Allahabad High Court
Ramanand Singh And Others vs State Of U.P. on 25 October, 2024
Author: Siddharth
Bench: Siddharth
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:172153-DB Reserved on 24.9.2024 Delivered on 25.10.2024 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1763 of 2009 Appellant :- Ramanand Singh And Others Respondent :- State of U.P. Counsel for Appellant :- ,Ashok Kumar Maurya,Shashank Singh Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate,Raj Nath Pandey Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
Hon'ble Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi,J.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Siddarth, J.)
1. Heard Sri V.P. Srivastava, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Mahendra Bahadur Singh and Sri Ashok Kumar Maurya, learned counsels for the appellants; Sri Prem Shankar Prasad, learned A.G.A-I for the State-respondents and perused the material on record.
2. This criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellants, Ramanand Singh, Amar Deo Singh, Shyam Behari Singh and Shree Bhagwan Sahu, against the judgement and order dated 26.3.2009 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.1, Ballia, in S.T. No.275 of 2004 (State of U.P. Vs. Ramanand Singh and others), convicting and sentencing the each of the appellants under Section 302 read with 34 I.P.C. for life imprisonment and fine of Rs.5000/-. In default of payment of fine, appellants have been directed to undergo four months additional rigorous imprisonment.
3. The prosecution case, as per the complaint, is that on 25.3.1994, complainant asked his son, Jai Shanker Prashad Singh @ Pappu, who was a student leader, to visit the place of his relative, Rana Pratap Singh, resident of village, Mafauwa, whose family used to reside at Hawrah. Rana Pratap Singh was to come to his village on the eve of Holi festival, which was falling on 25.3.1994. Complainant asked his son, Jai Shanker Prashad Singh @ Pappu, to inquire whether Rana Pratap Singh has come to his village on the eve of Holi festival or not. One, Raj Kumar Singh @ Raju Singh, came to the house of complainant on 26.3.1994 and informed that Jai Shanker Prashad Singh @ Pappu was waiting for his bus at around 6:45 p.m. on 25.3.1994, when he heard noise coming from the north side near Mafauwa Dhala side and he saw that villagers of Dharmpura were beating one person. Jai Shanker Prashad Singh @ Pappu saved him and asked the villagers to handover the said person to the police station, if he committed something wrong. Then Inspector of Police Station Haldi, N.K. Singh, came at the place of incident and Jai Shanker Prashad Singh @ Pappu asked him to take the said persons into custody. On this, Inspector, N.K. Singh, started abusing Jai Shanker Prashad Singh @ Pappu and when he objected, N.K. Singh slapped him and pushed him in the crowd and said that he is also a scoundrel and should be beaten and finished. On the direction of Inspector, N.K. Singh, the appellants started beating Jai Shanker Prashad Singh @ Pappu and anther person. Jai Shanker suffered injuries, he fell down and became unconscious. Inspector, N.K. Singh set him on fire with the help of other people and his body was found lying on the road. After getting knowledge of the alleged incident on 26.3.1994, nephew of complainant, Chandrabhan Singh, went to Police Station Haldi alongwith other villagers and found the dead body of Jai Shanker Prashad Singh @ Pappu tied in a sack. The dead body of the deceased was identified by Chandrabhan Singh and it was handed over to him by police after post mortem. The complainant alongwith his relatives, Srinath Singh, Uma Shanker Pandey and Chandrabhan Singh went to the Police Station Haldi alongwith an application for lodging FIR, but Inspector, N.K. Singh, abused them and refused to register the same and take any action thereon. Complaint was also given to Superintendent of Police, Ballia, but no action was taken. Rather the Superintendent of Police, Ballia, directed them to take Rs.25,000/- from N.K. Singh and forget lodging of the case. Hence complaint was filed by the complainant, Mukteshwar Singh, on 21.4.1994.
