Allahabad High Court
Ambika Soni And Anr. vs State Of U.P. on 9 August, 2024
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:129123-DB
A.F.R.
Reserved on 25.07.2024
Delivered on 09.08.2024
Court No. - 46
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 5954 of 2018
Appellant :- Ambika Soni And Anr.
Respondent :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Appellant :- Virendra Kumar Yadav,Amit Kumar Srivastava,Prashant Vyas,Rajiv Lochan Shukla
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Vikas Singh
with
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 5924 of 2018
Appellant :- Himanshu Soni
Respondent :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Appellant :- Virendra Kumar Yadav,Amit Kumar Srivastava,Prashant Vyas,Rajiv Lochan Shukla
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Vikas Singh
With
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 6012 of 2018
Appellant :- Nandu Singh
Respondent :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Appellant :- Virendra Kumar Yadav,Amit Kumar Srivastava,Prashant Vyas,Rajiv Lochan Shukla,S.A
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Vikas Singh
With
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 6457 of 2018
Appellant :- Pappu Soni
Respondent :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Appellant :- Pradeep Kumar
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Vikas Singh
Hon'ble Arvind Singh Sangwan,J.
Hon'ble Mohd. Azhar Husain Idrisi,J.
(Per Hon'ble Arvind Singh Sangwan,J.)
1. All these four appeals are preferred against the judgment of conviction dated 27.09.2018, passed by VIth Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fatehpur in S.T. No. 257 of 2014 (State Vs. Himanshu Soni and others) vide which the appellants, Ambika Soni, Pammu Soni, Himanshu Soni, Nandu Singh and Pappu Soni, were held guilty of offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 302/149, and 506 of I.P.C. as well as the order of sentence of the same date vide which all the accused-appellants were awarded life sentence along with fine of Rs. 50,000/- each under Section 302/149. In case of non-payment of fine, further they were directed to undergo imprisonment of one year. Under Section 147, they were sentenced to one year of imprisonment, under Section 148 for two years with fine of Rs.1000/- each, under Section 506, the accused-appellants were sentenced to one year of imprisonment with fine of Rs.1000/- each. Appellant-Ambika Soni was also convicted under section 504 and sentenced for six months of imprisonment. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
2. Heard Sri. G.S. Chaturvedi, learned Senior Counsel and Sri Rajiv Lochan Shukla, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri Vikas Singh, learned counsel for the informant, and Sri A.M. Mulla, learned AGA for the State.
3. The Trial Court's record is received and paper books are ready. With the assistance of learned counsel for the parties, the entire evidence is re-scrutinized and re-appreciated.
4. Brief facts as per the information given to the police vide complaint (Ex.Ka-1) read as under:
"सेवा में, श्रीमान् प्रभारी निरीक्षक थरियॉव महोदय, निवेदन है कि प्रार्थी राकेश कुमार एस/ओ अमरनाथ निवासी ग्राम हसवा थाना थरियॉव का रहने वाला हूँ दिनांक 27-03-2014 को मेरे पिता अमरनाथ अपने बर्तन की दुकान स्थित बडौदा बैंक के पास में बर्तन बेच रहे थे समय करीब 6.30 पी०एम० पर मेरे मुहल्ले के ही हिमांशु सोनी पुत्र अम्बिका प्रसाद सोनी व अम्बिका सोनी, पम्मू सोनी पुत्र अम्बिका सोनी, नन्दू सिंह पुत्र स्व० दिलीप सिंह दुकान पर आये हिमांशु अपने हाथ में चापड़ लिए हुए था तथा अम्बिका सोनी ने ललकारा कि अमरनाथ को मार डालो साले को क्योंकि यह दुकान खोलकर हमारे ग्राहकों को तोड़ रहा है। इस पर अम्बिका, पम्मू, नन्दू ने मेरे पिता का हॉथ पैर पकड लिए तथा हिमांशु सोनी अपने हॉथ में लिए चापड से मेरे पिता के सर, जबडे, आँख, गला पर जान से मारने के नियत से हमला शुरू कर दिया जिससे मेरे पिता शोर मचाए तो मेरा भाई रमेश कुमार पुत्र अमरनाथ, उमेश कुमार पुत्र अमरनाथ सराफे की (कागज कटा) दौड़े तो इन लोगों को देखकर अभियुक्त (का०फ०) गाली देते हुए जान से मारने की धम(कागज कटा) देते हुए कि एफ०आई०आर० करोगे तो जान से पूरे (कागज कटा) को नष्ट कर देगें। तथा मेरे (कागज कटा) मृत्यु समझकर छोड़कर भागे मेरे (कागज कटा) ने व मुहल्ले के लोगों ने एम्बुलेन्स (कागज कटा) अस्पताल ले गये वहाँ से रिफर हो (कागज कटा) कृष्णा हास्पिटल कानपुर ले गये परन्तु वहाँ कुछ सुविधा न होने के कारण रिजेन्सी हास्पिटल में मेरे पिता का इलाज हो रहा है जो कि आई०सी०यू० में भर्ती है। पिता के इलाज के कारण एफ०आई०आर० कराने में विलंभ हुआ।
अतः श्रीमान् जी से निवेदन है कि मेरी रिपोर्ट लिखकर कानूनी कार्यवाही करने की कृपा करे।
तारीख 28-03-2014 प्रार्थी
राकेश कुमार
नि० ग्रा० व पो० हसवा
जि०- फतेहपुर
ह० राकेश कुमार
मो०नं० 8858956231"
5. On registration of the F.I.R., the police started investigation.
6. During investigation, another complaint was given by the informant-Rakesh Kumar, Ex. Ka-2, which read as under:-
"सेवा में.
