Rajendra Singh vs State of U.P.

K.N. Ojha, J.—These connected appeals have been preferred against judgment and order dated 3.7.1981, passed by learned v. Ith Additional Sessions Judge, Shahjahanpur in State v. Ram Singh and Ors. S.T. No. 662 of 1980,by which Ram Singh has been convicted u/s 302, I.P.C., Nathu Singh and Rajendra Singh have been convicted u/s 302 read with Section 34, I.P.C. and each one of them has been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment.

Rajendra Singh Appellant is represented by Sri Subhashish Banerjee, advocate, but none ap�peared for him to advance arguments. In Appeal No. 1516 of 1981, argu�ments of Shri P. N. Mishra, learned senior counsel for the Appellants and Sri Gautam Chaudhary, brief holder for the State, were heard. Both the ap�peals are being decided on merits.

According to prosecution, Mahesh Pal Singh informant is son of Charat Singh. Litigation was pending between Charat Singh and accused Ram Singh. Mahesh Pal Singh is the informant and Charat Singh is deceased in this case. Appellant Rajendra Singh is nephew of Ram Singh and Nathoo Singh is said to be the friend of Ram Singh. It is alleged that due to litigation, the accused had animus to commit murder of Charat Singh. On 11.6.1980 at about 10 a.m., Mahesh Pal Singh, Charat Singh, Smt. Premawati, daughter of Charat Singh and Ved Prakash, son-in-law of Charat Singh, were coming back on their manure-cart. Charat Singh was driving it, Mahesh Pal Singh and Smt. Premawati were sitting inside the cart and Ved Prakash was following it. When the cart reached near the flour-mill of accused Ram Singh, all the three Appellants came out with their guns and challenge was made by Rajendra Singh and Nathoo Singh. Ram Singh caused firearm injury to Charat Singh. Charat Singh jumped down from the cart. He was successful in running upto 3 or 4 steps, but thereafter he fell down on the earth. Mahesh Pal Singh, Ved Prakash, Smt. Premawati, Jwala Singh and Brij Raj Singh witnesses saw the occurrence. Charat Singh died on the spot. F.I.R. was lodged by Mahesh Pal Singh on the same day at 11.45 a.m. against the Appellants by name.

Post-mortem examination on the dead body of Charat Singh, aged about 40 years, was done in the mortuary of District Hospital, Shahjahanpur, on 12.6.1980 at 3 p.m. Rigor mortis was present in all extremities. Following ante-mortem injuries were found on his body:

(1) Gun-shot wound of entry 2 cm. ? peritonial cavity. Margins irregular. There was no blackening, charring or tattooing.

(2) Abrasion 2 cm. ? 1 cm. on the back of right elbow.

68 pellets and wadding pieces were found from the wound. In the opinion of the Doctor, death resulted due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem injuries.

After investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted and the learned Additional Sessions Judge found the charge u/s 302, I.P.C. proved against Ram Singh and the charge u/s 302 read with Section 34, I.P.C. proved against Nathoo Singh and Rajendra Singh and passed impugned order of conviction and sentence against which both these appeals have been preferred.

According to defence, Ram Singh had lodged F.I.R. against Charat Singh. Nursing this bad blood, he has been falsely implicated in the crime. Besides it, litigation in respect of the landed property was also pending between Ram Singh and Charat Singh. Ram Singh denied that Rajendra Singh is his nephew and Nathoo Singh is his friend.

The defence of Nathoo Singh is that his brother was witness for Ram Singh against Charat Singh, hence he has been involved in the crime. Due to enmity in respect of purchase of land, he has also been involved in the crime.

Prosecution examined eye-witnesses P.W. 1 Mahesh Pal Singh son of the deceased, P.W. 2 Brajraj Singh resident of the same village Abhayapur, where parties live. P.W. 3 Ved Prakash Singh is the son-in-law of deceased Charat Singh. These three eye-witnesses have supported the prosecution story. P.W. 4 is Gokaran Singh, constable Moharrir, who carried the dead body of Charat Singh to District Hospital, Shahjahanpur, for post-mortem examination. P.W. 5 is Raghunath Singh, the then second officer, police station Khudaganj, district Shahjahanpur, who has proved chick report and copy of G.D. P.W. 6 is Dr. Satya Pal Singh, who performed autopsy on the dead body of Charat Singh.

The defence examined constable Chhattarpal Singh, who has proved the F.I.R. lodged by Amar Singh son of accused Appellant Ram Singh, in which final report was submitted.

A perusal of the statement of three eye-witnesses P.W. 1 Mahesh Pal Singh, P.W. 2 Brajraj Singh and P.W. 3 Ved Prakash Singh shows that occurrence did take place on 11.6.1980 at 10 a.m., F.I.R. of which was lodged by name against the Appellants on the same day at 11.45 a.m. Though these witnesses cannot be said independent witnesses, but their testimony is consistent and natural. It is broad day light occurrence, F.I.R. has been promptly lodged and Ram Singh had motive to kill Charat Singh, who was contesting the case against Ram Singh. Post-mortem examination was done and gun-shot wound of entry was found on the body of Charat Singh, which in the opinion of the Doctor was sufficient for his death. If the witnesses would not have been present on the spot, F.I.R. would not have been promptly lodged.

The place of occurrence cannot be doubted where the dead body was lying at the time the Investigating Officer reached.

About the manner of causing injury, there is some contradiction in the statements of the witnesses as to wherefrom the accused persons came out on the way and Ram Singh fired at Charat Singh. But these contradictions are of minor nature because the witnesses Jwala Singh and Brajraj Singh are said to have reached the spot on the alarm raised by Smt. Premawati, Ved Prakash and Mahesh Pal Singh. Therefore, if P.W. 2 Brajraj Singh could not give correct detail about the place wherefrom the accused came out, on this ground, the statement of Brajraj Singh cannot be discarded.

In the instant case, death of Charat Singh did take place from firearm injury and active role of Ram Singh to cause firearm injury is specified by the witnesses in their statements, but so far Appellants Rajendra Singh and Nathoo Singh are concerned, their role is of exhortation only.

Rajendra Singh and Nathoo Singh also allegedly had guns. In case they also shared the common intention with Ram Singh for murdering Charat Singh, they would also have opened fire on him. There could be no point in being armed with guns but not making use of the same and simply exhorting Ram Singh. The fact is that the deceased received only one gun-shot wound at the hand of Ram Singh. Enmity of Charat Singh exists with Rajendra Singh and Nathoo Singh also. Therefore, the possibility of their false implication cannot be ruled out.

We have gone through the impugned judgment and the record and in our opinion, the appeal preferred by Rajendra Singh and Nathoo Singh deserves to be allowed as the charge is not proved against them, but the appeal of Ram Singh has no merit.

Appeals of Rajendra Singh and Nathoo Singh are allowed and impugned order of conviction and sentence passed against them by vIth Additional Sessions Judge, Shahjahanpur, is set aside. They are acquitted from the charge u/s 302 read with Section 34, I.P.C. They are on bail. They need not surrender and their sureties are discharged.

Appeal preferred by Ram Singh is dismissed. The order of conviction and sentence of life imprisonment, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Shahjahanpur, is sustained. He is on bail. His bail is cancelled. He be taken into custody and sent to jail to serve out the sentence, awarded to him.

Let a copy of this judgment along with the record be sent to the court below for compliance and to report to this Court within two months from the date of the receipt of the record.