Phool Singh vs State of U.P.

R.C. Deepak, J.—The Criminal (Jail) appeals No. 2489 of 2004 of Phool Singh and 2492 of 2004 of Sharwan Kumar arise out of the judgment and order dated 7.8.2004 passed by Smt. Rama Jain, learned Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Hardoi in S.T. No. 50 of 2002 relating to the murder of one Munshi Lal Yadav, whereby she convicted the accused appellants under section 302 IPC and sentenced them to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 5000/, are being heard together and is disposed of accordingly.

The brief facts of the case are that Munshi Lal Yadav, the resident of village Pihania P.S. Kotwali Dehat District Hardoi, was issueless having no wife but two married sisters; that he was the owner of 40 bighas agricultural land. He had given his agricultural land to one Nand Ram (PW 1) on batai. The accusedappellant Phool Singh is the cousin brother of Munshi Lal Yadav whereas accused appellant Sharwan Kumar is the nephew of Phool Singh. Phool Singh and Sharwan Kumar asked Munshi Lal Yadav to transfer his property to them but Munshi Lal Yadav had voluntarily declared that he would not dispose of the property during his life time, as a consequence the accusedappellants had developed a motive to eliminate him. Parsuram (PW 3) is the nephew of Munshi Lal Yadav. He used to come to the deceased to see him. It is alleged that one day earlier Parsuram had come to the house of his maternal uncle Munshi Lal Yadav. Parsuram and Munshi Lal Yadav had been sitting at a temple as Munshi Lal Yadav had became a Sadhu and remained to sit at the temple. During the course of their sitting, Nand Ram came there and demanded money from Munshi Lal Yadav to purchase diesel for irrigating the field but Munshi Lal Yadav told him that he had no money but also asked him to accompany him to his house to take wheat from him and after selling the same, he will collect the money to purchase diesel and come at the temple. Thereafter, both of them (Nand Ram and Munshi Lal Yadav) went to the house of Munshi Lal Yadav where Munshi Lal Yadav gave some wheat to him. Nand Ram came out from his house but Munshi Lal Yadav remained there. Nand Ram sold the wheat and got Rs. 96/ from its sale and thereafter he went to the temple where Parsuram was sitting but Munshi Lal Yadav was not there. He enquired from Parsuram about Munshi Lal Yadav. Parsuram disclosed that his maternal uncle has yet not come back here as it was very late. Thereafter, both of them went to the house of Munshi Lal Yadav and entered therein and they saw that in the bhushawali kothri Phool Singh and Sharwan Kumar had pulled down Munshi Lal Yadav and they were strangulating him with a rope and also causing injuries with kicks and fists. They raised an alarm. Jai Chand and certain others reached there and saw that Munshi Lal Yadav died of the injuries and his dead body was lying there. Accusedappellants ran away from there. Parsuram prepared an application (Ext. ka1) in regard to the murder of his maternal uncle and submitted it at the police station Kotwali Dehat, on the basis of which a case as case crime No. 237 of 2001 under section 302 IPC was registered at 17:40 hours against the appellants, the distance of the police station being 13 kms. The chick report of Ext. ka2.

The investigation into the case was entrusted to S.I. Devendra Singh, the then Station Officer of the police station and on his direction ASI Ramesh Chand Pal visited the place of occurrence, took the dead body of the deceased into his possession and sent it for postmortem examination in sealed cover. He also performed panchayatname (Ext. ka9) on the body of the deceased and prepared the site plan of the place of occurrence (Ext. ka5). He also recovered a rope used in the commission of the murder of the deceased and prepared the recovery memo (Ext. ka14).

The investigating officer recorded the statements of the witnesses. Dr. Chandra Keshore performed the autopsy on the dead body of the deceased and he found the following injuries on the person of the deceased:

Contusion on scalp Rt. parietal region 5 cm x 5 cm;

Contusion on Rt. shoulder and upper part of chest 10 cm x 6 cm;

Abrasion on Lt. shoulder outer aspect 2 cm x 3 cm;

Abrasion contusion on Lt. wrist outer aspect 3 cm x 2 cm;

Ligature mark all around the neck below thyroid cartilage mark grooved hard and leathery underlying times pchymosed margin congested abrasion around ligature mark present underlying thyroid cartilage and thyroid bone cornea fractured musical lung of larynx markably congested.

The doctor determined the cause of death of the deceased asphyxia as a result of strangulation.

The investigating officer, after completing the investigation into the case, submitted the chargesheet (Ext. ka 6) against the accused under section 302 IPC.

