Patna High Court
Ram Parvesh Ram And Ors. vs State on 29 January, 1966
Equivalent citations: AIR1967PAT187, 1967CRILJ803, AIR 1967 PATNA 187
JUDGMENT Anwar Ahmad, J.
1. All the ten appellants, out of whom Ram Naik Ram (appellant No. 3) is reported to be dead, have been convicted under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, and each of them has been awarded a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for life. Appellants Ram Parvesh Ram, Bilash Ram and Dasrath Ram have further been convicted under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code, and each of them has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years thereunder. Appellants Ram Naik Ram, Kabilash Ram, Pujan Ram, Sahdeo Ram, Mahadeo Ram, Horil Ram and Mahima Ram have further been convicted under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code, and each of them has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year under that count. The sentences awarded to the appellants are to run concurrently. Appellant Ram Parvesh Ram, who was charged under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code also, has been acquitted of that charge.
2.(a) The case of the prosecution is that, on the 2nd May, 1962, at about 7 p.m., Sajiwan (P. W. 6), son of Hanuman (deceased), and Subhas, son of appellant Ram Parvesh Ram, were quarrelling. Hearing the cries of Sajiwan (P. W. 6), Anupi (P W 1), wife of Hanuman, came out of her house and chastised and slapped her son Sajiwan (P. W. 6) for quarrelling with Subhas. Then Hanuman (deceased) came out of the house and rebuked his wife (P. W 1) for beating Sajiwan (P. W. 6). Appellant Ram Parvesh, who was nearby, abused Hanuman (deceased) for rebuking P. W. 1. This led to a scuffle between appellant Ram Parvesh and Hanuman, Appellant Ram Parvesh called out the other appellants. They came variously armed with lathis and knives Appellants Bilash and Dasrath were armed with lathis. They began assaulting Hanuman simultaneously. Hanuman ran inside the house to save himself, but he was chased by all the appellants, and, while he was stepping inside a room, appellant Parvesh stabbed him twice with his knife as a result whereof Hanuman fell down dead.
(b) It is further alleged by the prosecution that after Hanuman fell down, his wife Anupi (P. W. 1), his brother Bhirgun (P. W. 2), his sons Arjun (P. W. 5). Sajiwan (P. W. 6), Jagjiwan (not examined), his daughters Kewal Patia (P. W. 12) and Jagpatia (not examined) became very much frightened and they fled to the house of Bissar Dusadh (P. W. 4) at village Rasulpur, which was at a short distance, and, there they narrated the occurrence to him. Thereafter, Anupi (P. W. 1) went to the house of Sheoji Singh (P. W. 7) of the same village and narrated the Incident to him.
(c) No information was given to the police during the night; but, the next morning the members of the family of Hanuman (deceased) returned to their village alone with Bissar (P. W. 4) and Sheoji (P. W. 7), Choukidar Ramlagan Mahton (P. W. 8) and Dafadar Aghnu Pandit (P. W. 10) were called. The choukidar (P. W. 8) was asked to watch the dead body, while Bhirgun (P. W. 2) went to the Chapra Muffasil police station, which was 10 miles away, and lodged the first information report (Ext. 1) the same day (8-5-62). The first information report was recorded by Sub-inspector, Lal Bahadur Singh (P. W. 13), officer-in-charge of Chapra Muffasil police station. He left the police station at 10-30 a.m. the same day and arrived at the place of occurrence at 12-16 p.m. He found the dead body lying inside a room. He held an inquest over the dead body and prepared a report (Ext. 2). Thereafter, the dead body was sent to Chapra Sadar Hospital for post mortem examination, which was held the same day at 4-30 p.m. by Dr. Achal Nath Ghosh (P. W. 2 of the committing Court), whose evidence has been tendered under Section 509 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and admitted in evidence in the Sessions Court.
(d) The Sub-Inspector (P. W. 13) had found profuse blood on the floor near the dead body. He took some blood scrapings under a seizure list (Ext. 3). He also seized the bloodstained clothes of the deceased. He sent the blood scrapings and the blood-stained clothes to the Chemical Examiner and Government Serologist in a sealed packet for examination and report. Their reports are on the record as Exhibits 4 and 4/1 respectively. While the investigating officer (P. W 18) was inspecting the place of occurrence, appellant Ram Parvesh Ram was brought under custody by Dafadar Aghnu Pandit (P. W. 10) and was handed over to P. W. 13.
