Allahabad High Court
Rudra Pal Singh And Others vs State Of U.P. on 16 September, 2022
Bench: Ramesh Sinha, Renu Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH AFR RESERVED ON 22-08-2022 DELIVERED ON 16.09.2022 Court No. - 1 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 583 of 1987 Appellant :- Rudra Pal Singh And Others Respondent :- State of U.P. Counsel for Appellant :- Pankaj Nath,Amar Nath Dubey,G.C.Verma Counsel for Respondent :- Government Advocate,Shiv Shanker Singh Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.
Hon'ble Mrs. Renu Agarwal,J.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Renu Agarwal,J.)
1. Present Criminal Appeal under section 374(2) Cr.P.C. has been filed against the judgment and order dated 02-09-1987 passed by Sri Mukteshwar Prasad, the then Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Sultanpur in Sessions Trial No. 113 of 1986, convicting all the appellants under sections 302/34 I.P.C. and sentencing them to undergo to life imprisonment to each convict-appellants under sections 302/34 I.P.C. The convict-appellants, Rudra Pal Singh, Sita Ram Singh and Sri Ram Singh had died during pendency of the present appeal and case against them has been abated vide order dated 05-12-2016. Thus, the present appeal survives on behalf of the appellant, Rajendra Pratap Singh.
2. Wrapping the facts of the case in brief that the complainant, Vijay Bahadur Singh, son of late Vishwanath Singh stated in the F.I.R. that his brother, Bajrang Bahadur and Ram Sahay Tewari, S/o Sri Ram Hit and Salikram Murai, S/o Ramjeevan, R/o of Kharagpur Ayodhya Nagar, were returning to their home on 03-09-1984 at about 1.30 P.M. When they reached Bibi Tali Talab, the convict-appellants, Rudra Pal Singh, Sita Ram Singh and Sri Ram Singh, sons of Fateh Bahadur Singh and Rajendra Pratap Singh @ Mithu, son of Rudra Pal Singh attacked his brother, Bajrang Bahadur Singh with Lathi and Ballam. When his brother, Bajrang Bahadur Singh raised alarm, Ram Sewak Tewari and Salikram Murai rushed towards the place of the incident and tried to save the brother of the complainant, Bajrang Bahadur Singh. The convict-appellants threatened them not to come forward to save Bajrang Bahadur Singh else they will bear the consequences.
3. Hearing noise at the place of occurrence, the complainant and Surya Narain Tewari, S/o Gayadin Tewari and Ram Lakhan Upadhyay, S/o Ram Dular and other villagers arrived at the place of incident and challenged the assailants. Then, the convict-accused ran away treating his brother half dead towards the south. The brother of the informant was badly injured and unconscious. He brought his brother on a cot to the police station with the help of Somai, Hari Ram Lal, Krishan Surya Narayan. When they reached near a temple at Peeparpur Road, his brother died on the way. The complainant went to the police station with dead body of his brother and lodged an F.I.R. in writing.
4. The contents of the aforesaid information were taken down in the concerned Chik F.I.R. as Case Crime No. 161 of 1984, under sections 302/34 I.P.C., Police Station-Peeparpur, Sub. District-Amethi, district-Sultanpur on 03-09-1984 at about 3.15 P.M.
5. On the basis of the entries so made in the Chik F.I.R., a case was registered against the convict-appellants. The investigation of the case was entrusted upon to the Station Officer, Satish Chandra Tripathi, P.W.-7 and the autopsy of the dead body of the deceased was conducted on the very same day i.e. 03-09-1984 at 17.30 hours in the presence of Surya Narain Singh, Dwarika Singh, Girija Shanker Singh, Ram Narain Shukla and Ganga Prasad Singh. The Investigating Officer prepared the inquest report of the dead body of the deceased, which is on record.
