Suraj Pal Singh and Others vs State of U.P.

Virendra Saran and M.C. Jain, JJ.—This appeal has been preferred by Suraj Pal� Singh, Atar Singh and Hari Singh against the judgment and order dated September 15, 1980 of Sri Gaya Parasad, VIth Additional Sessions Judge, Mainpuri convicting and sentencing the Appellants u/s 302, I.P.C. to imprisonment for life. The order was passed in Sessions Trial No. 11 of 1979.

The prosecution case is that the deceased Sriram was a resident of Allapur and was elder brother of the father of informant Quaim Singh. Sriram had only one son Tilak Singh, but unfortunately Tilak Singh expired about 20 or 22 years prior to the incident and was survived by his widow Smt. Ganga Devi. The F.I.R. states that Smt. Ganga Devi belonged to Nagla Badha, P.S. Karhal and after her husband�s death, she started living at the house of her father and sometimes she used to visit the house of the Appellant Suraj Pal Singh. Deceased Sriram was an old man of about 90 years with weak eye sight and he could walk with the help of a stick. After death of Tilak Singh, Sriram used to reside with Quaim Singh, the first informant of the case. The further case of the prosecution is that Appellants Suraj Pal Singh, etc. got a maintenance case filed against Sriram and in that case, Appellant Suraj Pal Singh was doing pairvi for Smt. Ganga Devi. Sriram contested the case of maintenance. He won this case from the High Court. The incident is said to have taken place on January 5, 1978 at about 7.30 a.m. It is alleged by the prosecution that Sriram had gone to answer the call of nature accompanied by Jagdish. Sriram went and sat in the field of Ram Singh, Barber to ease and Jagdish stood at a distance of about 20 paces. As soon as the deceased was able to ease, the three Appellants emerged from the nearby sugarcane field of Mahraj Singh and started delivering spear blows upon the deceased. The deceased Sriram fell down and died as a result of the injuries received by him. Jagdish raised alarm attracting informant Quaim Singh and Karan Pal. On the arrival of the witnesses, the Appellant escaped. Quaim Singh lodged an F.I.R. at police station Jasrana on the same day at 9.30 a.m. at a distance of about two furlongs from the spot. The investigation was taken up by Sri Baij Nath Singh, Station Officer. The body was sent for post mortem examination which was conducted by Dr. S.S. Agarwal, P.W. 3 on 6.1.1978 at about 3.00 p.m. The doctor found the following injuries on the person of Sriram :

(1) Lacerated wound 4 x 4 cm. x bone deep, Bone fractured at right side. Face surrounded by 5 other lacerated Wounds size varying from 2.5x2 cm x bone deep bone forward to 5cm. x .5cm. x skin deep surrounding from right bone throat to right angle of mouth and right side nose to right cheek. The right eye damaged.

(2) Lacerated wound 3 x 1 cm. x muscle deep downward of left hand.

(3) Lacerated wound 3 x 1.5 cm. x muscle deep on vernal aspect of left forearm.

(4) Multiple abrasions in an area of 12 x 2 cm. on right leg front.

(5) Multiple abrasions on an area of 10 x 2 cm. on right leg front.

(6) Two abrasions each sized 1 x 1.5 cm. and .5 cm. x 5 cm. on front of chin.

On internal examination, the doctor found the right frontal, right temporal, right Zygomitic right nasal bone fractured and broken into pieces. The internal examination also showed that stomach of the deceased was empty.

After completing the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the Appellants and in due course, the Appellants were committed to the Court of Session.

At the trial, the Appellants pleaded not guilty and stated that they had been falsely implicated. In support of its case, the prosecution examined three eye-witnesses, namely, P.W. 1 Quaim Singh, P.W. 2 Jagdish and P.W. 4 Karan Pal. However, P.W. 4 Karan Pal did not support the prosecution version and was declared hostile.P.W. 3 Dr S.S. Agarwal had conducted the postmortem examination of the deceased. Two formal witnesses, namely, constable Rajpal Singh and P.W. 6 Baijnath Singh have also been examined. Constable Rajpal Singh was posted at the police station and he had taken the dead body for postmortem examination while P.W. 6 Baij Nath had investigated the case. The Appellants did not examine any witnesses in their defence. After scrutinising the evidence on the record, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the Appellants as mentioned above. The Appellants have now come up in appeal.

We have heard Sri Ravindra Sharma, Learned Counsel for the Appellants and Sri G.C. Pant, Learned Counsel for the State and have perused the entire evidence on the record. So far as the motive of the murder is concerned, we are of the view that there was hardly sufficient motive for the Appellants to commit the murder. The case which Smt. Ganga Devi filed against the deceased was for maintenance. She being the widow of the pre-deceased son of the deceased, wanted the maintenance for herself. The deceased contested the case and won the case from the High Court. The stand taken in the F.l.R. is that Smt. Ganga Devi was residing with her father. However, on the backing of Appellant Suraj Pal Singh, the widow knocked at the door of Courts for maintenance, but failed. This could not provide any motive for Suraj Pal Singh, etc. to commit the murder of Sriram. By committing murder of Sriram, the purpose of getting maintenance from him could not have been achieved. In the totality of circumstances, the evidence on record fails to prove that the Appellants had anything to gain by committing the murder of Sriram and, thus they had no motive for the crime. At the trial, P.W. 1 Quaim Singh tried to impress upon the Court that in fact Smt. Ganga Devi was living with Appellant Suraj Pal Singh and the two were living as man and woman. We are not prepared to believe this part of the evidence of P.W. 1 Quaim Singh. In his own F.I.R., Quaim Singh had categorically stated that Smt. Ganga Devi had shifted to her parental house in Nagla Bandha and was living with her father and Suraj Pal being her sister�s husband, she sometimes came there.P.W. 1 Quaim Singh had to admit in his cross-examination that he was deposing the above fact for the first time in the Court of Session and he did not say so in the F.l.R. as also in the statement given to the Investigating Officer. In the evidence of P.W. 2 Jagdish, there is not even a whisper which may go to corroborate the evidence of P.W. 1 Quaim Singh on the above point.