(e) Deceased Hanuman was a Chamar by caste, and the appellants, who are also Chamars by caste, are inter se related. Appellants Bilash Ram and Kabilash Ram are ions of appellant Ram Naik Ram and the other appellants are their agnates. It is admitted by the prosecution that the female members of the family of Hanuman (deceased) used to work in the house of Sheoji Singh (P. W. 7) and Kedar Singh (not examined) It is alleged by the prosecution that previous to the occurrence appellant Ram Parvesh Ram had rebuked Hanuman (deceased) for allowing the female members of his caste to go to the houses of higher caste people to work as menials and had also cast insinuations against the character of his wife It is said that Hanuman. in his turn, made similar insinuation against the female members of appellant Ram Parvesh's family and this had embittered their feelings
3. The defence has pleaded not guilty to the charges framed against them and they have challenged the genesis, the manner and the place of occurrence. The defence of the appellants is that they have been falsely implicated at the instance of Sheoji Singh (P. W. 7) and Kedar Singh, as appellant Ram Parvesh was trying to stop the females of the Chamar community from working as menial servants at their houses.
4. It has not been challenged by the defence, and, in fact, cannot be challenged on the state of evidence on the record, that Hanuman (deceased) had been stabbed to death. The evidence of all the prosecution witnesses including constable Ram Kishun Ray (P. W. 3) and the members of the family of the deceased, namely, Anupi (P. W. 1), Bhirgun Chamar (P. W. 2), Arjun (P. W. 5), and Kewal Patia (P. W. 12), and the post mortem report (Ext. 6) read along with the evidence of Dr. Achal Nath Ghosh (P. W. 2 of the committing court) establish beyond doubt that Hanuman (deceased) was done to death by stabbing and assaults. It is, further, clear from the evidence of the doctor that he had six ante mortem injuries on his person, out of which injuries Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 were caused by means of some hard blunt substance and injuries Nos. 5 and 6 were caused with some sharp-edged penetrating weapon such as a knife or a dagger. Injury No. 6 was fatal. In the opinion of the doctor, death was caused due to shock and haemorrhage. Therefore, it has to be held that this part of the prosecution case has been fully established.
5. The main point for consideration is whether the prosecution has been able to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the appellants had participated in the occurrence. As many as four eye witnesses have been examined and they are Anupi (P. W. 1), Bhirgun (P. W. 2), brother, Arjun (P. W. 5), son, and Kewal Patia (P. W. 12). daughter of Hanuman (deceased). Bissar (P. W. 4) and Sheoji (P. W. 7) are two other witnesses who have been examined to corroborate the evidence of the four eve-witnesses that they had been informed of the occurrence with the names of the appellants as the assailants of Hanuman. The learned trial Judge has not relied on the evidence of P. Ws. 1, 5 and 12 because the statements made by them in their examination under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are inconsistent with their evidence in the Sessions Court. In her statement under Section 164 (Ext. A-1), Anupi (P W. 1) had stated that, on the date of the occurrence, appellant Ram Parvesh told her that she had illicit connections with Sheoji Singh (P. W. 7) and Kedar Singh. In retaliation, she made some insinuations against the aunt of appellant Ram Parvesh, and. thereupon appellant Ram Parvesh caught her and started assaulting her. Her husband (deceased), who was near-about, asked appellant Ram Parvesh not to assault her, and. thereupon, appellants Ram Parvesh and Dasrath. who had knives in their hands, stabbed her husband while the other appellants, who were armed with lathis, proceeded to assault the other member of the family. The statement of Arjun (P. W. 8) under Section 164 (Ext. A) was similar to that of his mother (P. W. l). The statement of Kewal Patia (P. W. 12) under Section 164 (Ext. A-2) is very short and just like the statements of the other two witnesses named above. In the Sessions Court, however, all these three witnesses have stated that the origin of the occurrence was over the quarrel between Subhash, son of appellant Ram Parvesh, and Sajiwan (P. W. 6), son of Hanuman (deceased). In view of the contradictory statements of these three witnesses, the learned trial Judge has rejected their evidence, and, in my opinion, rightly. There remains, therefore, the evidence of Bhirgun (P. W. 2) as the solitary eye witness to the occurrence. Rule of prudence forbids, however, conviction being based on the testimony of solitary eye witness unless there are compelling reasons for the same and the evidence of the sole eye witness is completely above board.
6. It has, therefore, to be seen whether the convictions pf the appellants can be maintained on the evidence of Bhirgun Chamar (P. W. 2). He is a full brother of Hanuman (deceased), and the female members of his family also worked like those of the family of the deceased in the houses of Sheoji Singh (P. W. 7) and Kedar Singh. It has been admitted by Anupi (P. W. 1) in the Sessions Court that the wife of Bhirgun (P. W. 2) also worked at the houses of Sheoji Singh and Kedar Singh of village Rasulpur. It has also come in evidence of the prosecution witnesses that appellant Ram Parvesh, who was a student reading in the B.A. class, did not like that the female members of his caste should work at the houses of the people of a higher caste to which Sheoji Singh (P W. 7) and Kedar Singh belong. Therefore, P W. 2 can very well be said to have a grievance so far as appellant Ram Parvesh is concerned.