चौकी इन्चार्ज हसवा फतेहपुर महोदय निवेदन है कि प्रार्थी राकेश कुमार निवासी हसवा थाना थरियाँव का निवासी है। मेरे पिता अमरनाथ को दिनांक 27-03-2014 को अभियुक्त गणों ने चापड व चाकू से मारा जिससे मेरे पिता गंभीर रूप से घायल हो गये जिनके इलाज हेतु भानपुर रीजेन्सी हास्पिटल में भर्ती कराया दिनांक 28-03-2014 को मेरे द्वारा अभियुक्त हिमांशु सोनी एस/ओ अम्बिका सोनी, अम्बिका सोनी एस/ओ सीताराम सोनी, पम्मू सोनी एस/ओ अम्बिका सोनी, नन्दू सिंह एस/ओ स्व० दिलीप सिंह निवासी हसवा थाना थरियाँव के विरूद्ध अपराध सं०166/14 धारा 307, 504, 506 आई०पी०सी का पंजीकृत कराया था। चूंकि उस समय और लोगों के बारे में जानकारी नहीं हो पायी मुझे व गवाहों को यह जानकारी हुयी कि घटना में पप्पू सोनी एस/ओ करन सोनी, विमल सोनी एस/ओ अम्बिका सोनी भी शामिल थे। अतः निवेदन है कि इन अभियुक्तों को भी विवेचना में शामिल करते हए शीघ्र अतिशीघ्र कार्यवाही करने की कृपा करे। गवाह-
राम? बहादुर राम? कुमार राज कुमार इक्ज क 2 प्रार्थी राकेश कुमार नि० हसवा थाना थरियॉव मो0नं0 8858956231"
7. Vide this complaint, two additional accused namely, Pappu Soni and Vimal Soni were also nominated. Apart from this, a knife injury was also added to the victim. The victim died on 4.4.2014 and the information was given by the informant to the police vide Ex.Ka-3. During the investigation, the police arrested the accused persons, effected the recovery of a chapad (weapon used for cutting meat etc.), recovered the bloodstained earth and other articles from the spot. The chapad and other articles were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory, Lucknow for seeking a report. The Panchayatnama was prepared and the postmortem of the dead body got conducted. The Cause of death was declared as coma due to ante mortem injuries. The police, on completion of investigation, submitted report before the trial court. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions and the charges were framed under Section 302/149, 147, 148, 504 & 506 of IPC vide order dated 8.10.2014. The accused did not plead guilty and claimed trial.
8. In prosecution evidence, Rakesh Kumar (PW-1) stated that he knew the accused, Himanshu Soni, Ambika Soni, Pammu Soni, Vimal Soni, Nandu and Pappu Soni previously. He stated that prosecution qua Vimal Soni was dropped by the police and he was not present in the Court. This witness stated that on 27.3.2014, at about 6.30 PM, his father-Amar Nath (deceased) was present on his shop situated near Bank of Baroda and was selling utensils. All the above named accused came, Himanshu Soni was carrying chapad and Nandu was carrying a knife, and raised a voice that Amarnath be killed as by opening a jewellery shop, he was alluring their customers which affected the business of the accused. On this, Ambika Soni, Pappu Soni, Pammu Soni and Vimal Soni caught hold of hands and feet of Amarnath and Himanshu Soni with a chapad and Nandu Singh with knife caused multiple injuries on the head, ear, eye, nose and jaw of his father. In the meantime, his brother-Ramesh and Umesh sitting on the jewellery shop and PW-1 from his utensils shop ran towards the spot. Accused persons, by extending threat and deeming that his father has died, ran away from the spot. It is further stated that they took their father to Sadar Hospital. From there, the victim was referred to Krishna Hospital, Kanpur, and then to Regency Hospital, where he remained admitted in ICU. In this regard, a written complaint was given to the police which is Ex.Ka-1. Another complaint (Ex.Ka-2) was given later on as he came to know from witnesses about the names of Pappu Soni and Vimal Soni. This witness further stated his father died on 4.4.2014 in Regency Hospital, Kanpur and his cremation was done on 5.4.2014 and on 6.4.2014 he gave an information (Ex.Ka-4) to the Police Station about death of his father. On 29.4.2014, the police took accused-Himanshu Soni in Village Haswa where, Himanshu Soni got recovered the chapad used in the occurrence, underneath a heap of bricks. The police recovered the same vide a memo which was signed by PW-1 and other witnesses. The police also recovered the bloodstained earth vide a separate recovery memo. In cross examination, this witness stated that he is a teacher and his elder brother-Raju sits on the utensils shop. At the time of incident, they had three utensils shop in Village Haswa and the accused had no utensils shop in Haswa either before the incident or thereafter. He further submitted that at the time of incident one shop of utensils was at the home, the second was near Bank of Baroda and the third one was in the market. The shop at home was managed by his mother. The shop in the market was managed by his elder brother-Raju and the shop near Bank of Baroda, his father used to sit. All the three persons i.e. mother, brother-Raju and father of the informant used to maintain the accounts of these three respective shops. He further stated that the incident took place at the shop adjacent to the Bank of Baroda. Abutting the shop is the house of one Indrajeet Singh who stays there with his family. Raj Bahadur is the son of maternal uncle of his father whom his father has brought from Banda. He has a son. Both Raj Bahadur and his son have a utensils shop in which, they were also doing the jewellery work. With regard to the incident, he made the following further declaration :