6. The witnesses of the inquest concurred with the Investigating Officer that the dead body of the deceased be sent for post-mortem in order to ascertain the real cause of death. The dead body of the deceased was sent for post-mortem with all necessary papers i.e. Chik Report, Challan Lash, Photo Lash, Report of the Chief Medical Officer and the Report of the R.I. etc. in the form of Challan with letters to the Chief Medical Officer and R.I.
7. The post-mortem of the deceased, Bajrang Bahadur was conducted. The post-mortem report is Exhibit Ka-2, which is annexed with the file. The following ante-mortem injuries were found on the body of the deceased:-
Ante-mortem Injuries .
(1) Punctured wound 2 cm. x 1 cm. x bone deep over front of left leg. 9 cm. below paletts.
(2) Punctured wound 2.5 c.m. x 1 cm. x bone deep 7 c.m. below injury No. one.
(3) Punctured wound 1 cm. x .5 cm. x bone deep over medial malleolus.
(4) Traumatic swelling over medial part of right ankle joint in an area of 6 cm. x 4 cm. x diffused swelling around the joint also.
(5) Incised wounds over the back of proximal inter phalangeal joints of index, ring and middle finger. All linear and skin deep.
(6) Traumatic swelling over whole of the upper 1/2 of the right forearm 15 cm. x entire girth with deformity with fracture of both underlying bones(Radius & ulna).
(7) Multiple abrasion over back & top of right shoulder over bony prominence in area of 9 cm. x 5 cm.
(8) Contusion over right side back in scapular & infra scapular region measuring 12 cm. X 3 cm. oblique & vertical in direction.
(9) Contusion over left side back 13 cm. x 3 cm. vertical & oblique in direction below inferior angle of Scapula.
(10) Incised wd. 4 cm. x 1 cm. x bone deep over left side top of scalp 9 cm. above left ear.
Cause of death is disclosed as Shock & Hemorrhage due to ante-mortem injuries.
8. The Investigating Officer visited place of occurrence and prepared site plan (Exhibit Ka-12). The Investigating Officer collected blood stained cot from the possession of the complainant and released in his favour with the condition to produce the same at the time of the evidence. He also collected the blood stained and plain earth from the place of occurrence and prepared sample and sent it to Forensic Laboratory. The report of the Forensic Laboratory is on record.
9. After conducting investigation, the Investigating Officer filed the chargesheet against all the four convict-appellants, Rudra Pal Singh, Sita Ram Singh, Sri Ram Singh and Rajendra Pratap Singh under sections 302/34 I.P.C. The Magistrate concerned took the cognizance and committed the case for trial to the court of sessions.
10. The trial court framed charges against all the four convict-appellants under sections 302/34 I.P.C., which were read over and explained to them in Hindi. The convict-appellants abjured with a charge and claimed to be tried. In furtherance to prove their case, the prosecution examined the following witnesses :-
(1) Sri Vijay Bahadur Singh, P.W.-1, Complainant of the case. He claimed himself to be an eye witness.
(2) Sri Surya Narayan Tewari, P.W.-2, who also claims himself to be an eye witness of the case.
(3) Sri Ram Sewak, P.W.-3 also claims to be an eye witness of the case.
(4) Dr. V.K.Verma, P.W.-4, Medical Officer, who conducted the autopsy of the dead body of the deceased, Bajrang Bahadur S/o Vishwanath Singh and found ten injuries on the dead body of the deceased.
(5) CP Vijay Bahadur Mishra, P.W.-5, who registered the F.I.R. of the incident and made entry of the same in the Chik Report and General Diary.
(6) CP Ram Achal Singh, P.W.-6, who carried papers at the time of the inquest report for the purpose of autopsy coupled with dead body of the deceased for autopsy.
(7)Satish Chandra Tripathi, P.W.-7, Station Officer, who conducted the investigation of the case.
11. Apart from above oral evidences, necessary relevant documents were also proved by the prosecution which are as under :-
1. Written Report(Exhibit Ka-1)
2. Post Mortem Report(Exhibit Ka-2)
3. First Information Report(Exhibit Ka-3)
4. Inquest Report(Exhibit Ka-5)
5. Recovery Memo(Exhibit Ka-11)
6. Sita Plan (Exhibit Ka-12)
7. Recovery Memo(Exhibit Ka-13)
12. After completion of the evidence of the prosecution, the statements of the convict-appellants were recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C.
