Allahabad High Court
State Of U.P. vs Jaipal And Others on 28 April, 2023
Author: Siddhartha Varma
Bench: Siddhartha Varma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Court No.48 Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 2176 of 1986 Appellant :- State of U.P. Respondent :- Jaipal And Others Counsel for Appellant :- A.G.A.,A.B.L. Gaur,Viresh Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- A.K. Singh,Amit Misra,Rajesh Pathik Hon'ble Siddhartha Varma, J.
Hon'ble Manish Kumar Nigam, J.
This appeal against the opposite party nos.1, 2, 5, 6 and 9 had already been abated by the orders of this Court dated 2.7.2013 and 6.10.2021. Therefore, the appeal is being heard and decided viz.-a-viz. the remaining opposite party nos.3, 4, 7 and 8 who were represented by Sri Amit Mishra, Advocate and opposite party no.10 who is represented by Sri Rajesh Pathik and Sri H.C. Tiwari, Advocates.
Upon a First Information Report having been lodged on 10.2.1985 with regard to an incident which occurred on 10.2.1985 at 9.00 AM in village Sattu Khera, Police Station Khair, District Aligarh investigation was undergone and thereafter the case was put to trial under sections 147, 148, 149, 307 and 302 I.P.C. Before the Trial Court, to prove the prosecution case, the prosecution produced PW-1-Panna Lal; PW-2-Badri Singh; PW-3-Om Prakash (an injured witness); PW-4-Bhanwar Singh (an injured witness); PW-5-Phool Singh (the scriber who had taken the dictation of Badri Singh who had lodged the FIR); PW-6-Gauri Shanker (the writer of the chik report); PW-7-Dr. Shabbir Hussain; PW-8-Dr. Rajiv Agrawal, who had conducted the post-mortem; PW-9-Vijay Singh (the Investigating Officer) and PW-10-Dharamveer Singh Bohra (the Security Officer of J.N. Medical College, Aligarh). To further prove the case, the prosecution had placed various documentary evidence on which evidence were also led.
The accused namely Jaipal Singh son of Daryav Singh; Mahendra Singh son of Daryav Singh, Netrapal Singh son of Sardar Singh; Prempal son of Sardar Singh; Sughar Singh son of Khazan Singh; Amar Singh son of Khazan Singh; Sadveer Singh son of Khazan Singh; Jugendra Singh son of Sughar Singh; Durg Singh son of Badam Singh and Deshraj son of Durg Singh had also given their statements under section 313 Cr.P.C. and had claimed their innocence.
The case alleged in the First Information Report was that when Badri Singh was informed about the fact that the accused were cutting away the Laha crop from the field of Om Prakash then Badri Singh along with Talewar, Om Prakash, Gajraj Singh; Man Singh, Deshraj Singh, Ratan Singh, Bhanwar Singh, Viri Singh and Houl Singh had rushed to the spot where firing took place and consequently Talewar Singh had died whereas other persons who had accompanied Badri Singh had received injuries. When the Court below after having put the case for trial had acquitted all the accused persons, the instant Government Appeal, challenging the order of acquittal, was filed.
Learned AGA had challenged the judgment of of the Court below by saying that the finding with regard to the fact that the lodging of the FIR was doubtful was absolutely fallacious. He submitted that when Badri Singh had lodged the FIR and when all the investigation had taken place on it, then it was erroneous on the part of the Trial Court to say that there was no FIR lodged.
However, the learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties had submitted that the lodging of the FIR was very doubtful on account of the fact that the signature of Badri Singh was not there on the FIR and what is more the Exhibit-2 the Chik and Exhibit-3 the G.D. Entry showed that there was a signature. Learned counsel for the opposite parties, therefore, submitted that the FIR which was originally brought might be having a signature but there were improvements made in the FIR subsequently and thereafter the earlier FIR was replaced by the subsequent FIR.
Learned AGA opposed the finding with regard to the fact that the motive was found to be incorrect by the Trial Court. He submitted that the FIR categorically stated that the motive was that the accused had wanted the land which Om Prakash had purchased and, therefore, they were taking revenge by cutting away the Laha crop and, therefore, the motive was writ large.
However, in reply, learned counsel for the opposite parties had stated that the story which had been brought-forth was a concocted one because none of the documents with regard to injunction etc. was brought on record.
Thirdly, learned AGA argued that the finding with regard to the time being doubtful was also erroneous.
However, learned counsel for the opposite parties drew the attention of the Court to the portion of the judgment wherein it categorically stated that the time given in the FIR was doubtful. The judgment of the Trial Court categorically states that the PW-2-Badri Singh, the complainant, had stated that on 10.2.1985 at 9.00 AM he was enjoying Hukka with his brother Talewar when Panna Lal-PW-1 had informed them about the accused cutting away the Laha crop but in the cross-examination Badri Singh stated that this information was conveyed to him by Panna Lal at 7.30 AM. This definitely goes to show that the time which the prosecution had tried to establish was incorrect.
Learned AGA next submitted that the finding with regard to the time of death of Talewar given by the Trial Court and also the finding with regard to the fact that the neighbours from the neighbourhood were not produced, also was erroneous.
Learned counsel for the opposite parties, however, submitted that the evidence with regard to the post-mortem report was clearly leading to this fact that the time of death given by the prosecution was absolutely wrong. The witness PW-8 Dr. Rajiv Agrawal who had conducted the post-mortem of Talewar had stated in his cross-examination that the ante-mortem injuries found on the body of Talewar were caused at around 2.30 AM in the night of 9/10.2.1985.
Learned counsel for the opposite parties, therefore, submitted that when the post-mortem report was clearly stating that the time of occurrence of death was 2.30 AM, then the story of the prosecution gets falsified when the prosecution comes up with a story that the complainants etc. had proceeded to the place of occurrence at round about 9.00 AM.
Next the learned AGA had submitted that the finding that the PWs-1 and 2 were doubtful witnesses was also erroneous.
However, learned counsel for the opposite parties pointed out to the testimonies of PWs-1 and 2 and stated that the findings with regard to the evidence being doubtful of PWs-1 and 2 was absolutely correct. There were any number of contradictions in the testimony of PW-1 Badri Singh. Learned counsel for the accused-opposite parties had stated that Badri Singh had stated that he had gone to the place of occurrence while at other places he has stated that he had seen the occurrence from his own fields and that he had not gone to the place of occurrence. He, therefore, submits that no error could be found with regard to the fact that the testimonies of PWs-1 and 2 were unbelievable.
Learned AGA has submitted that the finding with regard to the fact that the site of occurrence was also wrong as the blood taken from the site was sufficient evidence of the fact that the occurrence had taken place at the site itself.
However, learned counsel for the opposite parties submitted that when there was such a lot of firing taking place and there were around ten injured and one deceased, then there must have been a lot of blood at the place of occurrence but the blood had been collected only from one place and that blood was also not got tested from any forensic laboratory. He, therefore, submits that the only conclusion was that the deceased had died somewhere else and he was placed at the alleged site of occurrence.
Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the accused-opposite parties, this Court is of the view that there was no error in the judgment of the Trial Court. The Trial Court definitely had given concrete reasons to give its findings with regard to the disbelieving of the case of the prosecution. If the complete judgment of the Trial Court is perused, it becomes clear that this case is different from any other case where two different opinions could be formed. In this case the only opinion which can be formed is that the case of the prosecution is a false one.
For the reasons stated above, the instant appeal stands dismissed.
Order Date :- 28.04.2023 GS (Siddhartha Varma, J.) (Manish Kumar Nigam, J.)