Mani Ram & Anr. vs State Of U.P.

(Delivered by Hon’ble Vinai Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

Heard Mr. Vinod Singh and Mr. Shiv Sharan Tripathi, learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. G.N. Kanaujia, learned A.G.A.-I^st for the State-respondent and perused the material on record.

The instant criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellants, namely, Mani Ram and Hemraj alias Happu, against the judgment and order dated 25.05.1987 passed by the III-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Etah, in Sessions Trial No. 475 of 1986 (State v. Mani Ram and Another), arising out of Case Crime No. 182 of 1986, under Section 302 of I.P.C., Police Station- Soron, District- Etah, whereby the appellants have been convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life.

Brief facts of this case are that informant Chob Singh (PW-1), son of Moti Ram, got an oral information (soochna zubani) lodged at Police Station Soron on 20.09.1986 at 23:00 hours. In this oral information (soochna zubani), informant Chob Singh (PW-1) has stated that tonight, I and my father Moti Ram, son of Murli, were lying at our tube well which is in the haar (agricultural fields) situated in Village Nagla Suranji, which is a hamlet of Nagla Khanji, Police Station Soron, District Etah. Water was running in the field of Prem Singh, son of Tej Singh. Prem Singh was sitting on the water drain (naali). A bulb was illuminating under the thatched roof (chhappar) of the tube well. At around 9:30 PM, Mani Ram, son of Udal, who is a miscreant, resident of Takuapar and Hemraj alias Happu, son of Shri Ram, came to my tube well, carrying pauka (a type of firearm/tamanchas) in their hands and said to my father, "You call the police personnel here, uproot your tube well from here and take it away." They grabbed my father Moti Ram and took him away. At a distance of about 60-70 steps, in Zalim Singh's pearl millet (bajra) field, both of them fired at my father from their respective weapons, the bullets hit my father, and he collapsed. When I, along with Prem Singh and Naubat, son of Gumani, who were at their fields, challenged them, the accused fled into the forest. Due to fear, we did not pursue them. When all of us went and checked, my father had already died. The report was read out to me, whatever I stated has been recorded and I affixed my signature.

On the basis of the oral information (soochna zubani) given by informant Chob Singh (PW-1) at Police Station Soron, District Etah, Head Moharrir Badri Prasad (PW-5), present at the police station, registered the First Information Report (Ex.Ka-1) on 20.09.1986 at 23:00 hours against the named accused, namely, Mani Ram and Hemraj alias Happu, as Case Crime No. 182 of 1986, under Section 302 IPC.

After registration of the First Information Report (Ex.Ka-1), Inspector B.D. Singh (PW-6) took over the investigation of the case. The Investigating Officer (PW-6) reached the place of occurrence, and under his direction, Sub-Inspector Liladhar Sharma prepared the panchayatnama of the dead body of the deceased Moti Ram as Ex.Ka-2. Apart from the panchayatnama, Sub-Inspector Liladhar Sharma also prepared other necessary police papers related to the panchayatnama of the dead body of the deceased Moti Ram, such as, letter to C.M.O., letter to R.I., challanlash, photolash, and two samples of seal.

Under the direction of the Investigating Officer (PW-6), Sub-Inspector Liladhar Sharma recovered blood-stained broken teeth of the deceased Moti Ram from the place of occurrence and prepared a recovery memo as Ex.Ka-3. He also took samples of plain soil and blood-stained soil from the place of occurrence and prepared a recovery memo as Ex.Ka-4. Further, he recovered an empty cartridge of 315 bore from the place of occurrence and prepared a recovery memo thereof as Ex.Ka-5.

The Investigating Officer, B.D. Singh (PW-6) inspected the place of occurrence and on the pointing out of informant Chob Singh (PW-1), prepared a site plan as Ex.Ka-13. The Investigating Officer (PW-6) also recorded the statements of the witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. After completing all the necessary formalities of the investigation, PW-6 submitted a charge-sheet (Ex.Ka-14) against accused, namely, Mani Ram and Hemraj alias Happu in the Magistrate Court concerned having jurisdiction.