4. The prosecution produced following witnesses:-
(i) PW-1, Shiv Kumar Singh;
(ii) PW-2, Mukteshwar Singh, complainant;
(iii) PW-3, Srinath Singh, father-in-law of the deceased;
(iv) PW-4, Raju Singh @ Raj Kumar Singh, alleged eye witness;
(v) PW-5, Dr. J.P. Mal, Doctor, who conducted port mortem of the dead body of the deceased;
(vi) PW-6, Surendra Kumar Chaubey, Record Keeper;
(vii) Chandra Badan Singh, cousin brother of the deceased.
5. Statements of the appellants were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein they denied the prosecution case.
6. DW-1, constable Om Prakash, Pairokar of Police Station Wasdeeh Road, District Ballia, was examined before the trial court.
7. PW-1, Shiv Shanker Singh, stated before the court that about 13 years ago, at about 6:30 or quarter to seven, in the evening, on hearing the noise, he went towards Mafauwa Dhala and saw a person, who was being beaten by 4-5 persons wherein Jai Shanker Prashad Singh @ Pappu, who was a student leader, intervened. At that time, Inspector, N.K. Singh, came on the place of incident and Jai Shanker asked him to protect the person being beaten. On this Inspector, N.K. Singh, started abusing Jai Shanker and started beating him by slaps and fits and pushed him inside the crowd stating that he is also a Goonda and should be done to death. On his saying, the appellants started beating Jai Shanker and he fell down. Then he was set on fire and he died on account of burning. In his cross-examination he admitted that his jeep is involved in the transport of passengers and on the date of incident, he was near the place of incident. He was unable to produce any permit of the jeep nor he could tell the name of driver. He stated that his jeep reached at the place of incident at about 6:30-7:00 p.m. when darkness had set in. He had alighted from jeep and was standing. Ramashish Singh had also come in jeep and was also standing with him. When PW-1 alongwith Ramashish reached the place of incident, about 100-150 steps away they saw that one boy was being beaten and crowd of 10-20 people had collected, no blood was coming out from the body of that boy. He failed to state before the court whether the place where aforesaid boy was being beaten was Abadi or not. He admitted that he never saw Shiv Mandir of village, Mafauwa, when he had passed from Ballia-Bairiya Road. He had also not seen the Mafauwa Inter College. On the way from Mafauwa Gaon to Bairiya Marg, there is no Abadi rather about 2-4 shops are there. He does not knows or recognizes any person of village, Mafauwa. He cannot say anything about the population and houses in village, Mafauwa. In his cross-examination, he stated that 10-20 persons were watching the incident, wherein only five persons were beating the boy. He did not knew the name of aforesaid boy. After the incident he took his vehicle and came to Bairiya at about 8:00 p.m. He knew the Station House Officer of Police Station Haldi since he was earlier posted in Police Station Bairiya. When he reached Bairiya, he did no informed anything to the police regarding the incident seen by him nor he gave any application to anyone. Ramashish Singh, who is also witness in this case, is not related to complainant, Mukteshwar Singh. He does not knows Parmeshwar Singh also. He denied that he is giving evidence before the court on account of his acquaintance with complainant, Mukteshwar Singh. He denied the knowledge of Case Crime No.49 of 1994, under Section 307 IPC regarding the offence committed by Parmeshwar Singh and others against Sri Bhagwan Singh and his mother. He denied that he has any friendship with Parmeshwar Singh.
