Allahabad High Court
State Of U.P. vs Chhotey Lal And Ors. on 10 September, 1997
Equivalent citations: 1998CRILJ1075
Author: R.K. Singh
Bench: R.K. Singh
JUDGMENT
1. This appeal arises out of judgment and order dated 16-8-76 passed by the then Addl. Sessions Judge, Gyanpur, Distt. Varanasi in S.T. No. 33-A of 74, State v. Luttur and three Ors. acquitting the accused Chottey Lal, Dudhai and Sampat on the charges Under Section 302/34, IPC levelled against them.
2. The State has felt aggrieved and filed this appeal.
3. The facts, in brief, are that P.W. 1 Chunnu lodged the F.I.R. at police station Bhadohi on 11 -6-73 at about midnight. The time of occurrence is alleged to be 11-6-73 at about 6.30 p.m. The distance of the police station from the place of occurrence, is 3 miles. The accused arrayed are, Luttur, Chhotey Lal and Dudhai and Sampat. It has been alleged that on 11-6-73 at about 6 p.m., accused Luttur, Chhotey Lal, Dudhai and Sampat came to the house of the complainant and challenged the son of the complainant Panna Lal and started assaulting him. Thereafter, they pushed him towards the well, which was still incomplete, but quite deep, about 28 cubite. An alarm was raised. The witnesses, Sharda, P.W. 2, Munni Lal Sanaullah and several other persons arrived at the spot and Panna Lal was brought out of the well. He had received several injuries and was groaning. He was taken to the Govt. Hospital, Nai Bazar. The Doctor advised him to take to Bhadohi. He was being taken to the Bhadohi Hospital, but he died on the way before he could reach the hospital.
4. The complainant got a report scribed and brought the same to the police station.
5. Head Constable Sri Panchanand Pandey attached to the P. S. Bhadohi, prepared the chik and G. D. arid on the basis of the same, case was registered by him. Sri Ram Janam Singh, S.O.P.W. 4 was present at the time when the report was lodged. He took the investigation in the hands immediately and recorded the statement of the Head Constable and the complainant. The dead body of Panna Lal was kept outside the police station. He took the same in his possession and prepared the panchayatnama and other related documents and got the dead body sealed and he entrusted the same to the Constables Sri Kedar Rai and Bashist Narain. P.W. 5 for taking it for post-mortem examination.
6. Doctor N.D. Burman, P.W. 6 conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of Panna Lal on 12-6-73 at 4 p.m. and collected the following datas :-
He found Panna Lal deceased to be aged about 20 years and that he had died about 18 hours earlier. The deceased had an average body. Rigor mortis was found present and decomposition had not yet started. Both the eyes were found to be closed and blood was found coming out of nostrils. Dr. N. D. Burman, P.W. 6, found the following ante-mortem injuries on the person of the 'deceased :-
1. One abrasion vertical 3 cm. x 5 cm on the left side of chest middle;
2. One abrasion vertical 8 cm x 3 cm on the left side of abdomen middle;
3. One abrasion 21/2 cm x 2 cm on the front part of the left knee joint;
4. One abrasion 7 cm x 4 cm vertical on the front part of the right thigh middle;
5. One abrasion 2 cm x 1 '/2 cm on the front part of the right knee joint.
The doctor found 4th, 5th and 6th ribs on left side fractured under injury No. 1. Pleura was found lacerated under injury No. 1. Blood was found about I 1/2 litres in thoracic cavity. The left lung was lacerated under injury No. 1. Abdomen was found distended and as mentioned in injury No. 2. Stomach was found empty and the death occurred at least 5 hours after last meal. The Doctor opined that the death was caused by shock and intra-thoracic haemorrhage due to injury No. 1.
7. After sending the dead body for postmortem examination, S.O. Ram Janam Singh continued the investigation and reached the spot at about 4 a.m. He prepared the site-plan, Exhibit Ka-8 and recorded the statement of witnesses. Accused Sampat had been arrested by the people and tied against a tree and taken to the police station. Ultimately, after completing the investigation, he submitted the charge-sheet against the accused.