Dr. S.R. Gupta (PW-7) conducted the postmortem examination of the dead body of the deceased Moti Ram on 21.09.1986 at about 2:30 P.M. at Etah and prepared the postmortem report as Ex.Ka-15. According to the postmortem report (Ex.Ka-15), the following ante-mortem injuries were found on the dead body of the deceased Moti Ram:-

In the opinion of Dr. S.R. Gupta (PW-7), the cause of death was shock and hemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem injuries.

After submission of the charge-sheet (Ex.Ka-14), the case was committed by the learned Magistrate to the Court of Session for trial. The Trial Court framed charges against the accused, namely, Mani Ram and Hemraj alias Happu on 15.01.1987 under Section 302 IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined informant Chob Singh (PW-1), Prem Singh (PW-2), Naubat (PW-3) and Lakhan Singh (PW-4) as witnesses of fact. Additionally, the prosecution also examined Badri Prasad (PW-5), B.D. Singh (PW-6), and Dr. S.R. Gupta (PW-7) as formal witnesses. Apart from the above oral evidence, the prosecution also relied upon documentary evidence from Ex.Ka-1 to Ex.Ka-15.

The learned Trial Court, after recording the prosecution evidence, examined the accused persons under Section 313 Cr.P.C. In their statements recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused persons, in response to the questions put to them, expressed their ignorance about the facts. They stated that the allegations were wrong and further stated that the witnesses had given evidence against them due to village party bandi and rivalry arising out of the Gram Pradhan election. They claimed that they had been falsely implicated in this case and that the police had falsely submitted the charge-sheet against them.

After hearing the submissions advanced by both the prosecution and the defence, the Trial Court found the appellants guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and, accordingly, convicted and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life.

Aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order dated 25.05.1987, whereby the III-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Etah, convicted and sentenced the appellants, the appellants have preferred the present criminal appeal before this Court.

At the outset, before proceeding to appreciate the evidence in the light of the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, it would be appropriate to mention that during the pendency of the present appeal, appellant No. 2, Hemraj alias Happu, died. Consequently, this Court, vide order dated 12.01.2026, abated the appeal insofar as it related to appellant No. 2, Hemraj alias Happu. Accordingly, the present appeal is now being adjudicated only with regard to the surviving appellant No. 1, Mani Ram.

Learned counsel for the surviving appellant, Mani Ram, has submitted that the incident occurred at night at about 9:30 P.M. in the month of September, which is a rainy season. Usually, during the rainy season, nights are very dark, due to which visibility becomes very low and it is difficult to see at a distance. According to the informant and other prosecution witnesses, an electric bulb was illuminating the chhappar of the tube-well. The informant, Chob Singh (PW-1), and his father, the deceased Moti Ram, were lying at their tube-well. Since the fields were being irrigated with the water of the tube-well, the tube-well was running and discharging water. According to the prosecution story, Prem Singh (PW-2) and Naubat (PW-3) were also irrigating their fields. The dead body of the deceased Moti Ram was found in the pearl millet (bajra) field of Zalim Singh, which is at a distance of 60 to 70 steps from the tube-well of the deceased, where he was lying with his son, the informant Chob Singh (PW-1).

Learned counsel for the surviving appellant further submitted that other adjoining fields had also grown crops of either maize (makka) or pearl millet (bajra). In such a situation, it is highly doubtful as to how an eyewitness could see with his own eyes, from a distance of 60 to 70 steps, the commission of the crime by the accused persons. It is also not clear as to what was the wattage capacity of the electric bulb illuminating the chhappar of the tube-well of the deceased Moti Ram; whether the bulb was of 60 watts, 100 watts or 200 watts. The expansion of light from a bulb depends on its wattage capacity; if the wattage capacity of the bulb is high, the area of light expansion would automatically be larger, and if the wattage capacity is low, the illumination would be limited to a narrow area.

