was bearing kamij, baniyan, under bear and janeu, on which blood had fallen. In cross-examination, she stated that her husband was serving as truck driver, in Maharam Transport, Mohammadabad. He had 12-14 bighas land, but this land was sold before the murder. At the time of murder of Rajeshwar or Ram Gopal, she did not have bullocks. She denied the suggestion that at the time of murder, Ram Gopal used to do agriculture on batai. She specifically denied that Ram Gopal ever done his agriculture through batai from Tej Ram of village Rohila or Dashrath and Ram Autar. After murder of Rajeshwar, some land was given on batai to Tej Ram but the accused were creating hindrance to him. Some land was mortgaged to Babu Ram of village Rohila. He was in debt of Rs. One thousand. Later on he sold that land to Rama Shankar Yadav and Chandra Prakash Brahmin. She denied from dispute between her husband and Babu Ram. She stated that in the theft of Hriday Ram, her husband was falsely implicated. She came on the tube-well at about 12:00 hours in night. Her husband took meal at about 1. 00 hours in night on the tube-well. Her husband went on tube-well at 10. 00 hours in night, when electricity came. She brought eight puries and potato vegetable, which was eaten by her husband. In her house there was no electricity connection but in village there was electricity connection, from where she came to know that electricity came at 10:00 hours in night. Her elder son was aged about 17 years and younger about 12-13 years. When she reached on tube-well, then her husband, Om Chandra, Prakash Chandra and Chhote were there. So long as she remained at tube-well, apart from the accused, no other person had come. Her elder son was aged about 17 years and younger about 12-13 years. When she reached on tube-well, then her husband, Om Chandra, Prakash Chandra and Chhote were there. So long as she remained at tube-well, apart from the accused, no other person had come. She remained at the tube-well up to 10:00 hours in morning. Inspector reached the place of occurrence at 6:00 AM and sealed dead body at 9:00 AM. Inspector had inquired to her about the site but site plan was not prepared in her presence. She informed Inspector about the place, from where she had seen the incident. Jitendra opened two fire out of which one hit her husband. She specifically denied that all the three accused apprehended her husband. Radhey Shyam and Rajendra apprehended her husband. Field of Ram Ratan was two-three hand below from the level of tube-well. When the accused came, she was siting in east of tube-well at the distance of 2-3 paces. The door of the room of tube-well was in east. Radhey Shyam and Rajendra apprehended her husband at 2-3 paces in east and pulled towards east. When the fire was shot, her husband was in the field of Ram Ratan. Fire was done from south-east of the door of Tube-well. After gunshot injury her husband fell down in the field of Ram Ratan and could not run. Edge of axe was about 5-6 fingers. She had seen the axe. Both the accused repeated 4-5 blow of the axes. She denied suggestion that thresher was not running as no electricity was at that time. She stated that a bulb was hanging on a wooden danni on the tube-well of half hand long outside the tube-well room, in eastern wall. 12. Prakash Chandra (PW-2) stated that his tube-well was installed in the south of the village, where thresher was also installed. Nali of tube-well is towards north of the tube-well. In north of it some land of Ompal and thereafter his land situates. About one year ago, at about 2:30 AM, in night, wheat crop of Ram Gopal was being threshed from his thresher. He, Chhote, Ram Gopal, Om Chandra and wife of Ram Gopal were present there. Electric bulb was lightening. Moon light was also there. Ram Gopal was inserting wheat crop in thresher. Radhey Shyam, Rajendra and Jitendra came near the thresher. He, Chhote, Ram Gopal, Om Chandra and wife of Ram Gopal were present there. Electric bulb was lightening. Moon light was also there. Ram Gopal was inserting wheat crop in thresher. Radhey Shyam, Rajendra and Jitendra came near the thresher. Rajendra and Radhey Shyam were armed with axe and Jitendra was armed with gun. Rajendra and Radhey Shyam pulled Ram Gopal towards east. Ram Gopal get rid of from them and fled towards village in north crossing the nali. Then, all the three accused also crossed nali and went down in the field. Thereafter, Jitendra opened fire, which caused injury to Ram Gopal on his back. He specified that all the three accused crossed nali and went down in the field. Fire was done from north-east of the thresher. Thereafter, Rajendra and Radhey Shyam caused 4-5 axes injuries to Ram Gopal. They made noise. Then, his brother Fateh Chandra, Deep Chandra, Achhe Lal and Madan Gopal came on the spot from village and challenged the accused, then the accused abused and went towards east. The accused told that today they had murdered one person in lieu of their brother. No one will be spared. If any one will witnesses then he would also be murdered. The accused left axe in the head of Ram Gopal. Ram Gopal died on the spot. The accused were resident of his village and known to him prior to the incident. In cross examination, the witness has stated that at the time of incident, Mustaq had taken electricity connection from his tube-well after one pole. House of Mustaq situates after about 100 paces of the house of Ram Gopal in west. House of Ram Gopal situates 30-40 paces from his house. On that day he met Ram Gopal at tube-well, after start of power supply at 10:00 PM. In those days turn of power supply was of night from 10:00 PM to 7. 