Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1822 (ALL)

Ratan Shanker @ Silloo v. State of Uttar Pradesh

2024-08-05

RAM MANOHAR NARAYAN MISHRA, SIDDHARTHA VARMA

body2024
JUDGMENT : 1. This criminal appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 8.9.1983 passed by the VII Additional Sessions Judge, Kanpur by which the appellant Ratan Shankar @ Silloo was convicted for an offence under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced for life imprisonment. 2. When the alleged incident occurred on 6.6.1982 at 6.20 pm, a First Information Report was lodged at 6.50 pm by Chandra Mohan Singh. The first informant had reported that when he along with Sanjeev Tripathi-the deceased were returning after seeing a movie by a bicycle then the incident had occurred. He had stated that Sanjeev Tripathi was sitting on the rod of the bicycle and when they were going westwards on the Durga Devi Road, from behind them, Shiv Singh @ Jhallar and Ratan Shanker Dixit @ Silloo along with two other persons surrounded them. He mentioned that Ratan Shankar Dixit @ Sillu and two other persons pulled down Sanjeev from the bicycle and thereafter Shiv Singh @ Jhallar shot at him. The first informant abandoned the bicycle and ran towards the Jawahar Nagar Chowki and from there he came along with two constables at the site. The incident was evidenced by Devendra Sharma, Narendra Kumar Mishra and Ram Kishore. The two constables who had accompanied the first informant from the police station, took the injured Sanjeev Tripathi @ Sanju to the hospital on a rickshaw. In the FIR itself, the first informant had stated that he had gone to the police station along with Ram Kishore. Also in the FIR, he had mentioned about the motive behind the incident. He had stated that there was enmity between the deceased and the accused. Viz-a-viz Jhallar, he had stated that around two and half months earlier, Jhallar was stabbed by someone and Jhallar had a feeling that Sanjeev and the first informant Chandra Mohan had stabbed him and a case with regard to that incident was also lodged in the police station Nazeerabad. 3. After the FIR was lodged, the police got into action and started with the investigation. The bicycle and the slippers etc. were taken into custody and the recovery memo of was prepared which was exhibited as Exhibit Ka-5. Similarly, the plain soil and the soil with blood was also taken into custody and the recovery memo was also prepared which was exhibited as Exhibit Ka-6. The bicycle and the slippers etc. were taken into custody and the recovery memo of was prepared which was exhibited as Exhibit Ka-5. Similarly, the plain soil and the soil with blood was also taken into custody and the recovery memo was also prepared which was exhibited as Exhibit Ka-6. The clothes which the deceased was wearing at the time of incident were also recovered and were exhibited as Exhibit-Ka-12. Thereafter the post-mortem was conducted. It has been stated that the FIR was initially lodged under section 307 IPC but when the deceased passed away, the case was investigated under section 302 IPC read with section 34 IPC. The post-mortem was preceded by a panchayatnama. After the police had submitted its police report, the 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Metropolitan Area, Kanpur on 20.10.1982 framed the charges and when the charges were read over to the accused and when they denied them, the trial commenced. 4. The PW-1, the first informant had come to the witness box and had stated in his examination-in-chief the method in which the incident had occurred and also had stated the motive regarding which a mention was already there in the FIR. He has very categorically stated in his statement in chief that Silloo had held the handle of the bicycle and had pulled down Sanjeev and while Sanjeev was falling down, the other co-accused Shiv Singh @ Jhallar had shot at him by his country made pistol. Thereafter he has stated that the other two persons, who were present along with Shiv Singh and Ratan Shankar Dixit, had chased the first informant but as luck could have it, he escaped and had reached the police station. At the police station, he had met two constables who had come along with him to the place where Sanjeev was lying and the two policemen took Sanjeev to the hospital on a rickshaw. At the time when Sanjeev was being taken to the hospital, he was alive. Thereafter the first informant and Ram Kishore went to the police station Seesamau and got the FIR lodged. He had also proved the Tehrir which was exhibited as Exhibit Ka-1. He has stated that thereafter Sanjeev died on the same day. He has stated that as Sanjeev was very grievously hurt and there was a remote possibility that he would survive, he had not accompanied him to the hospital. He had also proved the Tehrir which was exhibited as Exhibit Ka-1. He has stated that thereafter Sanjeev died on the same day. He has stated that as Sanjeev was very grievously hurt and there was a remote possibility that he would survive, he had not accompanied him to the hospital. In the cross-examination, he has stated that the accused had held the bicycle and thereafter after holding the collar of Sanjeev, they had pulled him down and while he was being pulled down from the bicycle, Shiv Singh and the other co-accused had fired on Sanjeev. He reiterates what he had stated in the examination in chief with regard to the fact as to how he had escaped from the site and how he got the FIR lodged. He had mentioned about Ram Kishore, Devendra and Narendra in the cross-examination upon a question being raised with regard to them. Even though he had mentioned that Ram Kishore was staying at Kahu Kothi, he did not know why he was at that point of time staying at Jawahar Nagar. Devendra and Narendra, it was stated, because they were afraid of giving evidence, they did not come in the witness box. With regard to the fact as to why the first informant had not called the doctor, he had stated that even though the deceased was his friend since childhood, because of the fact that he was afraid that it was a police case, he did not go to the doctor but went to the police. He admits in his cross-examination that he had not stated in the FIR that Sanju was pulled down by Ratan Shanker along with the two others from the bicycle. He has also stated that he had not mentioned in the FIR that the accused had held the handle of the bicycle. 