It is further submitted by learned counsel for the surviving appellant that there are several major and material contradictions in the evidence of the informant, Chob Singh (PW-1), Prem Singh (PW-2) and Naubat (PW-3). The evidence of each prosecution eyewitness contradicts the testimony of the other prosecution witnesses and creates serious doubt regarding their testimony. It is also submitted on behalf of the surviving appellant that the presence of the informant Chob Singh (PW-1), at the place of occurrence is highly doubtful. From the evidence of the aforesaid prosecution witnesses, it appears that after the alleged occurrence, the prosecution witnesses i.e. informant Chob Singh (PW-1), Prem Singh (PW-2) and Naubat (PW-3), reached the place of occurrence and lodged oral information (soochna zubani), naming the accused in the present case.

Thus, it is submitted on behalf of the surviving appellant that the Trial Court has failed to appreciate the prosecution evidence in its proper perspective and in accordance with law. The Trial Court, without considering the legal aspects and the unreliability of the doubtful evidence of the prosecution witnesses, namely, informant Chob Singh (PW-1), Prem Singh (PW-2) and Naubat (PW-3), wrongly held the appellants guilty and convicted them in the present case. Therefore, the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 25.05.1987 passed by the Trial Court is without the support of any cogent evidence and is contrary to the settled principles of law. Hence, the criminal appeal of the surviving appellant deserves to be allowed, and the impugned judgment and order dated 25.05.1987 is liable to be set aside.

Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent has submitted that informant Chob Singh (PW-1), Prem Singh (PW-2) and Naubat (PW-3) are the eyewitnesses of the present case. In the presence of the aforesaid three witnesses, the appellants came to the tube-well of the deceased Moti Ram, took him to the field of Zalim Singh, and killed him by firing gunshot upon him. This incident was witnessed by informant Chob Singh (PW-1), Prem Singh (PW-2) and Naubat (PW-3), who were present at the place of occurrence where the tube-well was running and fields were being irrigated. If there are any contradictions and omissions, those are of a very minor and trivial nature, which have no effect on the testimony and truthfulness of the evidence of the above eyewitnesses of the prosecution. The Trial Court, on the basis of the reliable and trustworthy evidence of informant Chob Singh (PW-1), Prem Singh (PW-2) and Naubat (PW-3), who are eyewitnesses of the incident, found the appellants guilty for the commission of the alleged crime.

Thus, the Trial Court has appreciated the evidence in a proper perspective and legal manner. The findings and reasoning recorded by the Trial Court are based on cogent and reliable evidence of the prosecution witnesses, and are also in accordance with the legal principles settled by law. There is no illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 25.05.1987 passed by the Trial Court. Therefore, the instant criminal appeal preferred by the surviving appellant is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed, and the impugned judgment and order dated 25.05.1987 deserves to be affirmed.

In the light of the above arguments and counter arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, upon perusal of the record of the case and the oral information (soochna zubani), we find that the informant Chob Singh (PW-1), has named the appellants for the commission of the crime. On 20.09.1986, at about 9:30 P.M., the incident occurred, and on the same date, at about 23:00 hours (11:00 P.M.), the First Information Report was lodged against the accused, namely, Mani Ram and Hemraj alias Happu, at the police station concerned. Regarding the availability of light at the place of occurrence, it appears that, in his oral information (soochna zubani), the informant Chob Singh (PW-1), stated that an electric bulb was illuminating the chhappar of the tube-well. From a perusal of the evidence of the informant, Chob Singh (PW-1), who is the son of the deceased Moti Ram, it is evident that, in his examination-in-chief, informant Chob Singh (PW-1) has given the same evidence as was stated by him in his oral information (soochna zubani) at the police station concerned.