7. Apart from this, there are the following facts which throws doubt on the case of the prosecution:
(a) On the case of the prosecution, the death of Hanuman took place at about 7 p.m. on the 2nd May, 1962. The police station, as already mentioned, is only about ten miles from the place of occurrence, but no information was lodged at the police station till 10-16 a.m. on the 3rd May, 1962. It has also come in evidence of almost all of the so-called eye witnesses immediately following the occurrence that they left their village Kajipur and went to village Rasulpur at the house of Bissar Dusadh (P. W. 4). From there, Anupi (P. W. 1) alone went to the house of Sheoji Singh (P. W. 7) and told him everything about the occurrence. The next morning, all the family members returned to village Kajipur along with Sheoji Singh (P. W. 7), and it was then that steps were taken to inform the choukidar, the dafadar and the Mukhlya. P. W 2 has himself admitted that Sarjug Lal, the Mukhlya, lives in Kajipur and that, immediately after the occurrence, the witness did not try to meet the choukidar and, the Mukhiya even before going to the police station. It is also worthwhile to note that although the so-called eye witnesses were in village Rasulpur and had gone to the house of Sheoji Singh (P. W. 7) they did not meet the Dafadar whose house is close to the house of Sheoji Singh, Anupi (P. W. 1) said as follows:
"Argun Pandit, Dafadar, has his house is village Rasulpur. On that very night we had also gone to the house of Sheoji and had told him everything about the occurrence. The house of the Dafadar is close to the house of Sheoji Singh. We did not go to the house or Dafadar on that night".
(b) The first information report (Ext. 1) was lodged after a lapse of more than fifteen hours. During all this time, no person is authority was informed of the occurrence and the members of the prosecution party were having consultations with Sheoji Singh (P. W. 7), who, however, on the case of the defence, has got the appellants falsely implicated due to enmity.
(c) It is also the prosecution case that, just after the occurrence, all the members of the family left the dead body of the deceased lying and fled away to Rasulpur. This Conduct of these witnesses is most unnatural. They are all members of the family of the deceased. It is highly improbable that they would fly away to a different village if they had seen. Hanuman being fatally assaulted to their view. If they had been scared away out of some fright arising out of some intended assault also on them, they would rather seek shelter in some house of their own village and raise hue and cry about the episode and not that leaving the deceased all uncared for they would run down to a different village at some distance and spend the whole of the night quite peacefully as if nothing had happened. They would not be content with having only informed P. W. 7 and Kedar Singh. If for any reason they failed to inform during that night any person in authority, at least they would surely return to the house the same night along with some other persons to render some aid to or take care of the deceased, if they had really seen him being fatally assaulted.
It has been argued on behalf of the appellants that, in the absence of the family members of the deceased, who are said to have witnessed the occurrence, the deceased was done to death by some unknown person and, as the assailants were not known, the prosecution witnesses, in consultation with Sheoji Singh (P. W. 7), have entangled the appellants to feed fat their grudge. This may or may not be true. But, leaving the dead body. as stated above, without making a hue and cry about the murder of Hanuman, is itself a conduct on the part of his family members which is highly suspicious and casts a great deal of doubt on the prosecution case, the more so, when all the witnesses to the occurrence examined by the prosecution are the family members of the deceased and no person of the neighbourhood has been examined, although it has come in evidence of Bhirgun (P. W. 2) that there are about fifty houses in Chamartoli itself. The choukidar (P. W. 8) has further admitted that on the morning of the 3rd May, 1962, he heard a hulla and went to the house of Hanuman Chamar and found about twentytwo to twentyfive persons. Aghnu Pandit (P. W. 10), the Dafadar of village Kajipur also said that all the people of village Kajipur were near the dead body on the morning of the 3rd May, 1962. It is really difficult to believe that there was no whisper in the previous night when the occurrence is said to have taken place, but, the next morning, there was such a great hulla so as to attract the entire people of the village near the dead body. This fact lends support to the contention put forward on behalf of the appellants that the deceased was done to death in absence of the prosecution witnesses.
(d) According to the evidence of Bhirugan (P. W. 2) in the committing Court and the evidence of Kewal Patia (P. W. 12) in the Sessions Court, when they along with others returned to village Kajipur in the morning, they found the room bolted from outside. But, there is no evidence on the point as to how the room was bolted.