00 AM. On the date of incident, power supply was for about 5 to 5 hours. He remained present on the tube-well till power supply. After incident Fateh Chandra, Deep Chandra, Achhe Lal and Madan Gopal came on tube-well and remained there till power supply. At the tube-well, logs of wheat crops of Ram Autar, Mubarak, Ram Singh, Dashrath and other jatav's were for about two months, which had to be threshed from his thresher. He remained present on the tube-well till power supply. After incident Fateh Chandra, Deep Chandra, Achhe Lal and Madan Gopal came on tube-well and remained there till power supply. At the tube-well, logs of wheat crops of Ram Autar, Mubarak, Ram Singh, Dashrath and other jatav's were for about two months, which had to be threshed from his thresher. These logs were heaped in his field towards east of the thresher, of the height of a man or less of it. His brother Harish Chandra was posted in Electricity Department at the time of incident. According to his knowledge, connection of electricity was disconnected once prior to the incident. He denied the suggestion that electricity of the tube-well was disconnected and there was no power supply on the tube-well and Harish Chandra obtained fresh connection by fabricating records. He stated that at the time of incident, electricity connection was in the name of Ram Ratan, his father. He met Smt. Gyan Devi after 2 to 2-1/4 hours after power supply. Police came on the spot after about 3 -1/2 hours of the incident at about 6:00 AM and remained up to 10. 00 AM. Inspector recorded his statement first of all. Site plan was not prepared before him. He had shown the place of his presence and witnessing the incident. He had told Inspector that night was moon light night. When Ram Gopal fled and crossed nali all the three accused also crossed nali and thereafter Jitendra opened fire. Fire was shot from south-east of the thresher. Thresher was installed one-two paces away towards east of the tube-well. Nali is 2 to 4 paces away from tube-well room. Ram Gopal was about 10 to 14 paces away from thresher towards north-west. After hit from fire, Ram Gopal fell in opposite direction 10 to 14 paces away from the med. Electricity poll was towards south of tube-well. Edge of axe was about 8-9 fingers. He had not seen other axe. Empty cartridge was recovered from the spot. 13. Statement in-chief of In-charge Inspector Ram Singh Yadav (PW-4) has been mentioned in paragraph-3 :- In the cross examination, he denied that information at the police station was received after rising of the sun or FIR was not lodged at 4:05 AM. He denied that FIR was lodged with deliberation. He prepared site plan at the pointing out of Om Chandra. He denied that FIR was lodged with deliberation. He prepared site plan at the pointing out of Om Chandra. He admitted that he had not depicted the place of witnesses in the site plan. He denied that there was no bulb lightening out side tube-well room. He denied that logs of wheat crops were collected adjacent to tube-well room. He admitted that he had not recorded statement of any persons whose wheat crops were logged at the tube-well. He denied that thresher was not running nor there was any log of wheat crop at the place of occurrence. He himself saw the lightening bulb at the tube-well, at the time when he inspected the spot. He did not make inquiry in respect of electricity connection. 14. In cross examination, Smt. Gyan Devi (PW-1) stated that her husband had 12-14 bigha land at the time of his murder. This land was sold before his murder. Later on she stated that some land was mortgaged , which was sold to repay the loan of Rs. 1000/-. From this statement, it appears that Ram Gopal had not become landless or there could not be any wheat crop to him. On the other hand, from statements of Smt. Gyan Devi (PW-1) and Prakash Chandra (PW-2) it is proved that on the date of incident, wheat crops of Ram Gopal was being threshed at the thresher of Ram Ratan. 15. Smt. Gyan Devi (PW-1) belonged to a farmer's family of ordinary man. Her husband was also serving as truck driver. She has given her age as 40 years in her statement. When her husband went to thresh wheat crop along with two other person without taking meal and her young children had slept, then it was natural for her to go with meal at the thresher in night, which was not at much distance from her house. Simply because she did not remove the axe from the head of Ram Gopal or no blood was found on her clothes, her presence at the place of incident cannot be doubted. She has given detail sequence of the incident, which was fully corroborated from statement of Prakash Chandra (PW-2) and other evidence. Prakash Chandra (PW-2) is the son of owner of tube-well and thresher. His presence at the place of incident was natural. He had no reason to give false statements or implicating the appellants falsely. She has given detail sequence of the incident, which was fully corroborated from statement of Prakash Chandra (PW-2) and other evidence. Prakash Chandra (PW-2) is the son of owner of tube-well and thresher. His presence at the place of incident was natural. He had no reason to give false statements or implicating the appellants falsely. Nothing has come in his cross-examination to discredit him. These witnesses are reliable and there is no reason to disbelieve them. 16. Incident took place on 18. 