From a perusal of the examination-in-chief of the informant Chob Singh (PW-1), it is revealed that, according to PW-1, two electric bulbs were illuminating the chhappar of the tube-well, where he and his father, the deceased Moti Ram, were present and lying. At that time, the appellants, Mani Ram and Hemraj alias Happu, arrived there, carrying country-made pistols (tamanchas) in their hands. Witnesses Prem Singh (PW-2), who was sitting on a drainage channel (naali) and Naubat (PW-3), who was present at his nearby tube-well, were also present. The accused stated to Moti Ram, father of the informant, "You give information about us to the police, hence, uproot your tube-well from here. Because of you, the police are harassing us. You should also uproot your well from here." Thereafter, both the accused caught hold of the father of the informant, took him into the field of Zalim Singh, and fired upon him with their respective country-made pistols (tamanchas), and also assaulted him with knives, due to which he fell on the ground. Upon hearing the cries of his father and PW-1 himself, Prem Singh and Naubat also reached the field of Zalim Singh. PW-1 has further stated that, due to fear of the accused, they did not pursue them.

Thus, the motive for the commission of the crime is attributed to the suspicion against Moti Ram, the father of the informant (PW-1) that Moti Ram was giving information about the accused to the police, due to which the police were harassing the accused. From the evidence of the informant (PW-1) a second motive in respect of the deceased and the appellants is stated that three or four months prior to the incident, Hemraj had plucked maize (makka) from the field of Moti Ram, due to which a heated altercation took place and abusive language was exchanged between them.

In his cross-examination, the informant Chob Singh (PW-1) stated, "I was lying 2 to 3 steps away from the chhappar." In his examination-in-chief, PW-1 had stated in this regard that, "I was at my tube-well, and my father was also lying there." In his cross-examination, PW-1 further stated, "I reached the place where my father was shot and received firearm injuries. I talked with Prem Singh and Naubat there at the spot, and after talking with them, I proceeded to lodge the First Information Report. Kalicharan also accompanied me. Prem Singh and Naubat told me that the accused had assaulted my father with a knife. The spot where my father was killed was at a distance of 60 to 70 steps from the tube-well. When my father was shot, he fell down. The shot was fired from a distance of 5 to 6 steps. When my father was killed, I was at my tube-well."

Thus, from a perusal and appreciation of the deposition of informant Chob Singh (PW-1), it is revealed that on the date and time of the incident, he was present at his tube-well along with his father, deceased Moti Ram. His evidence discloses that the place where his father was shot dead was at a distance of 60 to 70 steps from the tube-well. It is further revealed that the adjoining fields, including the field of Zalim Singh where the deceased was shot dead, had fully grown crops of either maize (makka) or pearl millet (bajra). According to PW-1, when the accused caught hold of his father Moti Ram and carried him away to the field of Zalim Singh, PW-1 raised no hue and cry to save his father and remained silent at the tube-well. The incident occurred in the night of 20.09.1986 at about 9:30 P.M. during the rainy season. It is also not clear as to what was the wattage capacity of the electric bulb illuminating the chhappar of the tube-well, whether it was of 60, 100, or 200 watts. In such a situation, where nearby fields had fully grown crops of pearl millet (bajra) or maize (makka), it is improbable that a person standing at the tube-well could see at night that the accused had shot his father with firearms.

Informant Chob Singh (PW-1) further stated that both the accused fired upon his father, whereupon he fell on the ground. It is a notable fact that despite being the son of the deceased, PW-1 made no attempt to raise any alarm or rescue his father while he was being taken away by the accused. These facts and circumstances create a strong doubt regarding the truthfulness of the evidence of informant Chob Singh (PW-1) as well as his presence at the place of occurrence or at his tube-well at the time of the incident. Additionally, prosecution witness Naubat (PW-3) stated in his evidence that informant Chob Singh (PW-1) and his father, deceased Moti Ram, were lying on the same cot, whereas PW-1 stated that he was not lying with his father but was present a few steps away from him at the tube-well.

From the evidence of informant Chob Singh (PW-1), it is further revealed that he reached the spot only after his father, deceased Moti Ram, had sustained a gunshot injury. His deposition further reveals that he proceeded to lodge the First Information Report at Police Station Soron, District Etah, only after interacting with Prem Singh (PW-2) and Naubat (PW-3) at the place of occurrence.

