Allahabad High Court
State Of U.P. vs Sripal And Mukhtiarey on 18 August, 2005
Author: M.C. Jain
Bench: M.C. Jain, M. Chaudhary
JUDGMENT M.C. Jain, J.
1. The accused-respondents Sripal and Mukhtiyare were tried before Sixth Additional Sessions Judge, Meerut in S.T. No. 531 of 1978 for the offence punishable under Section 396 I.P.C. and alternatively for the offence of murder punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. Both of them were acquitted by the impugned judgement dated 4.6.1982 under challenge from the side of the State. According to the trial court, the evidence led by the prosecution was not credible to connect the two accused-respondents with the crime at hand.
2. The incident took place in between the night of 20/21.3.1977 at about 2'O clock in Village Jagas at a distance of seven miles from the concerned Police Station Chhaprauli, District Meerut. The life of one Ramesh Chand was cut short in the incident by shooting. The information of the occurrence was conveyed to Police Station Chhaprauli by Srichand PW 1 through telephone at 7.15 A.M. on 21.3.1977. His niece was married to the deceased Ramesh Chand. He had set out from his house at about 6.30 A.M. on morning walk. On reaching in front of the Government Hospital, he witnessed a number of persons collected there, who, on inquiry, disclosed that a murder and dacoity had been committed at the house of Murari Lal, Pradhan PW 7. He went to nearby house of a businessman and conveyed this brief information to the Police Station on telephone. It was recorded in the G.D. by Rajpal Singh CW 1 ( examined as PW 8 also ). S.O. Harpal Singh PW 10 was posted at Police Station Chhaprauli. On receiving the telephonic message, he accompanied by S.I. Samai Singh went to the place of the incident. In the way, Suresh Chand PW 2 ( brother of the deceased) met him and handed over the regular F.I.R. Ext. Ka-1. It was a detailed F.I.R. in which the accused-respondents were named as the participants in the commission of this crime along with 14 or 15 other bandits. Narration of the incident given in the F.I.R. was that in the fateful night informant's elder brother Baleshwar and Ramesh Chand (deceased) as also Sribhagwan and Dhani Ram were lying in the verandah. A glowing lantern was hung as usual. They were listening the news broadcast regarding elections on the transistor. Mange Harijan of the village was also there who had left the scene at about 11.30 P.M. Ramesh Chand had slept down. The accused-respondents Sripal and Mukhtiyare with 14 or 15 others wearing Khakee dress arrived there at about 2 O' clock. As they were in Khakee dress, on sight they were taken to be police persons and informant's elder brother Baleshwar addressed them as Darogaji. They retorted that they were dacoits. Accused Mukhtiyare disturbed Ramesh Chand waking him up from sleep. As soon as he got up, one of the dacoits opened shot on him and he fell down on the ground. Suresh Chand and others ran out raising shouts and alarm. The dacoits entered into the house and fired on Kanti wife of Baleshwar, They even injured a young boy Sumant aged about 9 years son of Baleshwar. Murari Lal PW 7 also became victim of the dacoits and was assaulted. He sustained a number of bruises on different parts of his body.
3. It was also stated in the F.I.R. that Sripal and Mukhtiyare accused harboured enmity and grudge against Ramesh Chand and avenged themselves by committing his murder. It was not the end of the incident and the dacoits looted cash amounting to Rs. 12,000/- and valuables, terrorizing the inmates of the house. On hue and cry, Likhi Ram PW 3, Hargu Lal PW 4 and Jai Narain PW 5 were attracted to the scene with torches. Taking precaution to avoid getting hurt themselves, they could recognize Sripal and Mukhtiyare amongst the culprits. The dacoits ( companions of the two accused Sripal and Mukhtiyare) went away with the booty and the accused persons also moved with satisfaction of having taken revenge by killing Ramesh Chand.
4. The investigation followed as usual. Sripal was arrested on 26.3.1977 and Mukhtiyare was arrested on 11.7.1977.
5. It may also be related here that post mortem over the dead body of Ramesh Chand was conducted by Dr. A.K. Dubey PW 6 on 21.3.1977 at 3.30 P.M. He was aged about 28 years and about 12 hours had passed since he died. Suffice it to say that fatal injury sustained by him was a gunshot wound of entry on right side chest besides three abrasions. The cause of death was shock and haemorrhage as a result of injury to vital parts-heart and lungs due to gun shot.
6. Kanti was also medically examined by Dr. R.K. Sharma PW 11 on 21.3.1977 at 5.00 A.M. She, too, had received a number of gunshot injuries. The same Doctor had examined on 21.3.1977 at 5.30 A.M. the injuries of Sumant son of Baleshwar. He had received a lacerated wound, contusion and abrasion.