8. The prosecution has examined the following evidence in this case :-
P.W. I Chumnu, the complainant and father of the deceased has deposed that all the accused arc related to each other. There were mild disputes between the parties prior to the incident as the children of both the families had quarrelled with each other. In this background, the accused aforesaid arrived all of a sudden and started assaulting Panna Lal and, ultimately pushed him towards the incomplete well. Who fell inside. He has given the details of the incident as contained in the F.I.R. 9-10. P.W. 2 Sharda Prasad heard the alarm at about 6 p.m. while returning from the market that Panna Lal had fallen in the well. He immediately reached near the well. Sanullah went inside the well and brought Panna Lal from there, who was not in proper state of mind. Further, he has stated that the accused Luttur exhorted other accused, upon which Dudhai, Sampat and Chottey Lal assaulted him and, thereafter, pushed him in to the well. Other statement is the same as done by P.W. 1.
11. P.W. 3 Sri Gulab Chand is not named in the F.I.R. He has slated that he was easing out at about 6.30 p.m. on the date of occurrence. Deceased Panna Lal was also easing out. But he left the place a little earlier after easing out. Then an alarm was raised that the accused were quarrelling with Panna Lal. Lattur exhorted the remaining accused and pushed Panna Lal towards the well. Remaining statement is the same as done by P.W. I and P.W. 2.
12. Other evidence is formal in nature.
13. P.W. 4, is Sri Ram Janam Singh, S. O. He has proved the writings of Head Constable Sri Panchanand Pandey and all the documents prepared by him during the course of investigation.
14. P.W. 5 Constable Vashitha carried the dead body from the police station to the mortuary.
15. P.W. 6 Dr. N. D. Burman conducted the post-mortem examination and collected the date as noted above.
16. The accused in their statements Under Section 313, Cr.P.C. have denied the allegations against them. Additionally, they have said that Panna Lal fell in the well accidently at about 9 p.m. He was extricated from the well but was unconscious and the complainant has falsely implicated accused on account of enmity.
17. The accused have examined D.W. 1 Mullar. He has stated that at about 9 p.m., he was at the door of Nanhu. There was an incomplete well in front of their house. There was a lot of mud and slippery land. Then he heard the sound Dhum and it was found that Panna Lal had accidently fallen in the well. In his presence, Panna Lal was taken out of the well. He was unconscious and was not in a position to speak. He was bleeding from his nose. None had pushed Panna Lal inside well.
18. The accused have filed some documents, Exhibit Kha-7 is the F.I.R., dated 2-6-73 lodged at 0.30 a.m. by Chottey Lal, accused against Mauji, Munni Lal, Chunnu (P.W. 1), Mewa, Had Nath, Gulzar and Lalta. The allegations are that these persons had assaulted him and others without any cause and caused injuries to Chottey Lal. Chottey Lal had been examined by Dr. N. D. Burman (Exhibit Kha-2) on 12-6-73. One contused wound was found in his person. Luttur was examined by the same doctor on the same day. One contused wound and two abrasion marks were found in his person. Dudhiya had received one bruise and one abrasion (Exhibit Kha-4). Jiya Lal had received one contusion, one bruise and one abrasion (Exhibit Kha-5). Dukhi Ram had received one contused wound (Kha-6). On the basis of the report lodged by Choltey Lal, Case Crime No. 597/72 was launched and it resulted in acquittal of the accused, vide Exhibit Kha-8.
19. After perusal of the entire evidence and circumstances on the record, the learned trial Court found that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove its case against the accused and therefore, he acquitted them all.
20. During the course of trial, one accused Luttur died. The appeal abated against him.
21. We have heard the learned State Counsel and gone through the record. We find that there is no force in this appeal and it deserves to be dismissed.
22. It seems that the prosecution has not come with clean hands and it has tried to conceal the real picture from the Court.
