Allahabad High Court
Ranveer Singh Alias Rana vs State Of U.P. on 18 April, 1996
Equivalent citations: 1997CRILJ2266
JUDGMENT O.P. Jain, J.
1. Appellant Ranveer Singh alias Rana was convicted and sentenced under Section 307 and 332 IPC in S.T. No. 204/75 by Vlth Addl. Sessions Judge, Kanpur. A sentence of three years R.I. under Section 307 IPC and one year R.I. under Section 332 IPC has been awarded.
2. The prosecution case in brief is that on 31 -8-74 at 10-20 AM a case under Section 392 IPC was registered against Rana Sikh at police station Cantonment. The investigation was entrusted to S.I. Sagir Ahmed who started from police station Cantt at 10.45 AM along with S.I. Jahangir Khan and S. I. Lalman. When they reached outpost Chakeri they took Rameshwar Singh Head-Constable, Ram Gopal Head constable and some other police personnel. After visiting the place where offence under Section 392 IPC had taken place they received information that accused Ranveer alias Rana who was involved in the offence under Section 392 IPC was at the shop of Autar Singh near Khalsa Inter College. On this information the police party started for the shop of the Autar Singh and they took Satya Narain, Ganga Ram and Jugraj as Motbir witnesses. When the police party was 20-25 paces away from the shop of Autar Singh, the accused saw them and immediately whipped out his pistol and fired at the police party saying that if the police party comes near they would be killed. Saying so the accused ran towards Narendra ground by scaling over the wall jumped on the other side. The police party and others continued to chase the accused. On Narendra ground also the accused fired at the police party but nobody was hurt. The chase continued and the accused fired at the police party from time to time. When the accused and the police party were in the lanes of village Safipur, Head-Constable Ram Bahadur Singh thought that the accused has run out of ammunition and he came close to the accused who turned around and fired a shot at Ram Bahadur Singh Head-Constable. The shot fired by the accused hit Head-Constable Ram Bahadur Singh on the chest. Ram Bahadur Singh, however, gave a Danda blow to the accused and sat on the ground pressing his injury by his both hands. At this stage Sri Sagir Ahmad S.I. fired at the accused but he missed his aim. The police continued to chase the accused but he was able to make good his escape.
3. Head-Constable Ram Bahadur Singh was sent to the hospital through Sri Lallan Singh A.S.I, and Rameshwar Singh Head-Constable. A report of this incident was written by Sagir Ahmad S. I. and it was sent to police station Cantonment where a case was registered at 1.30 P.M. The firing incident took place at 12 noon. The injuries of Ram Bahadur Singh were medically examined by S. K. Khare P.W. 7 and the following injuries were found.
1) Punctured wound 1 cmx 1 cm circular with depth under observation on the right chest lower part at the level of the seventh rib in the line of the nipple 6 cm below the nipple. Margins inverted. Tatooing present around the wound.
2) Punctured wound 2.25 cm x .25 cm x depth under observation on the back right side in post auxiliary line at the level of the 7th rib. Margine averted.
4. Ram Bahadur was admitted in the hospital and his dying declaration was recorded by P.W. 6 S. S. Sengar, S.D.M. The investigation was handed over to Sub-Inspector Sri K. K. Gupta, P.W. 8. After completing usual investigation the Investigating Officer submitted the chargesheet against the accused. The accused was committed to the Court of Sessions.
5. The prosecution examined eight witnesses before learned Sessions Judge. The first witness is Head-Constable Ram Bahadur who is the injured, P.W. 2 Jahangir Khan and P.W. 4 Sagir Ahmed S. I. are the members of the police party and are eye witnesses. P.W. 3 Ganga Ram is the member of the public who accompanied the police party and he is also an eye witness of the incident. Dr. S. K. Khare P.W. 7 has examined the injuries and Dr. H. N. Bahadur P.W. 5 has given the details of the treatments and has stated that on 1 -9-74 he stitched the entry and exit wounds of Ram Bahadur Singh. The last witness is P.W. 8 D. K. Gupta who is the Investigating Officer of the case.
6. The plea taken by the accused is that he has been falsely implicated and that on the date of the incident he was at Allahabad where he surrendered on coming to know that he is wanted in this case. In order to prove his defence the accused has examined D.W. 1 Ajai Pal Singh.
7. The most important witness in the case is naturally injured Ram Bahadur Singh P.W. 1 who has stated that they had gone in search of the accused because he was wanted in an earlier case under Section 392 IPC. An entry of their departure from police station Cantonment was made in the General Diary No. 29 Ex.Ka-1. It is further stated by Ram Bahadur Singh that he came to know that the accused was at the shop of Autar Singh and when they reached near that place the accused whipped out his revolver and fired at the police party but no one was hurt. Thereafter the accused started running and he scaled compound wall of Narendra ground. The police party continued to chase him till they reached village Safipur. In between the two places the accused continued to fire at the police party. Near the house of one Balwant Singh the police party thought that now there is no bullet in the revolver and therefore Ram Bahadur Singh went forward for apprehending the accused but the accused took a turn and fired at Ram Bahadur Singh causing injury on his chest. Ram Bahadur Singh gave a danda blow to the accused and sat down holding the injured part by his both hands.