8. PW-2, Mukteshwar Singh, in his examination-in-chief reiterated the contents of his complaint and stated that Raj Kumar Singh @ Raju, PW-4, informed him about the whole incident, on the basis of which, he unsuccessfully made an application to the police and thereafter filed the complaint. In his cross-examination, he admitted that his son, Jai Shanker Prashad Singh @ Pappu, was an accused in the murder case of a lecturer, Ram Sujan Singh, of Satish Chandra College. He denied knowledge about any other case registered against his deceased son. In his cross-examination PW-2 admitted that witness, Sri Nath Singh, PW-3, is father-in-law of the his deceased son, Jai Shanker. PW-1, Shiv Kumar Singh, belongs to the congress party and he also belongs to congress party. About 5-6 days prior to the incident, he met Shiv Kumar Singh, PW-1. He does not knows Nand Kumar Singh @ Raju Singh. He got the information of death of his son after about 12 hours at about 6:30 a.m. He did not knew witness, Ramashish, prior to the incident and he has already died. He met PW-3, Sri Nath Singh, on the date of incident and met PW-1, Shiv Kumar Singh after about one week of the incident. He does not remembers whether the aforesaid meeting took place prior to the filing of the complaint or after filing of the complaint. He did not saw the dead body of his son. He does not knows for how long dead body of son remained at village Mafauwa nor he knows for how long dead body of his son was kept in the post mortem house. He was not there because he was not feeling well and was under medication. He also does not knows who was beaten to death alongwith his son and whether the post mortem of the second dead body was conducted or not. He requested PW-1, Shiv Kumar Singh, to become witness of this case and he agreed. After 2-3 days of the incident, he went to Police Station Haldi alongwith Badrinath Singh after cremation of dead body of his son. After 4-5 days of the incident, he gave an application to the Superintendent of Police, which was prepared by Pankaj Singh, Advocate. After one week of giving application to Superintendent of Police, he filed the complaint. He does not knows whether any other person died with his son. He does not knows Parmeshwar Singh, resident of Mafauwa nor he knows that he is an accused in case under Section 307 IPC. He did not knew the appellants prior to the incident. He does not recognizes any of the accused except accused, Ramanand. He denied knowledge of the fact that litigation with regard to land is pending between accused, Ramanand and Rana Pratap Singh of village Mafauwa. He denied that there is any enmity between Rana Pratap Singh and the accused persons on account of party politics. He denied that his deceased son was criminal and had gone to Mafauwa Gaon with Parmeshwar Singh for committing the murder of Sri Bhagwan and his mother, Janki Devi and they fired upon them by country-made pistol and double barrel gun, wherein they suffered injuries. On hearing the noise number of people came and found Sri Bhagwan and his mother mother injured. They had beaten two persons to death. He denied that because of enmity of accused with his relative, Rana Pratap Singh, he has falsely implicated them.
9. PW-3, Sri Nath Singh, stated before the court that about 12-13 years ago, he had come to his house on vacation. On coming to know of murder of son of Mukteshwar Singh, he had gone to Police Station Haldi alongwith PW-2 to give application to Inspector, N.K. Singh. They were abused and turned out by Inspector, N.K. Singh stating that deceased used to claim that he is big leader. He was got beaten and burnt to death. He further proved that thereafter PW-2 approached Superintendent of Police. After 5-6 days he went again to Superintendent of Police alongwith Pradhan, Shakti Singh and PW-2 and Superintendent of Police directed him to talk to Inspector, N.K. Singh and after taking Rs.25,000/- they should resolve the dispute. PW-2 stated that let him burn Inspector, N.K. Singh, alive and he will give his entire property to him. Then Superintendent of Police scolded them and asked them to get out and do whatever they like. In his cross-examination, he admitted that he did not knew any accused earlier, except Ramanand Singh. He does not knows Parmeshwar Singh of village Mafauwa and Bhagwan Singh of the same village. His daughter was married to deceased, Jai Shanker Singh. He proved that he had gone to file the complaint before Chief Judicial Magistrate alongwith PW-2 and his statement was also recorded.
10. PW-4, Raju Singh @ Raj Kumar Singh, denied in his examination-in-chief that he ever informed PW-1 that on 25.3.1994 when he was waiting for the bus, he saw the entire incident as alleged in the complaint. He did not saw anyone beating the deceased, Jai Shanker Prashad Singh @ Pappu, nor burning him to death. PW-4 was declared hostile by the trial court. In his cross-examination, PW-4 stated that he gave his statement under Section 202 Cr.P.C. in support of the complaint filed by PW-2 on the direction of Advocate. He had only appended his signature on the typed paper. He does not knows what was written on the paper. He is not acquainted with any of the accused in this case.