23. According to the F.I.R., the incident took place around 6 p.m. on 11-6-73. But we have perused the post-mortem report. This time does not tally. The stomach was empty. It means that about 3-4 hours earlier, the deceased had taken his food. The small intestine contained digested matter and the large intestine was full of faecal matter. Therefore, the time of occurrence does not tally because the deceased might have taken his food at about 2 p.m., which is not the usual time for villagers to take meal.
24. Not only that, P.W. 3 Sri Gulab Singh has stated in para I of his Examination-in-Chief itself that he and the deceased Panna Lal were easing out quite close to each other in the field. After easing out, Panna Lal left that place about 2-3 minutes earlier. Behind him, this witness Gulab Chand was there at a distance of about 30-40 .paces, if it were a fact that Panna Lal had eased out before the occurrence, the question of his large intestine containing faecal matter, as found by the Doctor in the post-mortem examination report, did not arise. It means that the story given by the complainant and Gulab Chand, both is not acceptable. As against it, the defence version appears to be more acceptable that the occurrence took place at about 9 p.m. and an alarm was raised that somebody had fallen in the well. On hearing the alarm, the complainant and others, including the accused assembled near the well about 9 p.m. and then Panna Lal was extricated from the well. This suggestion was given to the P.W. 1 in para 20 of the cross-examination.
25. The accused in their statements Under Section 313, Cr.P.C., have staled in reply to question No. 24, that about 9.30 p.m., Panna Lal fell in the well as the land near the well was quite slippery. The post-mortem report thus supports the defence version. It is not only an oral affair. There is a written document also in support of this case, taken by the accused. Exhibit Kha-7 is the F.I.R. lodged by accused Chottey Lal at the police station on 12-6-73 at 0.30 a.m. He has said that the time of occurrence was at 9.30 p.m. on the same date i.e. 12-6-73. He has alleged that none of the prosecution side assaulted him and other members of his family. That is why, he arrayed Mauji, Munshi Lal, Chunnu, P.W. 1 Mewa, Hari Nath, Gulzar and Lalta for committing offences punishable Under Sections 147/148/324/323/336, IPC. Not only this, they have filed documents in support of their version. Chottey Lal was examined medically by Dr. Barman, P.W. 6 on 12-6-73 at 6 p.m. He was brought by Constable Sri Mata Shankar Dubey. The injury received by him, has been noted earlier, vide Exhibit Kha-2. It has been caused by blunt weapon and was about a day old. Lutter, accused (deceased) was examined by him at 6.40 p.m. and his injuries have been noted earlier. The injuries were about a day old. Dudhaiya, accused was examined by him at 6.30 p.m. The injuries received by him, have been noted earlier. They were also about one day old (Exhibit Kha-4). Jiya Lal was examined by him at 6.50 p.m. He has noted the injuries earlier. All these injuries were about one day old (Ex. Kha 5). Dukharan was examined by him at 7 p.m. His injuries too have been noted earlier (Exhibit Kha-6).
26. Dr. Burman has stated in para 10 that he had examined the injuries of Chottey Lal, Mata Badal, Dukharan, Jiya Lal, Dudhiya and Sampat. This way, the injuries on the side of the accused persons cannot be ignored. It has not been suggested to the Doctor that they are false and fabricated. The prosecution has absolutely no explanation for these injuries. Whereas, they were co-terminus with the injuries of Panna Lal, deceased. That makes the prosecution case uncreditworthy.
27. In absence of any explanation from the side of the prosecution regarding the injuries on the side of the accused, a grave doubt is created in the mind of the Court as to why this game of concealment is being adopted by the prosecution and that makes a serious dent in the prosecution case.