05. 1984 at 2:30 hours, FIR was lodged on 18. 05. 1984 at 4:05 hours. Distance of place of occurrence from police station is one KM. The police went at the spot at 6:AM. Names of the accused along with their weapons and their roles were mentioned in FIR. It is not proved that FIR was ante timed and lodged after deliberation. From postmortem report also time of occurrence is corroborated. Although Investigating Officer has not depicted places of witnesses or bulb which was lightening on the spot but the witnesses have given the place from where they have witnessed the incident and bulb was lightening. In between the place of bulb and the place where dead body was found there is no log of wheat crops or any obstruction of light, which was directly reaching at that place, which was at a distance of about 30 feet. Place where dead body was found being three four feet lower than the tube-well does not affect the visibility of the witnesses. It has also come in evidence that night of incident was a moon light night. 17. Smt. Gyan Devi (PW-1) has stated that her husband took meal at the tube-well in night after 12:00 clock. Semi-digested food was found in postmortem report as such it was fully corroborated. So far as the arguments that in postmortem report, gunshot injury was shown on the back of the deceased but Dr. K. K. Jagtyani (PW3) in his statement has stated that gunshot injury was on the chest, is concerned, it was an error. Dr. K. K. Jagtyani (PW3) was examined to prove postmortem report (Ex-Ka-2-A). Once postmortem report was proved, it has to be read in evidence and oral testimony in this respect is excluded under Section 92 of Evidence Act, 1872. 18. Dr. K. K. Jagtyani (PW3) was examined to prove postmortem report (Ex-Ka-2-A). Once postmortem report was proved, it has to be read in evidence and oral testimony in this respect is excluded under Section 92 of Evidence Act, 1872. 18. The appellants examined Praksh Chandra Katiyar (DW-1) to prove that Electricity Connection No. 260, which was given to Harish Chandra, Ram Ratan and Rama Adhar in 1971 was disconnected on 08.08.1980 for nonpayment of bill. Praksh Chandra Katiyar (DW-1), in cross-examination, had admitted that in the ledger of 1981-82, fresh electricity connection in the name of Harish Chandra son of Ram Ratan was mentioned. Even if no reliance can be placed on the pass-book filed on 04.01.1986, as it was not put to the notice of the appellants under Section 313 Cr. P. C., This admission of Praksh Chandra Katiyar (DW-1) fully proved that fresh electricity connection was given in the name of Harish Chandra son of Ram Ratan. Smt. Gyan Devi, Praksh Chandra and In-charge Inspector Ram Singh Yadav (PW-1, 2 and 4) have fully proved that at the time of occurrence, thresher was running and bulb was lightening through electricity. 19. Supreme Court in Sunil Kumar Sambhudayal Gupta (Dr. ) v. State of Maharashtra, (2010) 13 SCC 657 , held that the rules of appreciation of evidence require that court should not draw conclusions by picking up an isolated sentence of a witness without adverting to the statement as a whole. In Dayal Singh v. State of Uttaranchal, (2012) 8 SCC 263 , held that though our criminal justice system provides safeguards of fair trial and innocent till proven guilty to an accused, yet it also contemplates that a criminal trial is meant for doing justice to all, the accused, the society and a fair chance to prove to the prosecution. Then alone can law and order be maintained. The courts do not merely discharge the function to ensure that no innocent man is punished, but also that a guilty man does not escape. Both are public duties of the Judge. During the course of the trial, the learned Presiding Judge is expected to work objectively and in a correct perspective. Then alone can law and order be maintained. The courts do not merely discharge the function to ensure that no innocent man is punished, but also that a guilty man does not escape. Both are public duties of the Judge. During the course of the trial, the learned Presiding Judge is expected to work objectively and in a correct perspective. Where the prosecution attempts to misdirect the trial on the basis of a perfunctory or designedly defective investigation, there the Court is to be deeply cautious and ensure that despite such an attempt, the determinative process is not subverted. For truly attaining this object of a "fair trial", the Court should leave no stone unturned to do justice and protect the interest of the society as well. 20. In view of the aforesaid discussions, we do not find any illegality in the judgment of the Court below. The appeal has no merit and is dismissed.