In view of the aforesaid discussion and the surrounding facts and circumstances, it becomes clear that informant Chob Singh (PW-1) was not present at his tube-well on 20.09.1986 at 9:30 P.M., when the alleged incident occurred. The evidence on record indicates that PW-1 arrived at the scene only after receiving information regarding the occurrence from Prem Singh (PW-2) and Naubat (PW-3), who were already present in their nearby fields actively irrigating their crops with tube-well water. Informant Chob Singh (PW-1) inquired about the incident from them, and upon gathering the details, he went to the police station along with Kalicharan to lodge the First Information Report.

From the evidence of informant Chob Singh (PW-1), it is revealed that Prem Singh (PW-2) and Naubat (PW-3) informed him that the accused had also assaulted his father with knives. Although PW-1 testified that both accused fired at his father, Moti Ram, from their respective firearms, a perusal of the postmortem report (Ex.Ka-15) prepared by Dr. S.R. Gupta (PW-7) reveals that the deceased sustained only one firearm entry wound and one corresponding exit wound. This clearly indicates that the deceased received only a single gunshot injury, directly contradicting the ocular testimony of PW-1.

Apart from the firearm injury, two incised wounds were found on the head of the deceased, and his teeth were also found broken. During his deposition in Court, PW-1 sought to improve upon his earlier statement by testifying that the accused were carrying knives and had assaulted his father with it. This improvement appears doubtful and leads to the inference that informant Chob Singh (PW-1) was not present at the place of occurrence on 20.09.1986 at about 9:30 P.M. It further reinforces the conclusion that PW-1 arrived at the scene only after the incident had occurred, upon receiving information from PW-2 and PW-3. Acting solely on the narrative provided by these two witnesses, PW-1 went to the police station and lodged the First Information Report naming the accused.

Therefore, from the aforesaid discussion and appreciation of evidence, we find that the presence of informant Chob Singh (PW-1) at his tube-well or at the place of occurrence at the time of the incident is highly doubtful. Consequently, the claim of informant Chob Singh (PW-1) being an eye-witness to the occurrence is wholly untrustworthy, unreliable, and cannot be acted upon.

It is a settled principle of law that if the presence of an eye-witness at the place of occurrence is doubtful, the testimony of such a witness regarding the truthfulness and veracity of the prosecution story becomes highly suspicious and unreliable. In such a situation, it is wholly unsafe to convict an accused for the commission of a heinous offence like murder on the basis of such doubtful and untrustworthy evidence.

The next prosecution witnesses, Prem Singh (PW-2) and Naubat (PW-3), who are family members of informant Chob Singh (PW-1) and deceased Moti Ram, turned hostile and failed to fully support the prosecution story before the Trial Court. A perusal of their evidence reveals that while both PW-2 and PW-3 admitted that the incident occurred on 20.09.1986 at about 9:30 P.M., they testified that two persons came to the tube-well of the deceased in the night of the occurrence. According to them, they identified one of the assailants as Hemraj alias Happu in the light of the electric bulb illuminating at the tube-well, who fired upon Moti Ram. However, both witnesses expressed their inability to identify the second person accompanying Hemraj or disclose his identity, thereby completely denying the role attributed to the surviving appellant, Mani Ram.

Thus, PW-2 and PW-3 resiled from their earlier statements recorded by the Investigating Officer under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Furthermore, PW-3 (Naubat) stated that upon hearing the gunshot, first Prem Singh (PW-2) reached the spot, followed by Naubat (PW-3) and informant Chob Singh (PW-1). This establishes that these witnesses arrived at the place of occurrence, namely, the field of Zalim Singh, only after hearing the gunshot, when deceased Moti Ram had already sustained the gunshot injury.

Consequently, the evidence of Prem Singh (PW-2) and Naubat (PW-3) implicates only Hemraj while offering no support regarding the involvement or identity of the surviving appellant, Mani Ram. Although, on the request of the prosecution, both PW-2 and PW-3 were declared hostile and cross-examined, their statements failed to establish any role of surviving appellant Mani Ram. Their testimony, at best, only points to the presence of Hemraj alias Happu at the place of occurrence and his firing upon deceased Moti Ram. It is also relevant to mention here that appellant no. 2, namely, Hemraj alias Happu died during the pendency of this criminal appeal before this Court.

