Allahabad High Court
State Of U.P. vs Manendra Pal And Ors. on 13 February, 2004
Equivalent citations: 2004CRILJ2983
Author: M.C. Jain
Bench: M.C. Jain, Onkareshwar Bhatt
JUDGMENT M.C. Jain, J.
1. The State has lodged this appeal against the order of acquittal dated 9-9-1981 recorded by the then II Additional Sessions Judge, Bareilly in S.T. No. 319 of 1980. The accused respondent Angan Lal was acquitted of charges under Section 307 and Section 323 read with Section 34, IPC. Accused Madan Lal was acquitted of the charges under Section 307 read with Section 109, IPC and Section 323, IPC. Mahendra Pal and Govind Ram were acquitted of charges under Section 307 read with Section 34, JPC and Section 323, IPC. Out of the four accused-respondents, Angan Lal died during the pendency of the appeal. It, therefore, abated as against him under order dated 14-10-2003. The Court is presently concerned only with three accused-respondents, two (Mahendra Pal and Govind Ram) being the sons of Angan Lal and Madan Lal son of Munna Lal (brother of the deceased accused respondent Angan Lal).
2. Mahendra Pal, Govind Ram and Madan Lal were allegedly armed with lathis and the deceased accused respondent Angan Lal was armed with a gun. The incident occurred on 12-1-1979 at about 2.00 in village Kesarpur, Police Station Shahi, District Bareilly and report was lodged the same day at 4.30 p.m. by Vishesh Kumar P.W. 1 brother of the injured Ram Ballabh. The prosecution case was that there was a canal running north-south with an opening whereby the field of Vishesh Kumar and Ram Ballabh was irrigated. On the day of the incident at about 10.00 a.m., they were irrigating their field. The accused respondents wanted to irrigate their field and diverted the course of water. When Vishesh Kumar and Ram Ballabh protested, hot words were exchanged and abuses were traded. However, village people arrived and pacified the matter and the water was diverted to the field by Vishesh Kumar and Ram Ballabh. After this, Vivesh Kumar and Ram Ballabh returned to their home. At 2.00 p.m. They again went to see the field and found that the water was diverted to the field of Bulaki and Ram Bhajan. Both of them questioned the accused-persons about the same and the latter held out that they would not allow the water to go to their field. On the exhortation of Madan Lal, Angan Lal fired at Ram Ballabh as a result of which he sustained injuries on his left thigh. The remaining accused respondents caused lathi injuries to Vishesh Kumar and Ram Ballabh. Alarm was raised attracting the witnesses including Ramadhari P.W. 2 Vishesh Kumar brought Ram Ballabh to the village, arranged for bullock cart and went to the police station where he lodged a written FIR. On its basis a case was registered.
3. Ram Ballabh was sent for medical examination which was conducted on 12-1-1979 at 6.45 p.m. A lacerated wound 15 cm x 10 cm x bone deep on the back and inner aspect of his left thigh was found with blackish margins ragged, badly lacerated and everted. There was also a faint red contusion 6 cm x 2 cm on the back side of left shoulder.
4. After investigation, the accused-respondents were booked and faced trial.
5. The prosecution relied upon the testimony of Vishesh Kumar P.W. 1, informant. Ramadhari P.W. 2 and Ram Ballabh injured P.W, 3, all eye-witnesses. Injury of Ram Ballabh was admitted by the accused. The accused-respondents admitted that injury was caused to Ram Ballabh, but denied the manner in which it was sustained. A cross FIR had been lodged by Madan Lal accused also about the incident. According to the accused, Ram Ballabh and his associates attacked them with Kanta, spears and gun and caused injuries to them. In self-defence injuries were inflicted on Ram Ballabh. The copies of the injury reports of Govind Ram and Madan Lal were also relied upon who were examined on 12-1-1979 at 10 p.m. and 10.30 p.m. (Exhts. Kha 3 and Kha 2). Govind Ram had received two incised wounds and two punctured wounds. Madan Lal had received a lacerated wound and two bruises.
6. We have heard Sri K. P. Shukla, learned AGA from the side of the State and Dr. Arun Srivastava, learned counsel for the accused-respondents. We have also carefully gone through the record.
7. On the consideration of the evidence adduced on record, we find the acquittal to be perfectly justified. Reasons may be stated briefly. Vishesh Kumar P.W. 1 stated that he had also received lathi injuries. However, nothing of the kind was stated either by Ram Dhari P.W. 2 or Ram Ballabh P.W. 3. According to Vishsh Kumar, two lathi wielding accused caused injuries to him and he went to the hospital with Ram Ballabh. The fact is that there is no injury report of Vishesh Kumar. If he had received lathi injuries, the same would have been got examined by him in the hospital when he had gone with Ram Ballabh there. It was also an indicator that he was not actually present at the spot. There is another reason for such conclusion that he was not named as an accused in the cross FIR made by Madan Lal. Naturally, had he been present at the spot at the time of incident, he would have certainly been mentioned as an accused in the cross FIR.
8. The second important factor giving a serious jerk to the prosecution case was that there was no explanation whatsoever about the injuries sustained by the accused Govind Ram and Madan Lal, as detailed above. Ram Dhari P.W. 2 stated in his cross-examination that when he heard the alarm, he reached the place of occurrence and found that abuses were going on between the two sides and that lathis were being brandished between the accused and Ram Ballabh. Me showed his ignorance whether Kanta and spear were being used. It was indicated by the testimony of Ram Dhari P.W. 2 that both the sides were fighting. It rendered the prosecution case unbelievable that Vishesh Kumar and Ram Ballabh had gone to their field at 2.00 p.m. to see that the irrigation was going on as they had left at about 10.00 a.m. after the villagers had intervened. The prosecution, obviously, concealed the genesis of the incident and presented a distorted picture, not explaining the injuries of the two accused. Having regard to the incised and punctured wounds sustained by one of them, namely, Govind Ram and lacerated wound with two bruises by the other one, namely, Madan Lal, the conclusion was inescapable that sharp edged and blunt weapons were used from the side of prosecution too regarding which they maintained complete silence throughout, right from the lodging of the FIR till the furnishing of the proof before Court. The greater possibility was that prosecution side had gone armed with weapons including sharp edged weapons. Though Ram Ballabh was injured, but evidence was wholly insufficient to hold that the aggressors were the accused. The incised wounds of accused Govind Ram were on the vital parts viz. skull and forehead, besides two punctured wounds on left thigh. Lacerated wound of Madan Lal was also on the skull apart from two bruises on the wrist and forearm. The injuries sustained by them could not be brushed aside as insignificant, superficial or self-inflicted.
9. On the basis of the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the blame could not be thrust on the heads of the accused-respondent. They have rightly been acquitted by the trial Court.
10. There being no merit in it, we hereby dismiss it. It has already abated as against accused-respondent Angan Lal who died during the pendency of the appeal. The other accused-respondents are on bail and nothing further is required to be done as a follow of action.
11. The judgment be certified to the lower Court for making necessary entries in the concerned register and reporting compliance within two months.