(e) In the Sessions Court the assault with knife, has been exclusively assigned to appellant Ram Parvesh by the prosecution witnesses. P. W. 1 said that appellant Ram Parvesh began assaulting her husband. She further said:
"Inside the room Parvesh struck my husband with knife. He fell down after the second blow ......
XX XX XX XX Bilas did not strike my husband with the dagger"
In the committing Court also, she said the same thing--
"Parvesh entered in the room and gave two knives to my husband."
Similarly, P. W. 2 also said that appellant Ram Parvesh struck Hanuman with a knife twice Appellants Bilas and Dasrath did not assault anybody with daggers. In the committing Court also P. W. 2. Bhirgun Chamar, the informant said:
"Parvesh gave two knife blows on the body of Hanuman. After receiving the first blow Hanuman fell down and then Parvesh gave another blow".
The first information had been lodged by P. W. 2, but there is no mention therein of the fact that appellant Ram Parvesh had chhura (knife) in his hand and it has not been stated that appellant Ram Parvesh assaulted the deceased with a knife. The impression left on one's mind on reading the first information report is that appellant Ram Parvesh had neither a lathi nor any other weapon in his hand
(f) It is clear in the prosecution case that the first information report was lodged by P. W. 2 after due consultation with P. Ws. 4 and 7. On the evidence of Sub-Inspector, Lal Bahadur Singh (P. W. 13), P. Ws. 2 and 4 named only two persons, namely, appellants Ram Parvesh and Ram Naik, before him. Bissar Dusadh (P. W. 4) said:
"Along with Ram Parvesh they had named Nayak, Kabilas, Bilas and 8 or 4 others as the persons who had participated in me assault on Hanuman."
He further said:
"I had told the names of all the 7 or 8 assailants (which were disclosed to me by Bhirgun and his Bhaujai) to the S. I. Police."
But, Sub-Inspector Singh (P. W. 13) said:
"P. W. Bissar Dusadh. .. . .did not name any other accused excepting Parvesh and Nayak."
Similarly, Sheoji Singh (P. W. 7) said that Hanuman's widow came to his house the same night and disclosed the names of the murderers of Hanuman. He remembered the names of all the nine or ten persons who were named by Hanuman's widow as the murderers of Hanuman on the day he went to Kajipur and saw the dead body of Hanuman. But, he said that he did not remember if he had named only Parvesh and Nayak before the Sub-Inspector of Police. The Sub-Inspector of Police (P. W. 13), however, falsifies his statement completely by saying:
"P. W. Sheoji Singh did not state before me that Hanuman's widow had come to his house on the same night and reported the occurrence and disclosed the names of the assailants. He did not name 9 or 10 persons who had participated in the assault. He had named only two persons."
If may be stated here that P. W. 7 was examined by the police on the 3rd May, 1962. It is also apparent from his evidence that P. W. 7, for reasons best known to him, did not like to disclose to the Sub-Inspector that the widow of Hanuman had gone to his house that very night and reported the occurrence The conduct of appellants Ram Parvesh and Ram Naik is not consistent with their guilt.
(g) It has also come in evidence of Bissar Dusadh (P. W. 4) that--
"Nayak and Parvesh were still at the Duar of Hanuman when I left Kazipur'.' XX XX XX XX "The Duar of Parvesh and Nayak and Hanuman are common. (By duar the witness means the open space in front of the house of these persons). Parvesh is s/o Nayek. There is a neem tree in the open space in between the houses of Hanuman and Nayak. Parvesh and Nayak were sitting underneath the Neem tree."
P. W. 5 also said:
"When we returned to Kazipore next morning we saw Parvesh and Nayek sitting at their Duar. Seeing the choukidar and the dafadar they fled away. None of us questioned Parvesh and Nayak so long they were at their Duar."
It has been stated by Aghnu Pandit (P. W. 10), the dafadar of village Kajipur, as follows:
"On hearing a hulla that Ram Parvesh was fleeing away I arrested him in Goldenganj Rly. Station. I arrested him east of Rly. Platform."
He further said:
I did not we Parvesh fleeing. I went towards Goldenganj Rly. Station and arrested Parvesh who was standing below the platform. Seeing me he did not try to run away."
8. On the facts and in the circumstances of this case, which have been referred to above, it is difficult to maintain the convictions and sentences passed by the Court below. It may be safely said that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and, as such, the appellants are entitled to the benefit of doubt.
9. In the result, the appeal is allowed, the convictions and sentences of the appellants are set aside and they are acquitted of the charges. The appellants are discharged from their bail-bonds.
Anant Singh, J.
10. I agree.