11. PW-5, Dr. J.P. Mal, proved that there were lacerated wounds and one contusion on the body of the deceased and one degree to four degree burns on his body. He pointed out that the deceased was burnt to death, when he was alive. He had conducted post mortem of two dead bodies brought by Police Station Haldi. No name was mentioned on the dead bodies nor any sign was mentioned. The policemen, who brought the dead body, also did not informed the name of dead bodies.
12. PW-6, Surendra Kumar Chaubey, Record Keeper, of Police Station, Ballia, was formal witness and came with application dated 27.3.1994 sent by PW-2 to Superintendent of Police, Ballia. He stated that the register in which the application sent to S.P. Ballia was recorded, has been destroyed after the expiry of of the time limit.
13. PW-7, Chandrabhan Singh, claimed himself to be cousin of the deceased and he proved that he was present at the time of preparation of inquest report of two dead bodies and also took back the dead bodies after post mortem. He proved that he found two dead bodies in the Police Station Haldi while he identified the dead body of the son of PW-2. He did not knew about the second dead body.
14. DW-1, Om Prakash, proved that Case Crime No.49 of 1994 under Section 307 IPC was registered at Police Station Haldi. He proved the charge-sheet and the site plan prepared by Investigating Officer in the aforesaid case. He stated that he has not been called by any Advocate to give statement. He does not knows advocate of the prosecution side or defence side. He has come to give statement for the defence side without taking any permission from higher authorities.
15. The trial court, after considering the evidence on record found the charges against the appellants proved beyond reasonable doubt and convicted and sentenced them under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC alongwith fine of Rs.5000/- each. Hence this appeal.
16. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellants has submitted that in the compliant, the entire incident as alleged against the appellants was communicated to PW-2 by PW-4, Raju @ Raj Kumar Singh, but during his examination-in-chief and also in his cross-examination, he has denied going to the house of the complainant or giving any information of any incident or seeing any such incident. Hence the incident as alleged in the complaint was not proved. He has submitted that a witness, who makes different statements at different times, is not a reliable witness. PW-4 has admitted that he was a witness of the complaint and his statement was recorded under Sections 202 Cr.P.C., but he has disowned the same later before the trial court. The court should not act on the testimony of such a witness without corroboration of his testimony. The statement of PW-1 is not reliable for the purpose of corroboration of statement of PW-4. Reliance on the judgment of Apex Court in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Bhawani and Another, AIR 2003 (7) SCC 291 has been made in support of the submissions. He has submitted that PW-1 has stated that he was 100-150 steps away from the place of incident and there was crowd of 10-20 persons and only one person was being beaten by 5 persons when in the incident two persons died. There is no explanation how the second person died in the incident and how PW-1 did not saw the second person being beaten and burnt to death. PW-1 has admitted that it was about 6:30 to 7:00 p.m. when the incident took place, therefore, it was dark and how PW-1 identified the deceased has not been explained. In the criminal trial, the burden of proof is always on the prosecution to prove the offence alleged beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of acceptable evidence. More the seriousness of offence, the stricter, the degree of proof for convicting the accused as held by the Apex Court in the case of Kashmira Singh Vs. State of M.P., 1952 AIR 159; State of Punjab Vs. Jagir Singh Baljit Singh and Another, AIR 1973 SC 2407; Shankar Lal Gyarasilal Dixit Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1981SC 765. PW-2, PW-3 and PW-7 are close relatives and interested witnesses. They have not seen the incident and have admitted that they were not present at the scene of incident.