""पिता जी को अस्पताल मैं, मेरा भाई राजू, राजबहादुर ले गये थे। मैंने एफ०आई०आर० में अपने पिताजी को भाइयों के द्वारा भर्ती कराये जाने की बात नहीं लिखायी। गवाह को एफ०आई०आर० पढ़कर सुनायी गयी तो उसने कहा कि भाईयों व मोहल्ले वालों के द्वारा अस्पताल में भर्ती कराये जाने की बात लिखी है मेरे द्वारा भर्ती कराने की बात नहीं लिखी है। मैंने अपनी तहरीर में यह बात लिखायी थी कि मेरे पिता जी ने शोर मचाया तो मेरे भाई रमेश कुमार पुत्र अमरनाथ, उमेश कुमार पुत्र अमरनाथ सर्राफे की दूकान से दौड़े तो इन लोगों को देखकर अभियुक्तगण गाली देते हुये जान से मारने की धमकी देते हुए कि एफ०आई०आर० करोगे तो जान से पूरे परिवार को नष्ट कर देगे"। मेरे द्वारा एफ०आई०आर० में यह बात कि शोर पर मैं भी मौके पर पहुंच गया था नहीं लिखायी थी क्योंकि मैं परेशान था। दरोगा जी ने मेरा बयान करीब 4 दिन बाद लिया था। मैंने दरोगा जी को बताया था कि मैं मौके पर शोर सुनकर पहुंच गया था यदि यह बात उन्होंने मेरे बयान में न लिखी हो तो मैं इसका कोई कारण नहीं बता सकता। दरोगा जी से मैंने यह भी बताया था कि पिताजी को मेरे भाई उमेश व रमेश अस्पताल ले गये थे। सबसे पहले सदर अस्पताल ले गये थे।""
This witness further stated that he has no knowledge that prior to the registration of the F.I.R., on the basis of the information given by him to the police, if any other person has sent any information regarding the incident in Police Post - Haswa or Police Station - Sadar Kotwali. This witness further stated as under :
"मेरे पिता जी गिरोगांठ? का काम करते थे व लोगों का सामान रखकर पैसा देते थे। जब पैसा वापस मिल जाता था तब सामान वापस कर देते थे। समय के अन्दर यदि गिरो रखने वाला पैसा नहीं दे पाता था तो सामान जप्त हो जाता है।
यह कहना गलत है कि मेरे पिता जी बदमाशों से कीमती सामान गिरोगाठ के रूप में रख लिया हो उनके द्वारा पैसा देने के बावजूद सामान वापस न किया गया हो इसी कारण बदमाशों के द्वारा मेरे पिता जी के हत्या अंधेरे में अज्ञात समय में चोट पहुंचायी हो।
यह कहना भी गलत है कि मेरे पिता जी ने घटना के एक साल पहले व्यवसाय के लिए 50 हजार रूपया मुल्जिम अम्बिका सोनी से लिया हो समय पर पैसा न दे पाने पर अम्बिका सोनी व उसके लड़कों से कहा सुनी हुयी हो जिसमें आप व आपके घर वालों ने बरवाद करने की धमकी दिया हो। इसी रंजिश के कारण आपने बदमाशों के द्वारा की गयी घटना में अम्बिका सोनी व उसके लड़को को मुल्जिम बना दिया हो।"
In further cross examination by other co-accused, this witness stated as under :
"मैंने रिपोर्ट प्रदर्श क-1 में यह नहीं लिखाया था कि पप्पू सोनी व विमल सोनी आ गये। मैंने प्रदर्श क-1 में पप्पू सोनी व विमल सोनी ने मेरे पिताजी के हाथ पैर पकड़ लिये नहीं लिखाया था। दरोगा जी ने मुझसे एक बार बयान लिया था घटना के 4 दिन बाद लगभग लिया था। मैंने दरोगा जी को अपने बयान में यह बताया था कि पप्पू सोनी व विमल सोनी ने मेरे पिता जी के हाथ पैर पकड़ लिये। यदि उन्होंने मेरे बयान में लिखा न होता तो मैं इसका कोई कारण नहीं बता सकता। मैं पप्पू सोनी को घटना के पहले से नाम व शक्ल से अच्छी तरह पहचानता हूँ। घटना में पप्पू सोनी रहा यह मैं व्यक्तिगत तौर से जानता हूँ किसी अन्य जानकारी के आधार पर मैं यह नहीं कह रहा हूँ कि पप्पू सोनी घटना में शामिल था। घटना के 5-6 दिन बाद मैंने प्रदर्श क-2 दिया था। प्रदर्श क-2 में मैंने देने की कोई तारीख नहीं डाली थी। तारीख लिखना छूट गया था। मैंने प्रदर्श क-2 में यह लिखा था कि "चूंकि उस समय और लोगों के बारे में जानकारी नहीं हो पायी मुझे व गवाहों को यह जानकारी हुयी कि घटना में पप्पू सोनी एस/ओ करन सोनी, विमल सोनी एस/ओ अम्बिका सोनी भी शामिल थे" यह बात मैंने सही लिखी है। तहरीर मेरा ऊपर प्रदर्श क-2 में बाद में जानकारी होने की बात गलत है। मेरा ऊपर का बयान व्यक्तिगत जानकारी वाला सही है। एफ०आई०आर० की नकल जिस दिन मैंने एफ०आई०आर० लिखायी उसी दिन उसी समय दे दिया था। उस नकल को मैंने नहीं पढ़ा क्योंकि मैं उस समय परेशान था। करीब तीन दिन बाद मैंने उसे पढ़ा। मैं घर पर पढ़ा था। मैंने रपट को सही नहीं पाया। जो तहरीर मैंने दिया था उसके अनुरूप नकल थी। जो मैंने तहरीर दिया उसी के आधार पर एफ०आई०आर० लिखी गयी यह सही है।
मैंने विवेचक को यह बयान नहीं दिया कि "प्रथम सूचना के समय पप्पू व विमल सोनी के बारे में जानकारी नहीं हो पायी थी इस कारण उनका नाम प्रथम सूचना में नहीं दर्ज करा सका जब मुझे जानकारी हुयी तब मैंने यह प्रार्थना पत्र दिया है" यदि उन्होंने मेरे बयान में ऐसा लिखा हो तो मैं इसका कोई कारण नहीं बता सकता। यह बात गलत है।
प्रदर्श क-3 में मैंने पप्पू सोनी का नाम नहीं लिखा था। सिर्फ मृत्यु की सूचना दिया था।
पप्पू सोनी मुल्जिम ने या उसके परिवारीजन ने कभी भी सोनारी अथवा किसी अन्य प्रकार की दूकान नहीं किया। पप्पू सोनी के बाबा का नाम विष्णु लाल है और अभी जिन्दा है। विष्णुलाल के भाई ज्ञानेन्द्र को नहीं जानता। यह कितने भाई है मैं यह भी नहीं जानता। विष्णुलाल के दो लड़के करन सोनी व राजू सोनी को जानता हूँ बाकी को नहीं जानता। मैं अपने गांव के विपिन, विमल पुत्रगण अम्बिका प्रसाद व अम्बिका प्रसाद पुत्र सीताराम को जानता हूँ। जिस मुकदमे में मैं आज गवाही दे रहा हूँ। उसमें विमल व अम्बिका उपरोक्त मुल्जिम है। मुझे नहीं मालूम कि ज्ञानेन्द्र कुमार उपरोक्त ने विपिन, विमल व अम्बिका के विरूद्ध चोरी का मुकदमा थाना थरियांव में लिखाया या नहीं मुझे नहीं मालूम। उस मुकदमें में उक्त विपिन बगैरह के विरूद्ध मुल्जिम पप्पू सोनी के बाबा विष्णुलाल ने अदालत में गवाही दिया या नहीं।"
Further, this witness stated that he knew all the accused persons. He stated that there is no enmity with the family of Pappu Soni and his family members. He denied a suggestion that he has not seen the incident and no incident as stated by him took place.