7. It is not necessary to repeat the statements of all the eye witnesses which are similar and it will be proper to come straight to the criticism levelled by the learned counsel for the appellant.
8. It is argued that the accused has been described as Ranveer alias Rana but there is no evidence to the effect that the accused is also known by the name of Rana. Learned counsel has argued that while recording the statement of the accused under Section 313, Cr. P.C. no question was put to him that he is also known as Rana. It is also argued that in the earlier incident under Section 392, IPC one Hari Om is said to have been robbed but Hari Om has not been examined as a witness. Therefore, it is argued, there was no valid reason for the police party to chase the accused. Moreover, the police men who were chasing the accused were not in official dress and therefore the accused was justified in resisting his arrest. So far as P. W. 3 Ganga Ram is concerned, it is argued that he is not a person of good character and there are several cases against him and therefore he was under the thumb of the police. It is also argued that though the injury is on the chest of Ram Bahadur Singh, it does not prove that it was dangerous to his life and therefore no offence Under Section 307, IPC is made out. According to learned counsel even if the firing by the accused is proved, it is a case under Section 324, IPC. Learned counsel for the accused has cited 1987 CAR 119 State v. Niyamat in support of this contention that where the police party has no valid reason to chase the accused, he was justified in offering resistence. Learned counsel has also cited AIR 1965 SC 843 Sarju Prasad v. State of Bihar in support of the contention that only a case under Section 324, IPC is made out.
9. This Court has given careful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel. So far as the arguments about the alias of the accused is concerned, it is immaterial as to whether the accused is known as Rana or not. During the trial the prosecution witnesses have pointed out to the accused present in Court and have stated that he is the same person who ran away after seeing the police party and who fired at the police party. This is stated by P.W. 1 Ram Bahadur Singh. P. W. 2 Jahangir Khan S.I. has stated that he knew accused Rana before this incident because in the outpost his name was mentioned in the list of bad characters. It is argued that the accused has never been prosecuted under the Goonda Act. The accused may or may not be covered under the definition of Goonda given in Goonda Act but he may be a bad character and there is no reason to disbelieve the statement of Jahangir Khan when he says that the name of the accused is so mentioned. The next argument is that no question was put to the accused that he is also known as Rana and therefore the examination of the accused under Section 313, Cr. P.C. is bad in law. This contention is without any substance. The fact that an accused person has an alias is not a circumstance appearing against him and therefore the accused need not have been put any such question. The last question which was put to the accused was as to whether he has anything more to say. There was nothing to prevent the accused from saying that he is not known as Rana. Some time accused persons have a number of alias and it is not necessary to prove by leading positive evidence that the accused is known by more than one name. When the prosecution witnesses have pointed out to the accused present in Court and has stated that he is the same person who fired on Ram Bahadur Singh, it was not necessary to produce witnesses to establish that he is known by more than one name.
10. The next contention is that the prosecution has failed to examine Hari Om who was the victim of the earlier incident of robbery and therefore it cannot be said that the present accused was wanted in the robbery case. This contention is devoid of force. A separate case under Section 392, I.P.C. was registered against the present accused on the allegation that he robbed Hari Om and Ganesh Prasad. Therefore, it was not at all necessary for the prosecution to have examined Hari Om or Ganesh Prasad in the present trial. The argument that in the absence of the evidence of Hari Om it is not established that the police party had a valid reason to chase the accused is also without any substance because no question of exercise of right of private defence can arise in a case like the present. Under Section 99, IPC there is no right of private defence against an act which is done by a public servant under colour of his office though the act may not be strictly justifiable under the law.
11. The learned counsel for the appellant has cited State of U.P. v. Niyamat, 1987 Cri App R 119 (SC) : (AIR 1987 SC 1652) in which two constables arrested a person illegally in the night from the village. On way to the police station the accused rescued the arrested person after assaulting the constables and another person of the village who later on died. Under these circumstances it was held that the object of the respondents was not to assault or murder and the High Court rightly acquitted them from the offence. The facts of the present case are entirely different because the police party did not do any illegal act and therefore no right of private defence accrued to the present appellant. In the cited case the police party had actually fired in the air and for that reason it was held in paragraph 12 of the judgment that the firing will cause a reasonable apprehension of death or grievous hurt in the minds of the respondents. The authority cited on behalf of the accused is therefore clearly-distinguishable.
12. There is no basis for the argument that the police men who were chasing the accused were not in dress. It has come in the evidence of Ram Bahadur that he had proceeded for the investigation of the offence under Section 392, I.P.C. on the fateful day and that he was accompanied by Sagir Ahmed S.I. and Jahangir Khan S.I. It cannot be believed that none of these persons were in dress. At the time of the incident the police party had three Head-Constables and three constables beside the Sub-Inspector named above.