The charge under section 302 IPC was framed against the accused, who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

The prosecution examined as many as seven witnesses to prove its case. Nand Ram (PW 1), Jai Chand (PW 2) and Parsuram (PW 3) are the witnesses of fact whereas the remaining are the formal ones. The accusedappellant Phool Singh examined himself as DW 1 in his defence.

On the basis of the evidence on record, the Trial Court convicted the accusedappellants under section 302 IPC against which the present appeals from jail have been preferred, already referred to above.

We have heard Sri B.P. Nigam, learned Counsel for the accusedappellants and Sri Virendra Mohan, learned Counsel for the State and perused the record.

Learned Counsel for the accusedappellants has argued as follows:

that there is delay in lodging of the first information report and no explanation of delay has been given by the prosecution;

that there is no motive with the accusedappellants to commit the murder of the deceased Munshi Lal Yadav;

that the presence of Parsuram, the informant, is highly doubtful on the place and time of the occurrence to witness the occurrence as he is the resident of another village and real nephew of the deceased. Nand Ram is an interested witness as he has taken the agricultural land of the deceased on batai;

that the prosecution witness Jai Chand has not seen the actual occurrence but he is alleged to have seen the accusedappellants coming out from the house of the deceased.

On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the State has argued that there was strong motive with the accusedappellants to eliminate Munsi Lal Yadav as he had no issue and the accusedappellants belonged to the family of the deceased had expressed theirdesire to the deceased to transfer his property in their names who had denied to do so. The presence of the prosecution witnesses in no way can be doubted as there is specific disclosure in regard to the weapon, motive and manner of assault.

To deal with the first information report, which is the foundation of the case. The occurrence is said to have taken place on 15.9.2001 at about 12:30 in the day. The first information report was made the same day at 5:40 PM, the distance of the police station being 13 kms. There appears no delay in lodging of the first information report as the murder of the maternal uncle of the informant was committed and he was all alone from his family. He must have mustered courage in such a precarious situation to cover a distance of 13 kms in a puzzled condition and lodged the first information report. The first information report does not appear to have lodged with delay.

There is specific disclosure of the motive with the accusedappellants to commit the murder of the deceased. Undisputedly the deceased was issueless and having no wife also but two married sisters. The accusedappellants belonged to the family of the deceased and they had made a demand from the deceased to transfer his property in their names but the deceased had denied to do so property in their names but the deceased had denied to do so expressing that he would not transfer his property to them during his life time. This annoyed the accusedappellants and motivated them to eliminate him, therefore, there is a strong motive with the accusedappellants to commit the murder of the deceased. The presence of Parsuram (PW 2) is not unnatural or unwarranted as there is an evidence on record to show that he always used to come to the deceased to see him as the deceased was an old man of 60 years and he was his maternal uncle. He has given a vivid description in regard to his presence at the temple where he and the deceased were sitting. It has also come in evidence that the deceased was a Sadhu and he used to pass his time at the temple. The prosecution witness Nand Ram (PW 1) appeared there and made a demand of money from the deceased who disclosed to him to accompany him to his house to take the wheat, sell it and collect the money to purchase the diesel for irrigation. This fact cannot be said to be a manufactured and concocted one. Similarly, the presence of Nand Ram (PW 1), as disclosed above, cannot be doubted. Both of them went to the house of the deceased and they saw that the accusedappellants were strangulating him (Munshi Lal Yadav) with a rope and they were also causing injuries to him by kicks and fists. Their statements find full corroboration from the medical evidence as the deceased died of strangulation, as has been disclosed in the postmortem examination report (Ext. ka4). The prosecution witness Jai Chand is a witness to have not seen the actual occurrence but has seen the accused appellants running from the house of the deceased. He also went inside the house and saw that the deceased was lying dead in bhusawali kothri, therefore, there is no dispute in regard to the place of occurrence from where the blood and the dead body were recovered. The evidence of these witnesses coupled with the medical evidence go to establish that the accusedappellants committed the murder of the deceased. The Trial Court appears to have nicely dealt with the evidence on record in this regard.

The accusedappellant Phool Singh has examined himself as defence witness wherein he has disclosed that he has already lost his left paw in an accident and except agricultural work he cannot do any work. This defence does not belie the prosecution case and cannot exonerat the accusedappellants from the offence.

In above view of the discussion, we arrive at a conclusion that the Trial Court has discussed the evidence on record and the prevailing circumstances in passing the order of conviction against the accusedappellants and it does not warrant interference.

The Criminal (Jail) appeals lack merits and deserve to be dismissed. Consequently, the appeals of accusedappellants Phool Singh and Sharwan Kumar are accordingly dismissed. The conviction and sentence is affirmed and maintained.

The appellants are in jail. They shall be detained therein (jail) to serve out their sentences.

Appeals Dismissed.