13. The convict-appellant, Rajendra Pratap Singh, S/o Sri Rudra Pal Singh denied the allegations levelled against him and merely stated that he has falsely been implicated in the present case due to enmity in village. He has also refused to adduce any defence evidence in his favour. No witness was produced by him though the opportunity of the same was given to him by the trial court. No documentary evidence was ever produced in the trial court regarding enmity.
14. Learned trial court heard arguments from both the sides and after analysing the evidence available on record, concluded that there is no reason to disbelieve the prosecution version. The presence of P.W.-2,Surya Narayan Tewari is doubted on the spot by the convict-appellants, but, P.W.-2, Surya Narayan Tewari, denied the suggestions of the defence and affirmed that he saw the incident. The trial court found nothing in the cross-examination to conclude that P.W.-2 is not an eye witness and minor contradictions were discarded. The trial court concluded that prosecution has proved by reliable evidence that deceased, Bajrang Bahadur died on account of injuries caused to him by all the four convicts-appellants in furtherance of their common intention in the manner and at the place as identified. The trial court convicted all the convicts-appellants under section 302 readwith section 34 I.P.C. and sentenced them to suffer imprisonment for life.
15. Feeling aggrieved by the order of conviction and sentence, the convicts-appellants have filed the present criminal appeal.
16. Sri Amar Nath Dubey, learned counsel for the convict-appellants argued that the learned trial court erred in convicting and sentencing the convict-appellant as there was no evidence found against him. The First Information Report is ante-time document. The statements of the prosecution witnesses were highly contradictory. The trial court arrived at the conclusion from those contradictory statements. The investigation suffers from infirmities because there is inconsistency between the medical evidence and ocular evidence. The trial court did not look into the infirmities and contradictions in the case.
17. Learned counsel for the convict-appellants pleaded that present convict-appellant, Rajendra Pratap Singh, is shown to have Lathi in his hands and the infliction of injuries by Lathi is not corroborated with the post-mortem report. Three injures of punctured wounds were found on the body of the deceased. However, the deceased is not said to have any punctured wounds on the palms of his hands. He further submits that all the witnesses are the relatives of the deceased, therefore, this appeal should be allowed and the impugned judgment and order should be set aside.
18. In support of his contentions, leaned counsel for the convict-appellants has relied upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Takhaji Hiraji Vs. Thakore Kubersingh Chamansing, reported in 2001(6) SCC,145.
19. On the contrary, Sri Prabhat Adhaulia, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State-respondent argued that P.W.- 1 to P.W.-3, are the eye witnesses and they have proved the prosecution case and submitted to uphold the order of trial court.
20. When accused were beating deceased, Bajrang Bahadur Singh, then complainant, Vijay Bahadur Singh, P.W.-1 and the witnesses, Surya Narayan Tiwari, P.W.-2 and Ram Sewak, P.W.-3, reached at the spot, where the convict-appellants, Rudra Pal Singh, Sri Ram Singh and Rejendra Pratap Singh were beating the deceased by Lathi and Sitaram by Ballam. When the deceased in order to save his life ran towards south of the Chak Road and reached the field of Beni Madho, the accused followed him and started beating the deceased. Due to injuries caused to him, the deceased fell down on the ground and became unconscious.