7. The defence was of denial and false implication owing to enmity and party factions. The accused Sripal stated that there had been a litigation between his wife and Murari Lal PW 7. He had filed objections and, therefore, he was falsely implicated. The other accused Mukhtiyare stated under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that he had opposed Rajendra Sharma, cousin of the deceased Ramesh Chand in an election and the said Rajendra Sharma was defeated at the hustings. To wreak vengeance, he was falsely implicated.
8. The prosecution in all examined seven witnesses. Srichand Sharma PW 1 had initially passed on information of the incident to the Police Station through telephone without naming anybody. Suresh Chand PW 2, Likhi Ram PW 3, Hargu Lal PW 4, Jai Narain PW 5 and Murari Lal PW 7 were examined as other eye-witnesses. The rest were witnesses more or less of formal nature, covering the investigation part too.
9. We have heard Sri K.P. Shukla, learned A.G.A. from the side of the appellant-State and Sri V.C. Tiwary, learned Senior Advocate from the side of accused-respondents assisted by Sri A.K. Awasthy. The submission from the side of the State is that the participation of the two accused-respondents in the crime in question was proved to the hilt by the testimonial assertions of the eye-witnesses which the trial court erringly ignored. On the other hand, the counsel appearing on the side of the accused-respondents has tried to support the acquittal recorded by the trial court.
10. We intend to deal with the vital aspects of the matter in the discussion that follows.
11. It should be stated at the initial brant of the matter that the two accused-respondents Sripal and Mukhtiyare were tried under Section 396 I.P.C. Alternatively, charge against them was also under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. on the premise that they planned a dacoity to be committed at the house of the informant. The dacoits went away with the booty and they took revenge of their enmity with the informant's family and the deceased Ramesh Chand by murdering him. It is, however, to be noted that in the F.I.R. the case was mainly projected as that of dacoity. The two accused-respondents resident of the same village were named as participants of this crime along with 14 or 15 others. It is significant to observe that the details of the looted property including cash were given in the F.I.R. but admittedly no recovery was made from any of the two accused-respondents to connect them with this crime. Further, in formal F.I.R. lodged by the informant Suresh Chand PW 2 brother of the deceased Ramesh Chand, it was not specifically mentioned that the accused-respondent Mukhtiyare had a gun. Instead, the recital was that out of 15 or 16 desperadoes amongst whom Mukhtiyare and Sripal were also included, 4 or 5 had guns. It is a detailed F.I.R. written by Suresh Chand PW 2 in his own handwriting, giving minute details of the incident, but it does not say that Mukhtiyare had opened fire on Ramesh Chand which hit him and as a result whereof he fell down on the ground. Rather the version of the F.I.R. is that Mukhtiyare suddenly woke up Ramesh Chand and as soon as he (Ramesh Chand) woke up one of the dacoits opened fire on him. The relevant recital of the F.I.R. may be quoted: -
^^------djhc 2-00 cts 15] 16 vkneh tks [kkdh onh± esa Fks] muds lkFk gekjs xkWo dk eq[kI;kjs iq= gqde pUn iafMr o Jhkiy iq= txnh'k R;kxh xkWo xqokuiqj ftyk lksuhir gfj;k.kk ds Fks] cpiu ls gekjs xkWo esa jgrk gS] lkFk Fks] pkj ikWp cUnwds fy;s gq, Fks] gekjs cjkens esa vk;s] ftUgsa ns[kdj esjs cM+s HkkbZ oys'k us dgk fd vkvks njksxk th] muesa ls ,d us dgk fd dkSu njksxk] ge Mkdw gS A brus esa eq[kI;kjs us >iVdj jes'k dks txk;k tSls gh jes'k [kM+k gqvk] ,d Mkdw us jes'k ij Qk;j dj fn;k] ftlls og QlZ ij fxj iM+k A ;s gksrs gh ge yksx xSyjh esa xqIr njokts ls 'kksj epkrs gq, Hkkxs] vkSj lh<+h ls p<+dj ckgj dwndj xkWo okyksa dks txk;k------**
12. For the first time it came to be introduced during the course of evidence in the testimony of Suresh Chand PW 2 that it was Mukhtiyare who had opened shot from the gun on Ramesh Chand.
13. It goes wholly unexplained as to why the factum of Mukhtiyare being armed with gun and of his having opened fire hitting Ramesh was not mentioned in the long and detailed F.I.R. lodged by Suresh Chand PW 2.