17. One Barmeshwar Singh along with three unknown persons came in the village and caused injuries to Bhagwan Singh and his mother after which the entire village chased the accused persons in which Barmeshwar Singh and one more person fled away from the scene of occurrence and other two may have been beaten to death. In respect of the said incident a First Information Report was lodged at the police station Haldi, District Ballia as Case Crime No. 49 of 1994 under section 307 1.P.C. dated 25.03.1994 at 11.45p.m., State Vs. Barmeshwar and others, about which the entire prosecution was silent.
18. In S.T. NO. 395 of 1994 arising out of Case Crime No. 49 of 1994, the informant was Parashuram Singh and Appellant No. 1, Ramanand Singh, was a witness in the said case and the case was closed after the death of Barmeshwar Singh on 30.06.2008.
19. As per the opinion of the inquest witnesses in the above noted case, bodies of the deceased were of the criminals who came to the village at around 8 pm to kill Bhagwan Singh. They were chased by the villagers in which Bhagwan Singh was badly injured and two people where surrounded by the villagers and were beaten to death.
20. There is no eye witness of the alleged incident and the appellants have been implicated in the case merely on the basis of suspicion and have been convicted and sentenced by the trial court.
21. Another golden thread which runs through the web of the administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. This principle has a special relevance in cases where in the guilt of the accused is sought to be established by circumstantial evidence.
22. Learned AGA has vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned Senior Counsel for the appellants. He has submitted that it is a case of gruesome murder of a young man by the appellants. The prosecution case will not be affected by PW-4 turning hostile. He was earlier witness of the complaint and his statement was recorded by the C.J.M. in support of the complaint under Section 202 Cr.P.C. After lapse of time it appears that PW-4 was won over by the defence side and therefore, he did not supported the prosecution case before the trial court. He has further submitted that the deceased was a student leader and was killed by the appellants on account of rivalry with him. The prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt as clear from the statement of PW-1. The compliant case was fully corroborated by PW-2. There is nothing in his evidence which discarded the prosecution case. The judgement and order of the trial court is perfectly justified and no interference is called for by this Court.
23. After hearing rival contentions and going through the evidence on record, this Court finds that:
(i) The incident as alleged took place on 25.3.1994. The information of the incident reached PW-2 through PW-4 on 26.3.1994. PW-2 has admitted that he did not made any efforts to get the FIR lodged on 26.3.1994. After cremation of the dead body of the deceased, he went to the police station on 27.3.1994 with an application, but it was not accepted by the police station. Thereafter, after 4-5 days of the incident he went to meet the Superintendent of Police, Ballia, alongwith an application, but nothing was done and thereafter he filed the complaint case on 21.4.1994. From own admission of PW-2 in his statement, he went to Superintendent of Police after 5-6 days, when his application dated 27.3.1994 was not accepted by Police Station Haldi. Superintendent of Police did nothing and asked him to settle the dispute after taking Rs.25,000/- from Inspector, N.K. Singh. He filed the complaint on 21.4.1994, which shows that the complaint was not filed immediately after Superintendent of Police, Ballia, refused to take any action on the application of PW-2 given on 3-4 April, 1994. Delay in filing of complaint, like FIR, is fatal for the prosecution case and makes prosecution case doubtful.
(ii) The conduct of PW-2, Mukteshwar Singh, is also doubtful. He is father of the deceased. He has admitted in his statement before the trial court that after receiving the information of murder of his son by the accused persons from PW-4, he did not went to the Police Station Haldi to find out the truth, rather PW-7, Chandrabhan Singh, nephew of the deceased, went there. He identified the dead body of the deceased and received the same after inquest and post mortem. PW-2 was neither present at the time of inquest nor in the post mortem house. He admitted that he was not well at that time and was under medication. He also denied knowledge of the second person, who died alongwith his son. The conduct of PW-2 is not normal since no father will act in the manner as done by PW-2.