5. PW-2 is the other eye-witness, Ram Kishore who has stated virtually what had been stated by the first informant. He gives the reason as to why he was staying at Jawahar Nagar despite the fact that his address was of Kahu Kothi. He has stated that when the first informant Chandra Mohan had run towards him i.e. the PW-2, then the two other co-accused had followed Chandra Mohan. He gives the reason as to why he was staying at Jawahar Nagar despite the fact that his address was of Kahu Kothi. He has stated that when the first informant Chandra Mohan had run towards him i.e. the PW-2, then the two other co-accused had followed Chandra Mohan. He had also stated upon being asked as to why he did not accompany the injured Sanjeev to the hospital, he stated that he had thought that Sanju had died on the spot and he did not consider it necessary to accompany him to the hospital. 6. PW-3-Ranveer Singh was Investigating Officer and has also proved the Chik FIR. 7. PW-4 SI Ramyagya Singh is the police officer who had proved the inquest and the other documents accompanying the dead body which were there when the body was sent for the post mortem. 8. PW-5 was a formal witness. 9. PW-6 was Constable Ramesh Chandra Sharma who had accompanied the first informant Chandra Mohan from chowki Jawahar Nagar to the place of incident. He had also carried the body from the place of incident along with the other Constable to the hospital and has also informed the Court the name of the other Constable who had accompanied him to the hospital and has given his name as Constable Shiv Prasad. 10. The two accused who were named in the FIR were apprehended and the trial had taken place against them only and the other two were never apprehended and the trial did not take place against them. 11. The two accused Ratan Shanker Dixit @ Silloo and Shiv Singh got their statements recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. They denied the occurrence absolutely. 12. Sri Satish Trivedi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Ajay Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the incident had in fact never occurred in the manner as was projected by the prosecution. Learned counsel for the appellant stated that both the accused Shiv Singh and Ratan Shankar Dixit were never there on the spot and in fact the PW-1 and PW-2 were brought up witnesses. Learned counsel for the appellant has very strenuously tried to convince the Court that in fact the first informant was not on the spot but had, after the incident occurred, come on the spot and thereafter had got the FIR lodged. Learned counsel for the appellant has very strenuously tried to convince the Court that in fact the first informant was not on the spot but had, after the incident occurred, come on the spot and thereafter had got the FIR lodged. Learned counsel for the appellant further stated that the PW-2 Ram Kishore Mishra was in fact a resident of Kahu Kothi and he never had any connection with Jawahar Nagar and, therefore, his presence was also very doubtful. Learned counsel for the appellant further stated that simply because the first informant and the deceased were named in an earlier criminal case which was lodged by the accused Shiv Singh @ Jhallar, they had implicated Shiv Singh @ Jhallar and Ratan Shankar Dixit @ Silloo. Learned counsel for the appellant further has drawn the attention of the Court to the contradiction in the statements of PW-3 when he stated that after Chandra Mohan extracted himself from the place of incident and had run westward towards the chowki, he had met Ram Kishore Mishra and thereafter both of them had gone together towards the police station but Ram Kishore Mishra states that when Chandra Mohan had run away from the place of incident then one of the two accused had actually followed him then Ram Kishore Mishra raised a hue and cry as to why they were following him. Upon this they ran away. Learned counsel for the appellant, therefore, states that in view of the contradiction, the involvement of the accused becomes doubtful. Still further, learned counsel for the appellant has made an argument in the alternative and has submitted that even if it is taken that Shiv Singh @ Jhallar assailed the deceased Sanjeev Tripathi, the present appellant in the present appeal namely Ratan Shankar Dixit @ Silloo had absolutely no role so far as his involvement under section 302 IPC was concerned. Learned counsel for the appellant states that if the averments in the FIR are perused, it becomes clear that the role assigned to Ratan Shankar Dixit was only to the extent that he had pulled down the deceased Sanjeev Tripathi from the bicycle. Learned counsel for the appellant states that if the averments in the FIR are perused, it becomes clear that the role assigned to Ratan Shankar Dixit was only to the extent that he had pulled down the deceased Sanjeev Tripathi from the bicycle. Learned counsel for the appellant, therefore, states that after pulling down the deceased, whether there was a common intention being shared by the appellant Ratan Shankar Dixit with Shiv Singh was absolutely not known and there is no allegation to the effect that Shiv Singh and Ratan Sankar Dixit had, with a common intention, gone on the spot to murder Sanjeev Tripathi. Learned counsel for the appellant states that it was just possible that Ratan Shankar Dixit had pulled down the deceased to just give him a slap or two but he had no idea that in fact Shiv Singh was going to use his country made pistol which had actually been used and thereafter Sanjeev Tripathi had died. Learned counsel for the appellant further states that the act of murder by Shiv Singh was an individual act of Shiv Singh and Ratan Shankar Dixit had absolutely nothing to do with the actual murder. 