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Badan Singh vs. State of M.P., (2003) 12 SCC 792, has held in Para 16:

In the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Badan Singh (supra), it is clear that the evidence of prosecution witnesses must be deeply and critically scrutinized by the Court. If, upon critical scrutiny of the evidence, it appears that the conduct of a witness renders the prosecution case doubtful or incredible, or that their presence at the place of occurrence as an eye-witness is suspicious, the Court may reject their evidence.

Applying the aforesaid principle to the present case, we find that two accused persons arrived at the tube-well of deceased Moti Ram, where informant Chob Singh (PW-1), son of the deceased, was allegedly present. The other two prosecution witnesses, Prem Singh (PW-2) and Naubat (PW-3), were also present in nearby adjoining fields. According to these witnesses, the two accused persons approached Moti Ram, interacted with him, and thereafter caught hold of and forcibly took him away into the field of Zalim Singh.However, neither informant Chob Singh (PW-1) nor Prem Singh (PW-2) and Naubat (PW-3) made any attempt to rescue or save Moti Ram when he was caught hold of and forcibly taken away by the accused. Furthermore, none of these three prosecution witnesses raised any alarm or hue and cry that the accused, armed with country-made pistols (tamanchas), were taking Moti Ram away. It was only after the accused shot Moti Ram dead that all three prosecution witnesses, namely, informant Chob Singh (PW-1), Prem Singh (PW-2), and Naubat (PW-3), reached the field of Zalim Singh where the dead body of Moti Ram was lying. The aforesaid facts and the unnatural conduct of these so-called eye-witnesses render their presence at the place of occurrence at the time of the incident highly suspicious and doubtful.

We have perused and gone through the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 25.05.1987 passed by the III-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Etah. We find that the reasoning given by the Trial Court in support of its findings, is not supported by any cogent and reliable evidence. The Trial Court has failed to consider and appreciate the evidence of prosecution witnesses, namely, Chob Singh (PW-1), Prem Singh (PW-2) and Naubat (PW-3), keeping in mind whether these prosecution witnesses were actually present at the scene of occurrence and whether they had witnessed the commission of the crime with their own eyes. The Trial Court, without critically examining the evidence of the aforesaid prosecution witnesses, wrongly relied upon their testimony, which we find to be highly doubtful and unreliable for the conviction of the appellants, as their presence at the place of occurrence is rendered highly doubtful. Therefore, we find that the Trial Court has not appreciated the prosecution evidence in a proper perspective, in a legal manner, or in accordance with the settled principles of law.

Furthermore, we find that the Trial Court, despite not invoking the aid of Section 34 IPC while framing the charge against the appellants, convicted the surviving appellant under Section 302 IPC without assigning any specific role to the respective appellants. Thus, the findings and reasoning recorded by the Trial Court are devoid of any cogent evidence and are wholly unsustainable in the eyes of law.

In view of the above, we find that the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 25.05.1987 passed by the learned Trial Court is not sustainable in law and is liable to be set aside. The surviving appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubt, and his appeal deserves to be allowed.

Accordingly, the instant criminal appeal filed by the surviving appellant, Mani Ram, is allowed. He is granted the benefit of doubt, and the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 25.05.1987 passed by the III-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Etah, in Sessions Trial No. 475 of 1986 (State v. Mani Ram and Another), arising out of Case Crime No. 182 of 1986, under Section 302 of I.P.C., Police Station- Soron, District- Etah, is hereby set aside.

From the record, it transpires that the surviving appellant, Mani Ram, is on bail. He need not surrender. His personal bonds are cancelled and his sureties are discharged.

Let a copy of this judgment and order be communicated to the Trial Court along with the Trial Court record forthwith for necessary compliance.