28. As observed earlier, the time of occurrence given by the prosecution, is not correct, whereas as per defence version the time of occurrence was around 9 p.m. on that date, as a definite case taken by the accused is that they have filed documents, including F.I.R. and the judgment dated 8-2-75 passed by the 1st Addl. Judicial Magistrate, Gyanpur, by which the learned trial Court acquitted the accused on the charges Under Sections 147/323, I.P.C., vide Exhibit Kha-3. The dismissal of the criminal case launched by the accused against the prosecution witnesses, is not very material. That is a matter of appreciation of evidence. However, this thing appears to be correct that the incident had not taken place at 6.30 p.m. on 11-6-73, rather, it took place on that date at about 9 or 10 p.m. Once this fact is established that the incident took place not at 6.30 p.m. rather, at about 9.30 p.m. or so on that date, the entire prosecution case falls like a house built on sand.
29. The prosecution case, from the very beginning, is that Luttur instigated the accused Chottey Lal, Dudhai and Sampat to kill Panna Lal and these persons started causing injuries to Panna Lal But not even a single serious injury could be caused by these weapons carried by the accused. The ante-mortem injuries found on the person of Panna Lal are all abrasions. Hence the prosecution story becomes false. Secondly, it becomes false on the point that the accused had an intention to murder Panna Lal. Had it been so, the injuries could have been otherwise vocal and not confined to abrasions only as found by the Doctor. This is another serious defect in the prosecution case. The death was caused due to shock and intra thoracic haemorrhage due to injury No. 1. This is merely an abrasion. However, serious injuries have been noted by the Doctor under the heading of thorax at page 2 of the post-mortem report. The 4th, 5th and 6th ribs on the left side were fractured under injury No. 1. The pleura was found lacerated under injury No. 1. There was blood about 1.50 litres collected in thorasic cavity. Thus case shall be based on the day, to be in realm of imagination of memory only. Therefore, it appears that defence version is correct that these injuries were caused to the deceased on account of a fall in 28 cubic deep well and that became the cause for immediate death of Panna Lal. This way, we reject the argument advanced by the learned State Counsel that the accused had caused serious injuries to Panna Lal with an intention to murder him. Rather, it appear that the deceased met his death not at the hands of the accused by their assaults, but might be for some other reason i.e. due to fall in the deep well resulting in shock. The question for determination will be as to whether the accused were or could be responsible for the fail of the 'deceased in the well.
30. It is alleged in the F.I.R. that as the accused were proceeding towards Panna Lal in a ferocious manner, he started receding towards the well and he fell down in the well because he was receding towards the well, which was behind him. It has also been alleged that he fell due to a push given by accused Chottey Lai and others. So, from the very beginning, the prosecution is conscious that the attack by accused on Panna Lal, could not be solely responsible for his fall in the well, rather, the fall was also caused due to the receding activity of the deceased towards the well in an unconscious manner that there was a deep well behind him. So far as this portion of the prosecution case is concerned that uneasily the deceased fell in the well, there can be no doubt. But the point for determination is as to whether the accused pushed him towards the well, which resulted in his death. For that, the prosecution evidence has to be scanned very carefully.
31. P. W. 1, the complainant Chunnu States in para 16 that he did not see any accused pushing the deceased towards the well. He simply heard their exhortations. Thus the statement of the complainant on the point that the accused had pushed the deceased towards the well, is not sufficient to accept the prosecution version.
32. P.W. 2, Sri Sharda Prasad states in para 1 of his Examination-in-Chief that at about 6.13 p.m. while returning from Bazar, he reached near the Hatta of Bukhi. Then Gulzar, Hari Nath and Gulab, D.W. 3 were shouting that Panna Lal has fallen in the well. Thereupon, the witnesses went there at the well. Thereafter, Sunaulla and Arda came and entered into the well and thus Panna Lal was extricated from the deep and waterless well. Chunnu, P.W. 1 also came thereafter. It means that even Sharda Prasad could not see with his son eyes on the accused pushing Panna Lal towards the well.