9. Umesh Kumar (PW-2) also deposed on the same line that he knew the accused persons. Pappu Soni and Nandu Singh are friends of all other accused who are sons of Ambika Soni. Regarding the incident, this witness stated as under :
"घटना के दिनांक 27-3-14 को शाम 6-30 बजे की है। उस समय मैं राकेश व रमेश अपनी सर्राफे की दुकान में बैठे थे और पिता जी अपनी बर्तन की दूकान में थे। बर्तन की दूकान बैंक आफ बड़ौदा की बिल्डिग में है। जब मेरे पिता जी बर्तन की दूकान में मौजूद थे तभी उपरोक्त सभी मुल्जिमान आये जिनमें नन्दू सिंह चाकू व हिमांशु सोनी चापड लिये थे बाकी लोग खाली हाथ थे दूकान में आकर अम्बिका सोनी ने ललकारा कि मार डालो साले को सर्राफे की दूकान खोलकर मेरे ग्राहको को भड़का रहा है और इस अम्बिका सोनी व पम्मू सोनी ने मेरे पिता जी का हाथ पकड़ लिया व विमल सोनी व पप्पू सोनी ने पिता जी का पैर पकड़ लिया और हिमांशु सोनी व नन्दू सिंह अपने हाथों में लिये चापड व चाकू से मारने लगे। जब पिताजी ने शोर मचाया तो हम लोग अपनी दूकान से दौड़े तो देखा कि मुल्जिमान उपरोक्त पकड़े थे व हिमांशु सोनी व नन्दू सिंह मार रहे थे। मेरे पिता जी के मुँह में काफी चोटे थी। तब सभी मुल्जिमान गाली गलौज करते जान से फिर मारने की धमकी देते हुए भाग गये। फिर हम लोगों ने 108 नम्बर से एम्बुलेन्स बुलाकर सदर अस्पताल पिता जी को लाये जहां से रिफर कर दिया तब हम लोग पिता जी को कृष्णा अस्पताल कानपुर ले गये वहां पर ठीक सुविधा न होने के कारण रीजेन्सी अस्पताल ले गये और वहां पर पिता जी भर्ती रहे और करीब एक हफ्ते बाद पिता जी की वहीं पर मृत्यु हो गयी। दरोगा जी ने घटना के सम्बन्ध में पूंछतांछ किया था।"
In cross examination, he stated that he was the student of B.A. First Year at the time of incident, Rakesh Kumar (PW-1) is having a jewellery shop; Raj Bahadur is son of maternal uncle of his father who has shifted from Banda to Village Haswa and is having utensils shop in the market. He was also doing the business on credit basis and was also doing business of jewellery. Himanshu Soni and Ambika Soni are exclusively doing the work of jewellery. His father never informed that Raj Bahadur had taken money from his father and he was not returning the same. He further stated that his statement was recorded by the police after 3-4 days.
In further cross examination, he stated that when they took their father to the hospital, his clothes were not bloodstained though he had picked up his father in injured condition and took him in an Ambulance which was called by some person of the village. In cross examination by other accused Pappu Singh, this witness stated as under :
"इस मुकदमें के सम्बन्ध में पुलिस ने मेरा दो बार लिया। पहली बार बयान घटना के तीन चार दिन बाद घर पर बयान लिया था। पहली बार बयान में मैने विवेचक को "नामजद मुल्जिमों के साथ पप्पू सोनी के आने की बात व विमल सोनी व पप्पू सोनी ने पिता जी के पैर पकड़ लिया" मैंने विवेचक को यह भी बता दिया था कि "जब हिमांशु सोनी व नन्दू सिंह मार रहे थे उस समय भी पप्पू सोनी व विमल सोनी पिता जी के पैर पकड़ थे।" मैंने दरोगाजी को उस बयान में यह भी बता दिया था कि "नामजद मुल्जिमानों के साथ पप्पू सोनी व विमल सोनी गाली गलौज करते हुए व जान से मारने की धमकी देते हुए भाग गये" अगर उक्त बाते मेरे बयान में न लिखी हो तो मैं कोई कारण नहीं बता सकता।
दुबारा बयान घटना से 1-1/2 दो महीने बाद घर पर ही लिया था। उक्त सभी बाते मैंने दरोगा जी को दूसरे वाले बयान में भी बता दिया था अगर उन्होंने मेरे बयान में न लिखा हो तो मैं इसकी कोई वजह नहीं बता सकता।
मैंने दरोगा जी को यह बयान दोबारा वाले बयान में नहीं बतायी कि "यह सब पप्पू सोनी पुत्र करन सोनी नि० हसवा थाना थरियांव के शह पर (कहने पर) किये" यदि उन्होनें मेरे बयान में लिखा हो तो मैं इसका कोई कारण नहीं बता सकता।
विमल सोनी का नाम दूसरे वाले बयान में घटना करने के सम्बन्ध में बताया था। यदि उन्होंने न लिखा हो तो मैं कोई कारण नहीं बता सकता।
मैंने अपने दूसरे वाले बयान में यह बयान नहीं दिया था कि "विमल मेरे परिवार का है मेरी जानकारी में इसका कोई रोल लेना देना नहीं है। विमल सोनी निर्दोष है" उन्होनें मेरे बयान में कैसे लिख लिया मैं कोई कारण नहीं बता सकता।
पप्पू सोनी ने मेरी जानकारी में कभी भी सोनारी की दूकान या बर्तन की दूकान या अन्य दूकान नहीं किया है।
घटना के दो तीन दिन बाद जानकारी हुयी कि मेरे भाई ने पिता जी के साथ हुयी घटना की एफ०आई०आर० लिखायी है। यह बात मेरे भाई राकेश ने मुझे बताया था। मैंने राकेश से एफ०आई०आर० की नकल नहीं मांगी और न उन्होंने मुझे दिखायी। इसलिये मुझे उस समय तक किन किन के खिलाफ एफ०आई०आर० लिखायी गयी जानकारी नहीं थी। एफ०आई०आर० लिखाने के हफ्ते भर बाद मुझे इस बात की जानकारी हुयी कि एफ०आई०आर० केवल चार लोगों के खिलाफ मेरे भाई ने लिखायी है। इस जानकारी के बाद मैंने पुलिस अधिकारी व थाने में इस सम्बन्ध की कोई दरखास्त नहीं दिया। दरख्वास्त न देने का मैं कोई कारण नहीं बता सकता।