(iii) There is no motive of commission of crime attributed to the appellants. It is alleged in the complaint that Inspector, N.K. Singh, had beaten the deceased by slaps and fits and pushed him in the crowd, where he was beaten by crowd, saying that he claims himself to be big leader and asked them to finish him. Thereafter it is alleged that the appellants, who are four in number, beated another person and burnt both to death. Prosecution has failed to prove who was the second person, who was beaten and burnt to death with the son of PW-2, namely, Jai Shanker Prasad Singh @ Pappu. The defence has come out with the case that one Barmeshwar Singh alongwith three unknown persons came to the village and caused injuries to Bhagwan Singh and his mother. Thereafter Barmeshwar Singh and another person fled away and two persons were beaten to death by the villagers. In respect of the aforesaid incident, FIR was registered on 25.3.1994 at 11:45 p.m. as Case Crime No.49 of 1994 under Section 307 IPC. In that case subsequently, Sessions Trial No.395 of 1994 proceeded and appellant no.1, Ramanand Singh, was witness in that case, which was closed after death of Barmeshwar Singh on 30.6.2008. We find that the date of incident of the case in dispute and the case registered against Barmeshwar Singh and others is same, i.e., 25.3.1994. The non disclosure of the name of second person, who died alongwith the son of PW-2, raises doubt about the prosecution case. The identity of the second deceased in the same incident appears to have been suppressed when it was not difficult to know his identity. Nothing has been stated by the prosecution about the identity of the second deceased. The motive of the crime may not have been relevant, had there been reliable testimony of even one prosecution witness on record. Presence of PW-1 on the place of incident is doubtful and PW-2 has admitted that PW-1 and PW-2 both belong to same political party and on the request of PW-2, PW-1 gave his statement in court. Therefore, it appears that PW-1 appeared before the trial court as witness only to help PW-2.
(iv) It is alleged in the complaint that the entire incident was caused on the exhortation of Inspector, N.K. Singh. Neither he was implicated as an accused in the complaint nor independent complaint of Inspector, N.K. Singh, was made by PW-2 before any higher authority. PW-2 has admitted that his deceased son was accused in the murder case of one lecturer of his college, where he was a student leader, but he has denied knowledge of implication of his son in any other case.
(v) The Apex Court in the case of Kali Ram Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, 1973 AIR 2773 has held that an accused in a criminal case is presumed to be innocent unless presumption is rebutted by the prosecution by production of evidence proving him to be guilty of the offence with which he is charged. Burden of proving guilt of the accused is upon the prosecution and unless it relieves itself of that burden, the courts cannot record a finding of the guilt of the accused. It has further been held that where two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favorable to the accused should be adopted. It has also been held by the Apex Court that in case the court entertains reasonable doubt regarding the guilt of the accused, the accused must have benefit of doubt. Of course, the doubt should be reasonable. Benefit of doubt to an accused cannot be granted merely on conjecture and surmises and fanciful considerations. Wrongful conviction of innocent person is as bad of wrongful acquittal. The consequence of conviction of a innocent person is more serious.
24. We find from the record that appellant No.2, Amar Deo Singh, has died on 30.1.2016 during pendency of this appeal. As per office report dated 25.7.2020, appeal has been dismissed as abated against him by the order dated 6.5.2022 passed by this Court. Appellant no.1, Ramanand Singh, has already undergone more than 13 years of incarceration in jail before being enlarged on bail and appellant nos. 3 & 4, namely, Shyam Behari Singh and Shree Bhagwan Sahu, have been enlarged on bail by this Court on 25.5.2022 after undergoing conviction of more than 14 years without any credible against them.
25. In view of the above, we set aside the judgement and order dated 26.3.2009 of the trial court and acquit he surviving appellants, Ramanand Singh, Shyam Bihari Singh and Sri Bhgawan Sahu, of all the charges.
26. The appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharges.
27. This Criminal Appeal is allowed.
28. Office is directed to return the record of the trial court and notify this judgement to the trial court within two weeks.
Order Date :- 25.10.2024 Ruchi Agrahari .
(Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi,J.) (Siddharth, J.)