33. P.W. 3 Gulab Chand who has not been named in the F.I.R., says that while returning after easing out, he heard exhortations and loud words "Maro Sale Ko". Therefore, Chottey Lal, Sampat and Dudhai, accused started assaulting the deceased Panna Lal with slaps. Panna Lal was receding towards the well and when he reached near the well, the accused Chottey Lal, Dudhai and Sampat pushed him towards the well and he fell in the well. In para 7, he admits that he saw the bricks being thrown towards the deceased. But he could not know as to who were the persons assaulting Panna Lal because there were 30-40 persons present there. This way, he normally could not have seen the actual mar-pit. That is why, he was unable to identify the assailants, amongst 30-40 persons, who were assembled there. When he reached there, Panna Lal was not there. It means that before this witness could come near the place of occurrence, Panna Lal had fallen in the well. Therefore, this witness could not see the actual mar-pit. He could have any (sic) heard about it. Hearsay evidence is inadmissible. Further, he says in para 10 that at the time when the accused were assaulting Panna Lal., none else was there. Again he says that there were several persons, about whom, he could not make any mental note. In para 11, he says that he had stated before the I.O. Under Section 161, Cr.P.C. that Panna Lal had been caught hold of by the accused, who were taking him towards the well and slapping him on the way. At that time, he alone was there and none else. But the actual fact of the deceased being caught by the accused, has not been stated by the witness in his statement on oath. He further says that except him, none else was there. In para 12, he says that at the time of pushing, there were other persons also, including Gulzar. He contradicts himself from the earlier statement, nay, Gulzar has not been examined, although he has been named in the F.I.R. Further, his statement is fortified when he asserts that he did not see any accused receiving injuries. He wants to black out this fact from this false statement and to top it all, he states clearly in para 13 that he did not go the place of occurrence at all. In para 17, he states that he did not see Luttur, Chottey Lal and Dudhai, Jiya Lal. and Dukharan receiving injuries, nor he noticed any injury on the persons of the deceased. Further, he says that he did not see Chandu, Mauji, Munni Lal, Mewa, Gulzar, Hari Nath and Luttur assaulting the victim. Therefore, this witness, who has not been named in the F.I.R., is totally playing on his imagination. He states in para 21 that he was not interrogated by the I. P. at all. In para 22, he says that he could not see as to how many slaps were received by the deceased and on what part of his body. In para 24, he says that Panna Lal was receiving injuries, no doubt, at (he hands of the accused. But he did nothing to save himself. He did not catch hold of anyone of the accused persons. This is an unnatural act. In para 25, he says that he saw accused Dudhai, Sampat and Choltey Lal pushing the deceased by placing their hands in his chest. This way, (his witness is contrdicting himself. Not only this, he has followed the line of other witnesses, who have actually riot seen the occurrence, but posing as if the occurrence has taken place before them. Therefore, the statement of this witness docs not. convince us and we, accordingly, reject the statement of Gulab Chand, being totally hearsay and making it inadmissible in evidence.
34. It appears that the F.l.R. was not lodged at about 23.00 p.m. as alleged by the prosecution, rattier much later.
35. In the Panchayalnama prepared by the I.O. around 23.20 p.m., in column No. 2, the cause of death is mentioned as on account of the injuries received, whereas, it, should also have been on account of all in the well. Had the F.l.R. been lodged at the the as Alleged by the prosecution, the I.O. could not miss such an important thing.
36. The I.O. Sri Ram Janam Singh states in para 7 that he entrusted the dead body to Constables Sri Kedar Rai and Sri Vashistha Singh for taking the same to the morturay. It was about 0.25 a.m. in the night when he eptrusted the same. The total distance, which was to be covered by the Constables, was about 10-12 kms. (from Bhadohi to Gyanpur). But the dead body was received in the police lines much later i.e. at 11.45 a.m. This delay apparently, is inordinate and still unexplained. The Constable Sri Vashishtha Singh, P.W. 5 has not stated a word as to why this delay was caused in taking the dead body to the police lines, although he admits in para 2 of his affidavit that the journey was covered in a rickshaw. So, it would apparently lake an hour or so in covering a distance of about 12 kms. Therefore, this indicates that in absence of any explanation for the delay, the only logical inference that can be drawn is, that, the F.l.R. was not ready at the time for preparation of Panchayatnama and other documents and the statement as given by the I.O., is not correct, rather, a patch up has been attempted by the I.O., which is unreliable.