14. There was no uniformity in the statements of the eye-witnesses as to whether the two accused-respondents had muffled up their faces or they were participating in the commission of the crime with open faces. It is indicative of the fact that the witnesses simply deposed on the basis of their imagination. The F.I.R. also does not disclose whether they had muffled up their faces or were with open faces. Suresh Chand PW 2 also did not say anything in this behalf, meaning thereby that the two accused-respondents participated in the commission of the crime with open faces. But Likhi Ram PW 3 stated that Mukhtiyare and Sripal had muffled up their faces. It should also be taken note of this that he is a collateral of the informant and cannot be termed to be an independent witness. He demonstrated before the court by wrapping a blanket as if only eyes and forehead of Mukhtiyare and Sripal were visible. According to him, out of 15 or 16 dacoits, 10 or 11 had guns and rest had dandos etc. Obviously, his statement is at variance from that of Suresh Chand PW 2, inasmuch as he did not say that Mukhtiyare was armed with gun.
15. Hargu Lal PW 4 stated that he recognized Mukhtiyare and Sripal when they came out of the house of the informant after committing the crime. According to him, however, none of the miscreants had covered his face. He also stated that both of them had covered their heads with Chadar but they did not make any effort to conceal their faces while running away. The statement of Jai Narain PW 5 is that Sripal and Mukhtiyare had tied Chadars on their heads but their faces were visible when they left the spot. He could not say as to in what position they came to the spot. Murari Lal PW 7 (father of the deceased Ramesh Chand) also claimed to have recognized Mukhtiyare and Sripal during the course of committing the crime. But, there is no unanimity amongst the witnesses as to whether two accused respondents had muffled up their faces or otherwise. The matter may be considered from both the angles. There is no evidence on record that the two accused-respondents had any criminal antecedents and were of such hazardous character that they could have participated in the commission of this crime with open faces. If they had muffled up their faces with only their foreheads and eyes visible as stated by Likhi Ram PW 3, then it was difficult for any of the witnesses to have recognized them. There is nothing to indicate that there was any grappling between them on the one hand and the inmates of the house of the victim of the felony on the other. What we mean to say is that if these two accused-respondents had taken precaution to conceal their identity, then they could not be unmuffled without grappling and there could be no opportunity to the witnesses to have recognized them.
16. The F.I.R. of the incident also does not seem to be a spontaneous document. Suresh Chand PW 2 stated that he had written the report inside Police Station and had handed over it there. But Harpal Singh I.O. PW 10 stated that Suresh Chand met him on his way to the spot and handed over the report to him. Dacoity was committed that night not only at the house of the informant but also at the house of Daya Ram of the village. The possibility cannot be ruled out that the F.I.R. was prepared under the supervision of the local police. The police might have been instrumental in getting named two persons (accused-respondents) as the participants of the crime in the F.I.R. so as to avoid the blame of not working out the dacoity at all and exposed to the displeasure of superior authorities. The enmity of the informant with the two accused-respondents and his suspicion on them came handy to implicate them as participants of the crime. It is well settled that once F.I.R. is held to be fabricated, the entire prosecution case becomes doubtful. Indeed, the two accused-respondents could not be convicted on the vague impression of the possibility of their being involved in the crime.
17. On carefully wading through evidence on record, we find that the alleged participation of the two accused-respondents in the commission of this crime is shrouded in dubiousness on being judged from every angle. It is also pertinent to state here that as per the own case of the prosecution there was animosity between the family of the informant and deceased Ramesh Chand on the one hand and that of two accused-respondents from before.
18. As per statement of Suresh Chand PW 2 on the preceding Holi, there had been a quarrel between Mukhtiyare and Ramesh Chand deceased. Further, litigation in consolidation court was pending between Sripal and the informant's family in which Ramesh Chand was doing pairvi.
19. It was also stated by Suresh Chand PW 2 in his cross-examination that his cousin Rajendra Sharma( who was present in the court at the time of recording of his statement) had contested the election for the office of M.L.A. and was defeated and that Sripal and Mukhtiyare were in opposite camp. So, shortly put, there was animosity between the family of the informant on the one hand and the two accused-respondents from before.
20. On the state of evidence adduced before the Court, accused could not be held to be participants of the crime. The view taken by the lower court is a possible and reasonable view that the so-called eye-witnesses had no opportunity to recognize the accused-respondents amongst the participants of the crime. The acquittal recorded by the trial court is well sustainable in view of the above discussion made by us touching all the vital aspects of the matter.
21. The appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
22. Certify the judgement to the lower court.