मेरी जानकारी में नहीं है कि इस घटना के पहले से पप्पू सोनी व अम्बिका सोनी के परिवार से रंजिश थी और मुकदमें बाजी थी। यह बात सही है कि पप्पू सोनी से इस घटना के पहले मेरी या मेरे परिवार के किसी सदस्य से कोई रंजिश नहीं थी। मैं अपने भाईयों का कहना मानता हूँ।"
Dr. Ratnesh Prabhakar (PW-3) conducted the post-mortem of deceased-Amarnath and recorded the following injuries :
"अन्टी मार्टम इन्जरी 1- सिला हुआ घाव 17 सी०एम० लम्बा जिसमें 18 टांके मौजूद थे जो सर के दाहिने तरफ सर के बीच भाग से लेकर फारहेड तक मौजूद था जो दाहिनी भौओं के उपर तक था।
2- सिला हुआ घाव जो 6 सी०एम० लम्बा था जिसमें 11 टांके मौजूद थे जो सर के दाहिने फोरहेड पर मौजूद और दाहिनी आंख के उपर भाग पर था।
3- सिला हुआ घाव जो 9 सी०एम० लम्बा था जिसमें 14 टॉके मौजूद थे जा चेहरे के दाहिनी तरफ था और नाक के दाहिने तरफ था।
4- सिला हुआ घाव जो 4 सी०एम० X 3 सी०एम० एरिया में मौजूद था बांये ऑख के ऊपर (अपर आईलिड) पर मौजूद था।
5- सिला हुआ घाव जो 7 सी०एम० लम्बा था जिसमें 8 टांके लगे थे चेहरे के बांयी तरफ था। और बांये आंख की तरफ था।
6-सिला हुआ घाव 28 सी०एम० लम्बा था। जो 38 टॉके मौजूद थे जो चेहरे के दांयी तरफ था जो बांये कान तक मौजूद था।
7- सिला हुआ घाव 3 सी०एम० लम्बा था जिसमें पांच टाँके मौजूद थे जो बांयी तरफ चेहरे पर था और मुंह के एेंगिल? के बाहर था।
8- सिला हुआ घाव जो 8 सी०एम० लम्बा था जिसमें 12 टाँके मौजूद थे जो चेहरे के बांयी तरफ था। और उपरी ओठ के बांई की तरफ मिनडेबिल पर था।
9- कटा हुआ घाव 4 सी०एम० X 3 सी०एम० जो फोर आर्म के ऊपरी सतह पर मौजूद था और जो बांयी कलाई पर मौजूद था।
10- एबरेडिट कन्टयूजन जो 7 सी०एम० X 5 सी०एम० जो स्कोटम? पर मौजूद था।
11- कटा हुआ घाव 4 सी०एम० X 3 सी०एम० जो थोडी पर मौजूद था।"
Cause of death was declared as coma due to head injuries which were ante mortem. He proved the post-mortem report as Ex.Ka-5. He further stated that the deceased was admitted in Regency Hospital on 28.3.2024 and as per the record, he was attacked with sharp edged weapon.
10. Constable Amrit Lal (PW-4) stated that on receiving the complaint (Ex.Ka-1), he recorded the Chik F.I.R. No. 166 of 2014 under Sections 307, 504 & 506 of IPC against Himanshu Soni, Ambika Soni, Pammu Soni and Ved Singh. The Chik F.I.R. was proved as Ex.Ka-7. In this regard, G.D. No. 24 was also recorded which is Ex.Ka-7. In cross examination, he stated that prior to the registration of the F.I.R., no other information in this regard was received.
11. S.H.O. Subh Narayan Singh (PW-5) who conducted the part of investigation stated that he has verified the investigation conducted by the previous Investigating Officer, Chand Hussain, and has verified the G.D. No. 8 and 9. This witness also recorded the statements of some of the witnesses and the case property i.e. the bloodstained earth, a pair of slippers and one chapad which were sent to F.S.L., Lucknow on 29.05.2014. On 8.6.2014 vide G.D. No. 11, he recorded the statement of witnesses of Panchayatnama and one eye-witness, Ramesh Soni. He also recorded the statement of Umesh Soni on 10.06.2014 and, thereafter, he submitted the charge-sheet on 10.06.2014 against the accused, Himanshu Soni, Pammu Soni, Nandu Singh, Pappu Soni and Ambika Soni which is Ex.Ka-9.
In cross examination, this witness stated that on 10.06.2014, when he asked the informant Rakesh Kumar Soni to give statement, he stated that he had already given the statement on investigation regarding Vimal Soni. He stated that informant told him that Vimal Soni belongs to his family and was not present at the spot.
This witness further stated that on 10.06.2014, he recorded the statement of Umesh Soni under Section 161 Cr.P.C. in which he has stated that at the instance of Pappu Soni s/o Karan Soni, the incident took place and Vimal Soni is innocent.
This witness further stated that in the statement recorded on 8.6.2014, Ramesh Soni stated that the incident took place at the instance of Pappu Soni and his father was murdered. He perused the statement of this witness dated 2.4.2014 in which, in the earlier statements, name of Pappu Soni was not there.