21. P.W.-1, Vijay Bahadur Singh, has testified in unequivocal words that on the fateful day of incident i.e. 03-09-1984 at about 01.30 P.M., when he was going to Ayodhya Nagar through Chak Road, P.W.-2,Surya Narayan Tiwari and Ram Lakhan Upahdyaya met him on the way. They were at the distance of about fifty steps from the scene of incident. When they heard alarm raised by the the deceased Bajrang Bahadur Singh and Ram Sewak, they rushed towards the place of occurrence and saw that the accused Rudra Pal Singh, Sita Ram Singh and Sri Ram Singh were assaulting the deceased Bajrang Singh by Lathi. Convict-appellant, Rajendra Pratap Singh was assaulting the deceased Bajrang Bahadur Singh by Ballam. In order to save his life, the deceased Bajrang Bahadur Singh ran towards Chak Road in the field of Beni Madho, but, after sustaining injuries, he could not run very far and fell down in the field of Beni Madho and became unconscious .
22. P.W.-2, Surya Narayan Tewari, who is an eye witness, stated on oath that he had accompanied Vijay Bahadur and Ram Lakhan also. When he heard the alarm raised by Salik Murai, Ram Sewak Tiwari and Bajrang Singh, he reached the field of Beni Madaho and saw that accused,Rudra Pal, Rajendra and Sri Ram were assaulting deceased by Lathi and Sita Ram was assaulting the deceased by Ballam. The deceased Bajrang Bahadur Singh sustained injuries and he fell down in the field of Beni Madho. When they challenged the accused, the accused ran away. They carried the deceased Bajrang Bahadur Singh on a cot to Peeparpur. P.W.-2 reduced in writing the written F.I.R. on the dictation of Vijay Bahadur Singh. The written F.I.R.(Exhibit Ka-1) is proved by this witness.
23. P.W.-3, Ram Sewak, who is also an eye witness, stated on oath that on the fateful day of the incident at about 01.30 P.M., he was coming from Ayodhya Nagar through his village by Chak Road. He met with Bajrang Bahadur and Salik Murai on the way. He was 7-8 steps behind Bajrang Bahadur. When they reached near the field of Beni Madho, accused, Rudra Pal, Sri Ram and Rajendra Pratap Singh suddenly assaulted Bajrang Bahadur by Lathi and Sita Ram by Ballam. Bajrang Bahadur ran towards the south in order to save his life, but, accused followed him. Bajrang Bahadur fell down in the field of Beni Madho due to the injuries sustained by him during the assault caused by the accused. When, they raised alarm, Vijay Bahadur and Surya Narayan Tewari also arrived at the spot. Bajrang Bahadur was in an unconscious state due to Hemorrhage. It is stated that he did not accompany Vijay Bahadur and returned to his home. Later on, he came to know that Bajrang Bahadur had expired due to injuries sustained by him.
24. P.W.-4, Dr. V.K. Verma, Medical Officer, District Hospital, Sultanpur, appeared before the court and stated on oath that he attended the deceased Bajrang Bahadur Singh, S/o Vishwanath Singh, who was identified by Constable, Ram Achal Singh. P.W.-4, prepared the post-mortem report of the deceased Bajrang Bahadur. The deceased died due to Shock and Hemorrhage due to the ante-mortem injuries sustained to him. The post-mortem report of the deceased is Exhibit Ka-2. In the Chief Examination itself, P.W.-4, stated that six injuries were caused to the deceased by pointed weapons as Spear & Ballam and rest of the injuries were caused by hard and blunt objects i.e. Lathi.
25. P.W.-5, Vijay Bahadur Mishra, appeared in the court and proved the Chik F.I.R. on the basis of written report and G.D. No. 17 time 15.15 P.M. as Exhibit Nos. Ka-3 & Ka-4 respectively.
26. P.W.-6, Ram Achal Singh, Constable 343. C.P., Police Station-Kadipur, district-Sultanpur proved all the papers regarding post-mortem and C-Map, which were handed over to him by the Chief Medical Officer.
27. P.W.-7, Satish Chandra Tripathi, Station House Officer, Police Station-Jami, district-Sultanpur investigated the case and prepared Challan Lash, Photo Lash, Namoona Mohar and letters to C.M.O. and R.I.(Exhibit Ka-06 to Exhibit Ka-10) and recovery memo of cot (Exhibit Ka-11). This witness prepared the site plan(Exhibit Ka-12), recovery memo of the plain and blood stained earth in the separate containers. Recovery Memo is Exhibit Ka-14.