37. Apart from it, total oral evidence on the point of death available on the record, is merely a hearsay, as observed earlier. Therefore, (he denial by the accused, is sufficient that they had not pushed the deceased into the well, rather, he fell down aecideritly at about 9 p.m. on that dale. Hence the FIR was not lodged at about 11 p.m. as alleged nor any formality of preparing panchayatnama and interrogating the accused, was done in that hight. Hence the entire prosecution case becomes a tailored one and is liable to be rejected, lock, stock and barrel.
38. The complainant Chunnu states that the bricks were being thrown towards the deceased by the accused. The I. O. Sri Ram Janam Singh, P.W. 4 admits in para 15 that he did not mention the place, where he found bricks. In para 16, he admits that P.W. 3 Gulab Chand had stated before him as follows::-
Mewa, Luttur and Chunnu were doing mar-; pit with each other (Exhibit Kha}, Hence it indicates that there was a mar-pit between the parties, that is why, several persons from the side of the accused too had received injuries as noted above. But the prosecution as noted above, has tried to conceal this important fact. Not only this, the I.O. Sri Ram Janam Singh also does not say a word regarding the injuries received by the persons on the side of the accused, although they were also sent through the constable for medical examination, to Dr. N. D. Burman, P.W. 6. This sort of one-sided approach made by the I.O., is most reprehensible and amounts to dereliction of duty. That indicates that the investigation in this case was not fair. The I.O. admits in para 10 that when he reached the spot, the accused Sampat had been lied by somebody against a tree and there were injuries on his person. But he still did not gather information from Sampal as to how this incident took place. In para 12, in his cross-examination, the I.O. admits that in the G. D. dated 11-6-73, there was no mention of the cross-case launched by '.lie accused. That shows that from the very beginning, efforts were being made to gather evidence against the accused only and not to do proper investigation as expected from a public servant. In para 13. he admits that he had himself investigated the cross-case. In para 14, he admits that the injured persons from the side of the accused in the cross-case were also medically examined. That again shows that instead of coming to the truth by fair investigation, Sri Ram Janam Singh I.O. was doing pairvi against the accused and was attempting to persecute the accused and not to prosecute them in a fair manner, as an instrument of the State, which is the custodian of the interests of all the persons, including the accused.
39. The result is that on a close analysis of the ocular testimony supplied by the prosecution, it is totally unbelievable. The oral evidence does not prove the prosecution case.
40. Now we have to see as to whether the deceased made any dying declaration before the complainant and others.
40-41. In the F.I.R., there is no mention of the fact that the deceased made by statement implicating the accused for the injuries received by him. It was for the first time in the statement of P.W. 1, complainant that the theory of dying declaration was brought in. In para 7, the complainant says that Panna Lal, deceased had told him that Chottey Lal, Luttur, Dudhai and Sampat had assaulted him, and thereafter, had pushed him in the well. In para 21, he states that when the deceased was extricated from the well, . he was bleeding from his nose. The eyes were apparently closed and he was not speaking at all. But after some time, he gave the names of the persons, who assaulted him and threw him into the well. When cornered as to why he did not make this statement before the I.O., he states that he could not assign any reason for that.
42. P.W. 2 Shri Sharda Prasad states in para 6 that the deceased told before him that on the exhortation of Lutter, Dudhai and Chottey Lal and Sampat assaulted him and pushed him in the well. His evidence is not admissible, firstly, because the incident is not of 6.30 p.m. rather, of 9.30-10 p.m. He admits in para 6 that after coming out of the well, Panna Lal remained unconscious for about 10-15 minutes. Later on, he made a statement. But it was not addressed to him.