In further cross examination, this witness stated as under :
"मैने विवेचना शुरू करने के पहले केस डायरी में अंकित वादी द्वारा लिखायी गयी तहरीर जिसकी नकल प्रथम विवेचक द्वारा केस डायरी में नकल की गयी थी। का अवलोकन किया था। इस तहरीर में अंम्बिका, पप्मू, नन्दू ने मेरे पिता का हाथ पैर पकड़ लिया लिखा है परन्तु नन्दू द्वारा चाकू से मृतक पर प्रहार करने की बात नहीं लिखी हैं।
वादी मुकदमा राकेश कुमार का बयान मैने लेना चाहा था परन्तु उसने मेरे समक्ष घटना से सम्बन्धित कोई बयान न देने की इच्छा प्रकट की क्योंकि बताया था कि मैं पहले बयान दे चुका हूँ। गवाह उमेश कुमार सोनी पुत्र स्व० अमरनाथ निवासी ग्राम हसवा थाना थरियांव जनपद फतेहपुर जो मृतक का लड़का है का बयान मैने दिनांक 10.06.2014 को लिया था और उसने अपने बयान में अम्बिका, पम्मू, नन्दू ने भी मिलकर मेरे पिता का हाथ पैर पकड़ लिया और हिमांशू सोनी हाथ में लिये चापड से ताबड़तोड़ मारने लगा। बताया था। उमेश सोनी इस घटना का चश्चदीद साक्षी है और मृतक का लड़का है और इसने अपने बयान में मुल्जिम नन्दू सिंह को चाकू से मृतक को मारने वाली बात नहीं बतायी। यह गवाह मृतक के पंचायतनामा दिनांकि 04.04.2014 का पंच भी है और इसने पंचायतनामा में अंकित राय पंचान में अपने हस्ताक्षर बनाये है तथा राय दी है।"
12. PW-6, IO Chhotelal Patel made the following statements :-
"दिनांक 28.03.2014 को मैं प्रभारी चौकी हसवा थाना थरियांव जनपद फतेहपुर में नियुक्त था। उस दिन मैंने थाना हाजा में दर्ज मुकदमा अपराध संख्या 166/2014 धारा 307, 504, 506 आई०पी०सी० जो अभियुक्त हिमांशू सोनी आदि से सम्बन्धित है कि विवेचना मेरे द्वारा ग्रहण की गयी थी। दिनांक 28.03.2014 को पर्चा नम्बर-1 जिसमें नकल तहरीर हिन्दी वादी व नकल रपट तथा बयान लेखक एफ०आई०आर० कां० अमृतलाल अंकित किये। पर्चा नम्बर-2 दिनांक 29.03.2014 को किता किया जिसमें गिरफ्तार शुदा अभियुक्त हिमांशु सोनी का कथन अंकित किया। जिसमें अभियुक्त ने जुर्म स्वीकार करते हुये घटना में प्रयुक्त आला कत्ल चापड को बरामद कराने की बात स्वीकार की। नकल रपट संख्या-19 समय 9.15 ए०एम० पर अभियुक्त को लाकअप से लेकर घटना में प्रयुक्त आला कत्ल की बरामदगी हेतु एच०सी० सन्तलाल कां० सत्यपाल कां० अनिल कुमार मिश्रा को साथ लेकर ग्राम हसवा पहुंचा अभियुक्त अपने घर के पास पहुंचने के पहले मोटर साइकिल रुकवाया तथा आगे आगे चलकर घर के पास रखे ईंटों से घटना में प्रयुक्त किये गये चापड़ को समक्ष जनता के गवाहान श्री राजकुमार सोनी व राकेश सोनी व हमराहियान के समक्ष निकाल कर दिया। चापड के हुलिया लोहे के फल दस अंगुल तथा बेंट लोहे का आठ अंगुल चापड को मौके पर एक सफेद कपड़े में रख कर मौके पर सील व सर्व मुहर किया गया था। फर्द को मौके पर मेरे द्वारा अपने हस्तलेख व हस्ताक्षर में तैयार किया था। अभियुक्त एवं जनसाक्षीगण एवं हमराहियान पुलिसगण को पढ़कर सुनाकर उनके हस्ताक्षर बनवाये गये थे। फर्द की नकल अभियुक्त हिमांशू सोनी को दी गयी थी। माल मुल्जिम व फर्द लेकर थाने आये थे। जिसका जी०डी० में तस्करा किया था। पत्रावली में संलग्न फर्द बरामदगी आला कत्ल चापड कागज संख्या 8अ/2 को देख कर साक्षी ने अपने लेख व हस्ताक्षर की पहचान व पुष्टि की इस पर प्रदर्श क-10 डाला गया तथा नमूना सील भी तैयार किया था जो कि कागज संख्या 13अ/7 है को देख कर गवाह ने अपने लेख हस्ताक्षर की पहचान की जिस पर प्रदर्श क-11 डाला गया।"
This witness further stated that he recorded statement of informant Rakesh Kumar and witness Umesh, Rajkumar and Raj Bahadur from the spot, blood stained mattress and a pair of sleepers were recovered in presence of Rajkumar and Rakesh Kumar and he prepared the site plan of the spot which is Ex. Ka-12. He recovered the article vide recovery memo Ex. Ka-13. Naksha Nazri was prepared which is Ex. Ka-14 and it was signed by the witness Raju. Later on, name of Pappu Soni and Vimal Soni were also surfaced on recording the statement of witness of Raju and thereafter, Section 147, 148, 149 IPC were added, vide letter dated 28.5.2014. He has sent the articles recovered from the spot i.e. blood stained mattress, sleeper and Chapad. Vide memo Ex.Ka-15.