13. Sri Amit Sinha, learned Additional Government Advocate assisted by Ms. Mayuri Mehrotra, however, has submitted that when the incident had occurred and the eye-witnesses had given their eye witness accounts, their evidence could not be brushed aside lightly. Learned AGA has further submitted that the sequence of events as has been narrated in the FIR was also corroborated by what was stated by the prosecution witnesses i.e. PW-1 and PW-2. PW-1 when had stated that he was accompanying the deceased and when their cycle was stopped it was but natural for him to get down the cycle and run away and therefore, it could not be said that if the PW-1 was left unharmed then in fact he was not there on the spot. Learned AGA has further stated that it mattered little if there was a minor contradiction in the statements of PW-1 and PW-2 and also it was of no consequence, virtually, if the PW-1 had given a slightly different account in the FIR from what he had stated in the examination-in-chief. Learned AGA has further stated that it mattered little if there was a minor contradiction in the statements of PW-1 and PW-2 and also it was of no consequence, virtually, if the PW-1 had given a slightly different account in the FIR from what he had stated in the examination-in-chief. Learned AGA has stated that if the first informant was being chased by two unknown accused persons and if that fact was not mentioned in the FIR and also in the statement-in-chief of the PW-1 and that it was only mentioned in the statement of PW-2 then it hardly made any difference. Learned AGA further stated that when the appellant Ratan Shankar Dixit was definitely there on the spot along with Shiv Singh and he had come alongwith Shiv Singh and also had escaped with Shiv Singh then the only conclusion was that there was a common intention being shared with Shiv Singh and in this regard learned AGA relied upon the judgment of Supreme Court in Suresh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2001) 3 SCC 673 . 14. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned AGA, this Court is of the view that if the statement of PW-1 and PW-2 are perused then the conclusion definitely is to the effect that the appellant alongwith Shiv Singh, co-accused, who had filed Criminal Appeal No. 2130 of 1983, definitely was at the place of incident. The Court has no doubt with regard to the fact that the appellant alongwith Shiv Singh was there. The statements made in the FIR coupled with the statements made by the PW-1 and PW-2 definitely go to establish that the appellant Ratan Shankar Dixit was there on the spot alongwith Shiv Singh. The minor contradictions with regard to how the first informant escaped and whether the two unknown accused persons were following him makes no difference. Still further the statement of PW-1 that he had immediately upon the occurrence of the incident approached the Chowki Jawahar Nagar and had come back with the two police personnel also appears to be a natural thing to happen. Still further, for the Police to have carried the injured to the hospital also appears to be a very natural thing. Still further the statement of PW-1 that he had immediately upon the occurrence of the incident approached the Chowki Jawahar Nagar and had come back with the two police personnel also appears to be a natural thing to happen. Still further, for the Police to have carried the injured to the hospital also appears to be a very natural thing. The fact that the other eye-witnesses Devendra Sharma and Narendra Kumar Mishra whose names find place in the FIR did not appear would also not affect the case inasmuch as they definitely were, as has been stated by the PW-1, afraid to appear in the witness-box and, therefore, the defence cannot get any advantage of their non-appearance in the witness box. However, what appeals to the Court is that nowhere in the FIR or in the evidence led, even an iota of mention was there about the fact that when the two accused Shiv Singh and Ratan Shankar Dixit along with the other persons had reached the place of incident, Ratan Shankar Dixit was sharing a common intention with Shiv Singh to murder Sanjev Tripathi. Ratan Shankar Dixit was definitely not involved in the case which was lodged by Shiv Singh @ Jhallar against the deceased Sanjeev Tripathi and first informant Chandra Mohan Singh. Ratan Shankar Dixit was also not aware of any other criminal cases which were there in between Shiv Singh and Chandra Mohan Singh and the deceased. In the evidence, there is a mention of other criminal cases as well, but Ratan Shankar Dixit was out of them all. He has definitely not been assigned any specific motive to do away with Sanjeev Tripathi. 15. Under such circumstances, to implicate Ratan Shankar Dixit along with Shiv Singh by saying that he had a common intention to murder Sanjeev Tripathi would be erroneous. The role of Ratan Shankar Dixit not having come within the purview of having a common intention with Shiv Singh, we consider it appropriate to acquit him of the charges under section 302 read with section 34 IPC. The appeal, therefore, stands allowed. Since the appellant is on bail, he need not surrender. His sureties and bail bonds are, therefore, discharged.