43. P.W. 3 Gulab Chand states in para 3 of his Examination-in-Chief that after coming out of the well, the deceased gathered consciousness and was saying something to his father, the complainant, in presence of Sharda Prasad, but he himself could not hear anything. In the site-plan, the place C is indicated as being the place from where the witnesses saw the incident. The distance of place C is about 18 paces from where the witnesses had seen the occurrence and the distance of B and D was about 27 paces. It means that from such a long distance, the statement made by the deceased to the complainant, which is being sought to be used as dying declaration, could not be heard. Dr. Burman in the cross-examination, in para 9 states that the deceased could have been able to speak something only if it is proved that he was a man of great stamina, otherwise not. There is no evidence that the deceased had such a large amount of stamina with him. So normally, he could not have been able to make any speech. The post-mortem report reveals that 4th 5th and 6th ribs on the left side of the lung were fractured, of the deceased under injury No. 1. The pleura was lacerated and about 1 1/2 litres of blood was stored in thoracic cavity. The left lung was lacerated under injury No. I. As a consequence of these injuries, it appears that the deceased could not have been able to make any statement and the attempt made by the prosecution to introduce the dying declaration, coming out from the lips of the deceased, must be allowed to frustrate.
44. The learned trial Court at page 9 of its judgment, in the first paragraph has correctly observed "Channu could not explain as to why this statement was not recorded by the Investigating Officer." Similarly, in the F.I.R. there is no mention of dying declaration by the complainant. He has rightly concluded that the story of dying declaration is quite doubtful. We agree with the learned trial Court that the theory of dying declaration has been rightly rejected by the learned trial Court.
45. The learned trial Court has also tried to explore from the evidence on the record as to whether there was any motive behind this murder. There is a mere allegation in the F.I.R. that the trouble started on account of quarrel amongst children of both the families. There was a litigation also between the deceased and the accused. There is no documentary evidence to prove any sort of enmity on the record. In para (0 of the Examination-in-Chief, the complainant states that a criminal complaint had been pending on the date of occurrence. But the relevant documents on this point have not been filed. So, it appears that there was no such enmity of such type, which could have induced the injured persons to commit the murder of the deceased by throwing him into the well.
46. The learned trial has also found at pages 17 and 18 of its judgment, as below : -
According to Channu, the occurrence had taken place at a time when the sun was still to set. The occurrence, according to him, had taken place at 6.30 P.M. His statement was that Nai Bazar Hospital was at a distance of 10 bighas from his village. His statement would show that hardly 10 or 15 minutes were taken for reaching the hospital. Making allowance of an other half an hour, which might have been taken by the victims to take out Panna Lal out of the well, time so consumed was a little more than an hour. The party, Channu and others carrying Panna Lal should 'have reached the hospital at about 7.30 P. M. Entries from the outdoor patient register show that Panna Lal was admitted in the hospital at 9.30 P.M. with the injuries. He was given first aid and some medicines etc. This fact about the admission of Panna Lal at the hospital at Nai Bazar was also corroborated by the statement of Sharda. He stated that they had reached the hospital at 9 or 9.30 P.M. Therefore, if the version of Channu is correct that he had taken only ten minutes in reaching Nai; Bazar, then the entry of admission of Panna Lal in the hospital at Nai Bazar at 9.30 P.M. remains unexplained. Defence suggestion that Panna Lal had incidently fallen into the well at 9 P.M. and he was soon rushed to hospital reaching there within half an hour or so, cannot be said to be incorrect or improbable.
Therefore, the version of the prosecution and its learned counsel to patch up the gaps caused in the prosecution case, cannot succeed.
47. Thus the prosecution has failed to establish its case against the accused persons beyond a shadow of reasonable doubt and the findings recorded by the learned trial Court, are correct, whereby he has acquitted the accused appellants.
48. The appeal is dismissed. The appellants are already on bail. They need not surrender to their bail bonds and surety bonds. They are accordingly discharged.