Thereafter, sealed packet were opened and he identified Chapad which was recovered from the accused as Ex. Ka-4 and also proved GD No. 28 as Ex. Ka-21. Regarding investigation, this witness stated as under :
"मैंने इस मुकदमे की विवेचना समय 17.00 बजे दिनांक 28.3.14 को विवेचना? प्रारम्भ की थी।
यह समय मैंने सी०डी० में नहीं लिखा। उस दिन मैंने विवेचना कितने बजे समाप्त किया। का उल्लेख सी०डी० में नहीं किया। दिनाँक 2/4/2014 को मैंने राकेश कुमार पुत्र अमरनाथ, रमेश पुत्र अमरनाथ, उमेश कुमार सोनी पुुत्र अमरनाथ, राजकुमार पुत्र राज बहादुर सोनी व राजबहादुर पुत्र जगदेव सोनी गवाहान के बयानात लिये यह बात सही है की उक्त गवाहन ने अपने उक्त बयानों में नामजद मुल्जिमानों के अलावा अन्य किसी मुल्जिम या पप्पू सोनी पुत्र शिवसरन? सोनी द्वारा घटना करने की बात व घटना में शामिल होने की बात नहीं बताई। राजू पुत्र अमरनाथ का बयान मैंने 6-4-14 को लिया। तब उसने मुझे पप्पू सिह पुत्र करन सिंह का नाम बताया था। मैंने राजू पुत्र अमरनाथ से यह नहीं पूंछा की पप्पू सिंह पुत्र करन सिंह कहा के रहने वाले है इनका क्या पता है।
राजेश कुमार पुत्र अमरनाथ का मजीद बयान मैंने 03/4/14 को लिया था। इस गवाह ने मुझसे यह बताया था। की विमल व पप्पू के बारे में घटना के समय जानकारी नहीं हो पाई थी। अब मुझे जानकारी हुई है। तब मैंने प्रार्थना पत्र दिया है। मैंने इस गवाह से यह नहीं पूछा की आपको किन लोगों ने इनके बारे में दी। और यह जानकारी आपको कब मिली। सम्बन्ध में मैने प्रश्न पूछना आवश्यक नहीं समझा। दिनांक 03-4-14 को मैंने कोई अन्य 27 अभियुक्तगण की अपराध करने में बढ़ोत्तरी नहीं किया।"
This witness further stated that as under :
"ये सही है कि वादी के ही तहरीर के आधार पर पर चिक काटी गयी थी। इस तहरीर में वादी ने "इस पर अम्बिका, पम्मू, नन्दू ने मेरे पिता का हाथ पैर पकड़ लिये। तथा हिमांशू सोनी अपने हाथ में लिये चापड से मेरे पिता के सर, जबडे़, आँख, गला पर जान से मारने की नियत से हमला शुरू कर दिया।" ये सही है कि वादी ने अपनी तहरीर में नन्दू मुल्जिम को वादी के पिता को चाकू से मारने की बात नहीं लिखी केवल हाथ पैर पकड़ने की बात वादी ने तहरीर में लिखी है ये तहरीर वादी ने दिनांक 28-3-2014 को थाने में दी थी। वादी का राकेश कुमार सोनी है। वादी का बयान मैंने दो बार लिखा। एक दिनांक 02-4-14 को लिखा तथा दूसरा 03-4-14 को लिखा। मैंने वादी से उसके पहले बयान दिनांक 02-4-2014 को इस बात के बताने पर मुल्जिम नन्दू ने घटना के समय अपने हाथ में लिये चाकू से वादी के पिता को मारना बताया। जबकि उसने नन्दू द्वारा घटना में चाकू का इस्तेमाल अपनी तहरीर में नहीं लिखा था। इसका स्पष्टीकरण मैंने उसके बयान लेते समय वादी से नहीं पूंछा। वादी ने चाकू वाली बात साक्षीओं के बताने के आधार पर अपने बयान में बताई थी। क्यों कि वादी घटना के समय वादी से 161 के बयान में चाकू वाली बात आने के बाद मैंने उससे यह स्पष्टीकरण नहीं लिया की आपने चाकू वाली बात एफ०आई०आर० में क्यों नहीं लिखायी। चोटहिल की मृत्यु के सम्बन्ध में जब तक मैं विवेचक रहा उसकी मृत्यु की जानकारी नहीं हुई।"
"इस मुकदमें के चोटहिल अमरनाथ की मृत्यु दिनांक 04-4-14 को हुई। इस मुकदमे की तफतीश मेरे पास दिनांक 28-3-14 से 06-4-14 तक रहीं। ये सही है की मैंने केस डायरी में इस बात का अंकन नहीं किया की ये तफ्तीश मुझसे क्यों की गयी। मैंने वादी राकेश कुमार का बयान दुबारा 03-4-14 को लिया। मैंने दिनांक 3-4-14 के वादी के दूसरे बयान में भी मुल्जिम नन्दू द्वारा घटना में चाकू का प्रयोग करने की बात बताने की बात के बाद मैंने गवाह से तहरीर में नन्दू द्वारा चाकू का स्तेमाल की न लिखे होने का कारण जरूरी नहीं समझे। यह कहना गलत है कि नन्दू मुल्जिम द्वारा घटना में चाकू के इस्तेमाल? की मेरे स्वयं के दिमाग के उपज रहीं।
प्रश्न- वादी राकेश ने आपको अपने बयान 161 में स्पष्ट रूप से ये बताया था कि "इस घटना को मैंने अपने आँखों से देखा।
उत्तर- यह बात स्पष्ट रूप से वादी ने मुझे नहीं बतायी, और न ये बात अपने दूसरे बयान में नहीं बतायी। वस्तु प्रदर्श 1 व 2 को जब तक तफ्तीश मेरे पास रही तब तक मैंने इनको परीक्षण हेतु नहीं भेजा। इस वस्तु प्रदर्श जो मैंने मोके से लिये थे। उन्हे थाने के माल खाने में कब और समय व किस दिनांक को दाखिल किया। इसका उल्लेख केस डायरी में नहीं है। और न ही मुझे याद है। प्रदर्श क 13 में दि० 2-4-2013 लिखी है। इस 03 को 4 ओवरराइटिंग में है और इस ओवरराइटिंग में कोई सूक्ष्म हस्ताक्षर मेरे नहीं बने।" प्रदर्श क 13 में फर्द लेने कब्जा पुलिस खून आलूद व सादी मिट्टी लिखा है। जिसमें मिट्टी को काटकर बिछी चटाई किया गया है। इस कटिंग पर भी मेरे कोई सूक्ष्म हस्ताक्षर नहीं है फर्द क 13 के अन्त में छोटे लाल पटेल के ऊपर दिनांक 02.3.14 लिखा है जिसमें 02 लिखकर ओवर राइटिंग है व 3 को लिखने के बाद 4 लिखा गया है। फर्द क 13 पर राकेश कुमार व राज कुमार के हस्ताक्षर बने है। फर्द क 13 पर बिछी चटाई के नीचे मेरे सूक्ष्म हस्ताक्षर है ये कहना गलत है की मैंने इस मुकदमे की तफतीश पक्षपातपूर्ण ढंग से की हो। प्रदर्श क 13 में मैंने चूंकि ऊपर दिनांक में कटिंग व ओवर राइटिंग हो गयी थी। इसलिये नीचे दिनांक 2.4.14 स्पष्ट अंकित कर हस्ताक्षर नहीं किया है।"
This witness further stated that Amarnath died on 4.4.2014 and investigation remained with PW-6 from 28.3.2014 to 6.4.2014. He further stated that he recorded the statement of Rakesh Kumar. However, he did not deem it proper to mention the knife used by the accused Nandu. He denied suggestion that use of knife by Nandu was, in fact, introduced by himself. On a specific question whether informant Rakesh has said in his statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. that he has seen the occurrence from his own eyes. This witness replied that informant informant did not tell this fact clearly either in first or in second statement. He further stated that two recoveries i.e. Ex. Ka-1 and 2 were made till the time the investigation remained with him but he did not send it for forensic examination. He has not made entry regarding case diary in respect of dispositing of the property in the police Malkhana. He stated that in Ex. Ka-13, there is over writing on the month of date 2.4.2014 and has not done his initial signature. In the recovery memo Ex. Ka-13 again there is cutting regarding mattress and he has not put his initial signature. There is another over writing regarding Chhote Lal Patel where the date is changed and thus he denied that he has prepared this document in collusion with the informant side.