28. Learned counsel for the convict-appellants vehemently argued that death of the deceased is caused by Shock and Hemorrhage due to ante-mortem injuries. Hemorrhage is possible only by Ballam and the convict-appellant is not assigned any role to assault the deceased Bajrang Bahadur Singh by Ballam. The convict-appellant is said to have assaulted the deceased Bajrang Bahadur by Lathi, by which no such injuries may result in death of the deceased, can be caused.
29. Perusal of the post-mortem report of the deceased transpires that three punctured wounds were found on the dead body of the deceased. Two incised wounds at serial nos. 5 & 10 are indicated by the Doctors in the post-mortem report of the deceased. Rest of the injuries are found to be caused to the deceased by hard and blunt objects. Injury no. 4 is Traumatic swelling over medial part of Rt. Ankle joint in an area of 6 cm x 4 cm. X diffused swelling around the joint also. Injury no. 6 is Traumatic swelling over whole of the upper 1/2 of the Rt. Forearm 15 cm x entire girth with deformity with fracture of both underlying bones (Radius & Ulna). Injury no. 7 is Multiple abrasion over back & top of Rt. Shoulder over bony prominence in an area of 9 cm x 5 cm. Injury No. 8 is Contusion over Rt. Side back in scapular & intra scapular region measuring 12 cm x 3 cm oblique & vertical in direction. Injury No. 9 is Contusion over Lt. Side back 13 cm x 3 cm., vertical & oblique in direction inferior angle of Scapula.
30. Doctor, V.K.Verma, P.W.-4, in his statement before the court stated that all these injuries are possible to be caused by hard and blunt objects i.e. Lathi. Dr. V.K. Verma proved all these injuries to be caused by hard and blunt objects.
31. During external examination, it is found that Abdomen of the deceased was distended, greenish discoloration over both Iliac fossa present.
32. Learned counsel for the convict-appellants submitted that the convict-appellant did not choose to any dangerous weapon during assault, which may result in the death of the deceased.
33. From perusal of the record, it is clear that all the four accused assaulted the deceased in furtherance of common intention to kill him and due to injuries sustained during this assault, the deceased, Bajrang Bahadur died when he was being carried to the police station concerned, therefore, it cannot be said that convict-appellant, Rajendra Pratap Singh can be given any benefit to the effect that he did not use any dangerous weapon.
34. Learned counsel for the convict-appellant submitted that there are many contradictions in the statements of the witnesses. However, no such material contradictions have been pointed out from the evidence of three eye witnesses. P.W-1 to P.W.-3 are the ocular witnesses, who were present on the spot and the occurrence happened in their presence and they witnessed the incident.
35. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Suresh Yadav alias Guddu Vs. State of Chhattisgargh, reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 236, held that evidence of the witnesses can not be discarded only for the reason that there are minor contradictions in the statements of witnesses. For convenience, para no. 9 of the said Judgment is reproduced as under :-
9. "Even otherwise, we do not find the present one to be a case of manifest illegality so as to call for interference. The evidence of PW-1, being the eye-witness to the incident, remains unimpeachable and has been believed by the two Courts. His 3 evidence cannot be discarded only for the reason that he allegedly did not raise any alarm or did not try to intervene when the deceased was being ferociously assaulted and stabbed. Excessive number of injuries do not ipso facto lead to an inference about involvement of more than one person; rather the nature of injuries and similarity of their size/dimension would only lead to the inference that she was mercilessly and repeatedly stabbed by the same weapon and by the same person."
36. It is submitted by learned A.G.A. that all the witnesses are rustic witnesses of the village. Therefore, minor contradictions are bound to take place and the evidence of witnesses is recorded after two and half years of the incident. The human memory faints day by day. Therefore, minor contradictions, if any, may be found in the statements witnesses and they are negligible and they do not wash away the entire evidence of prosecution case.
37. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sachin Kumar Singhraha Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in (2019) 8 Supreme Court Cases,371, held that minor variation should not be taken into consideration while assessing reliability of witness testimony and consistency of prosecution version as a whole regarding deposition of villagers. For convenience, para no. 12 of the said Judgment is reproduced as under :-
"12. The court will have to evaluate the evidence before it keeping in mind that rustic nature of the depositions of the villagers, who may not depose about exact geographical locations with mathematical precision. Discrepancies of this nature which do not go to root of the matter do not obliterate otherwise acceptable evidence. It need not be stated that it is by now well settled that minor variations should not be taken into consideration while assessing the reliability of witness testimony and the consistency of the prosecution version as a whole. In this view of the matter, in our considered opinion, the evidence of PW 5 fully supports the evidence of PW 4 and the case of the prosecution."
38. So far as the place of occurrence is concerned, there is no dispute regarding the same. The occurrence happened in the field of Beni Madho, which is adjacent to the Chak Road and the witnesses reiterated in so many words that the deceased fell down in the field of Beni Madho due to the ante-mortem injuries.
39. The Investigating Officer sent the blood stained and plain earth to the Laboratory for examination. The analysis report is annexed as Exhibit Ka-15 with the file. Items no. 1 to 6 are found to be blood stained and disintegrated. During trial, papers are admitted by the learned counsel for the convict-appellant, therefore, there is no possibility that the blood stained and plain earth collected from the place of occurrence were not stained by the blood of the deceased. Therefore, in view of the overwhelming evidence on record, learned trial court reached to the conclusion that the deceased expired due to the anti-mortem injuries caused by the convict-appellant.
40. Learned counsel for the convict-appellant submitted that the post-mortem report is anti-time and when the inquest report was prepared, no crime number was allotted to the incident, therefore, it can be said that after preparation of the inquest report, the F.I.R. in question was lodged. But, we are not convinced with the argument advanced by learned counsel for the convict-appellants.
41. We have perused the inquest report and found that Crime No. 161 of 1984 under section 302 I.P.C. on a paper book, Sultanpur is indicated to have been lodged on 03-09-1984 at 15.15 P.M. Therefore, the said submission advanced by the learned counsel for the convict-appellants is rejected. It is found that the inquest report was prepared only after F.I.R. is lodged at the police station.
42. During the statement recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C., the convict-appellant, Rajendra Pratap Singh denied the evidence of prosecution witnesses but he did not disclose the genesis of dispute that what was reason of his false implication in the case. By answering question no. 9, the convict-appellant, Rajendra Pratap Singh stated that there was no animosity, however, the complainant had an enmity due to civil cases pending between the parties. The convict-appellant had no specific defence as to why they have falsely been implicated in the case. They did not adduce any defence evidence. However, the convict-appellant was given opportunity for the same.
43. No other material or circumstance has been alleged by the learned counsel for the convict-appellant and no major contradiction is mentioned in the statements of the witnesses.
44. In view of the aforesaid, we reach to the conclusion that the convict-appellant has failed to show that there was any major contradictions in the statements of the witnesses by which the convict-appellants can be benefited.
45. In view of the foregoing discussions, this court is of the opinion that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant. The conviction and sentence of the appellant by the trial court for the offence in question is fully justified. Therefore, the impugned judgment and order passed by the trial court convicting and sentencing the appellant under section 302/34 I.P.C. for imprisonment for life is hereby upheld.
46. This appeal is liable to be dismissed and is dismissed accordingly.
47. The appellant, Rajendra Pratap Singh is in jail. He shall serve out the sentence awarded by the trial court.
48. Let the certified copy of the judgment be sent to the trial court concerned for necessary action and forwarding it to the concerned Jail Superintendent where the accused appellant, Rajendra Pratap Singh is detained.
49. Let the Lower Court Record be sent back to the Trial Court concerned forthwith.
(Mrs. Renu Agarwal, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.)
Order Date :- September 16,2022
AKS/-