The question that is still llef to be answered is who at all was to be benefited by the murder of Sriram. In the instant case, evidence of Quaim Singh and Jagdish goes to show that Sriram had executed a sale deed in favour of P.W. 1 Quaim Singh, Quaim Singh�s brother Hakim Singh and his adopted son Mata Din who is Anr. younger brother of Quaim Singh. Naturally, on the death of Sriram, rest of the property could also be claimed by the alleged adopted son Matadin. It further appears that P.W. 1 Quaim Singh and his brOrs. somehow managed to procure a sale deed from the deceased without paying any consideration. Quaim Singh admitted in para 23 of his cross-examination that no money was given to Matadin as he was the adopted son and the sale deed was got executed under advice from lawyers. The deceased, who had practically no eye-sight and was unable to walk, was also a burden on those who were keeping him and could have changed his mind at any time, as some old people do, to give away his property to some one else.

Adverting to the eye-witness account, the prosecution has examined three eye-witnesses, namely, P.W. 1 Quaim Singh, P.W. 2 Jagdish, who is the son of Quaim Singh and P.W. 3 Karan Pal. The only independent witness in this case, namely, Karan Pal has not supported the prosecution case and has been declared hostile. We are left with the evidence of Quaim Singh and Jagdish, who are father and son. A close scrutiny of the evidence of P.W. 1 Quaim Singh and P.W. 2 Jagdish casts serious doubt about their presence at the time of the incident and their version regarding the incident leaves one guessing about the circumstances in which the deceased was done to death. We have already noticed in the earlier part of the judgment the injuries sustained by the deceased which consisted of three lacerated wounds. Besides that injury, Nos. 4 and 5 were multiple abrasions and injury No. 6 was noted as two abrasions. The internal examination showed that the right frontal, right temporal, right Zygomitic, right nasal bone of the deceased were fractured and broken. These injuries were the result of blows from blunt weapon like lathi. Even in the base of the skull, anterial cranial fossa had been broken. The prosecution was alive to the fact that there were not even a single injury on the person of the deceased which could be caused by a pointed weapon like spear. The specific case set out in the F.I.R. is that only spear blows were delivered upon the deceased. Realising this, the two eye-witnesses turned-round and started deposing that the spear was not used in its natural form but was used as a lathi.P.W. 1 Quaim Singh had to admit in his cross-examination that neither in the F.I.R. nor in his statement given to the Investigating Officer, he had mentioned such a use of spear.

P.W. 2 Jagdish also made the same improvement in his evidence at the trial. Thus, it appears that the prosecution in order to bring the evidence of the two eye-witnesses in line with the medical evidence deliberately made improvements and the theory of using the spear as lathi was introduced. But the same does not inspire any confidence. We have already observed above that according to the evidence of P.W. 1 Quaim Singh, informant had already got sale deed of 15 bighas of land of the deceased transferred to them by means of a sale deed and further the informant�s brother Matadin was claiming to be the adopted son of the deceased. After the death of the deceased, Matadin could have laid claim on the property of the deceased and hindrance could have come from Smt. Ganga Devi, who was supported by the Appellants. No wonder for this reason, the Appellants were falsely implicated in this case to keep them away from instigating or backing Smt. Ganga Devi in any manner.

There are also some other intriguing features in this case which tell upor the veracity of the evidence of P.W. 1 Quaim Singh and P.W. 2 Jagdish. The story of the deceased having gone in the company of Jagdish to ease is also doubtful. According to P.W. 2 Jagdish, deceased had already eased by the time and only thereafter he was assaulted by the Appellants. This part of his statement is also belied from the findings in the post-mortem report which show that the stomach and the small intestine were empty while the large intestine was lull. It means that the deceased had not eased by the time he was done to death. The murder had taken place about two furlongs away from the Abadi of the village. Reason for the deceased going such a long way to ease himself is also not convincing. According to the prosecution witnesses, the deceased was an old and spent man of 90 years of age. He could walk with the aid of a stick and had to be supported by someone to go to ease. The vision in his eyes was also very dim. In such a situation, it was reasonable to expect that the deceased would go to answer the call of nature at such a distance which could be conveniently covered. But in the instant case, the deceased had gone 2 furlongs away from the Abadi of the village. No reasonable explanation of the deceased having gone to such a length in a chilly winter morning is forthcoming.P.W. 2 Jagdish has offered a lame explanation that by sheer habit, the deceased used to go to ease two furlongs away from his village. The explanation is hardly convincing and it is not known why and under what circumstances P.W. 2 Jagdish took the deceased to such a long distance where his murder was committed. The fact that the large intestine of the deceased was full also casts a shadow of doubt regarding the time of death of the deceased and it may be very early in the morning. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the Appellants who are entitled to be acquitted.

Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence of the Appellants is set aside and they are acquitted. The Appellants are on bail. They need not surrender. Their bail bonds are discharged.