13. The criticism levelled by the learned counsel for the accused about Ganga Ram is factually correct and it is true that Ganga Ram has admitted in his cross-examination that 20-25 cases were registered against him at police station Cantt and two cases were pending against him at the time he gave evidence in this case. This should, however, be kept in view that when a police party is going to arrest a desperate criminal, an ordinary law abiding person is not likely to accompany the police party and to put himself in danger. Therefore, the police has no option but to take the assistance of such persons who come forward to assist it. At that time the police could not have scrupulously examined the antecedent of the persons who were ready to assist the police party. For the sake of the arguments even if the evidence of Ganga Ram P.W. 3 is excluded from consideration, the remaining evidence is more than sufficient to bring home the guilt to the accused. It is true that all the remaining witnesses are members of the police force but police men are not unworthy of credit and the statement of a police officer cannot be believed on the ground that he is a member of the police force.
13-A. The accused has taken the plea that on the date of the incident he was not at Kanpur and had gone to Allahabad. He has examined D.W. 1 Ajai Pal Singh who has stated that he had gone from Kanpur to Allahabad with his Truck on 28/ 29th August, 1974. The accused had also accompanied him because he is fond of driving. At Allahabad they received telephonic information that Rranveer Singh alias Rana is wanted by the police and therefore on the advise of his advocate he was surrendered at Allahabad. 13-B. It is admitted by D.W. 1 Ajai Pal Singh in cross-examination that he is the brother-in-law of the, accused arid it is also admitted that the accused had no particular reason to accompany the witness to Allahabad. This kind of alibi can be created at any time and no reliance can be placed on such evidence.
14. The last contention on behalf of the accused is that the injury received by Ram Bahadur Singh P.W. 1 was not dangerous to life and therefore no case under Section 307, IPC is made out. According to learned counsel, only offence under Section 324, IPC is established. This contention has no force. Ram Bahadur Singh has received a fire arm wound on the chest adjacent to, the nipple which is a vital part of the body. The Bullet injuries has penetrated into the chest at the level of seventh rib and the exist wound is on the back. The bullet fired by the accused has pierced the chest through and through. Dr. S. K. Khare P.W. 7 has stated that the injury is on a vital part of the body. It is also proved from the record that the general condition of Ram Bahadur Singh was poor. It has come in the evidence of P.W. 5, Dr. H. N. Bahadur that the injured remained in the hospital from 31-8-74 to 29-9-74. The case was referred to Senior Surgeon Sri Chakravarti who examined the patient on the same day and there is entry to that effect in the Bed-Head-Ticket. The doctor has also stated that blood was given to the patient. It is also relevant in this connection that the dying declaration of Ram Bahadur Singh Head-Constable was recorded by P.W. 6 Sri S. S. Sengar on the same day. Dying declaration is recorded when the condition of the injured is serious. Therefore it is wrong to suggest that the injury received by Ram Bahadur Singh was not serious and that the case falls under Section 324, IPC.
15. The case of Sarju Prasad v. State of Bihar, AIR 1965 SC 843 is clearly distinguishable. In fact there are some observations in this case which are against the contention which is being advanced. It has been held in this case that where the accused inflicts a knife injury in a vital region, the fact that no vital organ has been cut, would not by itself be sufficient to take the act of the accused out of the purview of Section 307, IPC. The Court has further observed that in order to bring the offence under Section 307, IPC the prosecution must establish that his intention was one of the three kinds mentioned in Section 300. It was also observed that the state of mind of accused has to be deduced from surrounding circumstances and motive would be a relevant circumstance.
16. The present case is not, a case of solitary fire. The accused kept on firing at the police party from time to time when he was being chased and when Ram Bahadur Singh came very close to him he deliberately fired at him from a close range on a vital part of the body. The doctor has found tatooing present in the entry wound and therefore it is apparent that the revolver was fired from a very close range. The accused was therefore fully aware that the shot fired by him, in all probability is likely to prove fatal. The case of Sarju Prasad v. State of Bihar cited by the learned counsel is therefore of no help to the accused.
17. In view of the above discussion, this Court comes to the conclusion that the offence under Section 307, IPC is established to the hilt. The offence under Section 332, IPC is also fully proved.
18. The last contention on behalf of the appellant is that a period of more than twenty years has elapsed since the offence was committed and therefore a lenient view should be taken at the time of awarding sentence. An affidavit has been filed on behalf of the accused in which it is stated that he has remained in jail far nine months and twenty six days and that he has four children and that his daughter is of marriageable age. In the opinion of this Court none of these factors is sufficient to reduce the sentence awarded by the trial Court which has already been very lenient in the matter of sentence. Causing serious injury to a public servant on duty in broad-day-light shakes the confidence of the people in the law enforcement machinery and it is necessary that whenever such an offence is found to be proved the Court must award deterrent sentence. But for the delay of twenty years in the hearing of the case, this Court would not have hesitated in issuing a notice of enhancement of sentence. As a period of twenty years has elapsed this Court refrains from issuing a notice of enhancement but there is absolutely no scope for the reduction of the sentence awarded by the trial Court.
19. In view of the above discussion, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. The appellant shall be taken into custody to serve out the sentence awarded to him. A copy of this judgment be forwarded to C.M.M. Kanpur with the direction that necessary steps may be taken to send the accused to jail.