PW-6, in further cross examination by other accused stated as under :-
"घटना की सूचना मिलने पर मै घटना स्थल पर दिनांक 27.03.2014 को समय शाम 6.45 बजे पहुंचा था। तक प्रथम सूचना रिपोर्ट दर्ज नहीं हुई थी। मौ के पर पहुंचने के सम्बन्ध में मेरे द्वारा उक्त बात का कोई उल्लेख जी०डी० पर नहीं किया। मेरे द्वारा उच्च अधिकारियों को घटना के सम्बन्ध में सूचना दी गयी। मेरे द्वारा मौके से लौटकर उच्च अधिकारियों को सूचना दी गयी कि अमरनाथ को चाकू से मारा गया है जो गम्भीर रूप से घायाल था जिसे इलाज के लिए अस्पताल ले जाया गया है। उसे किसने मारा है इस बात की मेरे द्वारा उच्च अधिकारियों को कोई सूचना नहीं दी गयी थी। इसके बाद मैं प्रथम सूचना रिपोर्ट अंकित होने के पश्चात् दिनांक 02.04.2014 को घटना स्थल पर गया था। फिर कहा कि दिनांक 29.03.2014 को मौकाये वारदात मैं कितने बजे पहुंचा था इस समय याद नहीं है। पहुंचने के समय का मैने केस डायरी में उल्लेख नहीं किया है। यह बात सही है कि पहले वाली सूचना अज्ञात व्यक्ति के द्वारा जो मिली थी उसके आधार पर जब मैं मौके पर पहुंचा था उसका समय मुझे याद है किन्तु विवेचना ग्रहण करने के पश्चात् जब मै प्रथम बार घटना स्थल पर पहुंचा तो उसका समय मुझे याद नहीं है। विवेचना ग्रहण के पश्चात् जब मैं पहली बार घटना स्थल पर पहुंचा तो मैं और मेरे साथ मात्र दो सिपाही थे और इसके अलवा अन्य कोई नहीं था। घटना स्थल पर कार्यवाही करने के पश्चात् हम तीनों लोग वापस चौकी आ गये थे।
आला कतल (चापड) बरामद होने वाला स्थान खुला स्थान है। और उस खुले स्थान पर ईंट रखे थे और वह जगह आम रास्ते से लगा हुआ तथा अभियुक्त के घर के बगल में है। लगभग पांच हजार ईंटें थी जो चट्टे के रूप में थीं। यह चापड (आला कतल) लगभग सौ ईंटें हटाने के पश्चात् मिला था। बरामद आला कतल ईटों के पूरवी उत्तरी कोने से बरामद हुआ था। मुझे इस समय याद नहीं है कि आला कतल जिन ईंटों पर रखा था उन ईंटों पर खून लगा था या नहीं। मैने बरामदगी वाले मौके से कोई ईंटा ऐसा बरामद नहीं किया जिस पर खून लगा रहा हो। मुझे मुल्जिम ने यह बताया था कि यह आला कतल मार कर भागते समय यहां पर छिपा दिया था। मुल्जिम को गिरफ्तार करने के बाद उसे मारा पीटा नहीं था उसने प्रेम से जुल्म इकबाल कर लिया था। पकड़ने के तुरन्त बाद अभियुक्त ने मुझे प्रेम से घटना के सम्बन्ध में जुर्म इकबाल करते हुए बता दिया था। इसके पूर्व अभियुक्त पुलिस से बचता हुआ फरार घूम रहा था। आला कतल बरामद करने के बाद थाने ले गये थे। थाने पहुंचने पर हम लोगों में से तथा मेरा हमराह सिपाही व मुल्जिम था। थाने ले जाने के बाद जी०डी० में तस्करा किया और बरामदगी सम्बन्धी लिखा पढ़ी किया।
घटना स्थल के सामने रास्ता उत्तर दक्षिण को गया है। घटना स्थल वाले मकान पर बैंक है। जिस पर कर्मचारी व चौकीदार रहते है। घटना स्थल के अगल बगल आस पास जितने भी मकानात है सभी रिहायसी है। जिनमें लोग रहते हैं। जब मैं पहली बार सूचना पर घटना स्थल पर पहुंचा था तो आस पास के रहने वाले लोग घटना स्थल पर मिले थे। मेरे बहुत पूंछने के बाद भी किसी ने घटना के बारे में मुझे कोई जानकारी नहीं दी थी। घटना स्थल पर परिवार के लोग भी रहे होंगे लेकिन मुझे घटना के सम्बन्ध किसी ने कोई जानकारी नहीं दी थी। प्रथम सूचना रिपोर्ट दर्ज होने के पश्चात् घटना करने वालों के बारे में मुझे जानकारी प्राप्त हुई इसके पहले मुझे इस सम्बन्ध में कोई जानकारी नहीं प्राप्त हुई थी।"
13. PW-7, Kesh Pal Singh, Sub Inspector, stated that on receiving the information regarding the death of Amarnath on 4.4.2014, he visited the hospital and prepared the Panchayatnama which is Ex. Ka-16. Thereafter, the dead body was sent for postmortem to the Chief Medical Officer by taking photograph of the dead body and the same is Ex. Ka-17 to Ex. Ka-20. In cross examination, this witness stated that in the Panchyatnama, two witnesses Raju and Umesh are the son of the deceased Amarnath. In the Panchyatnama these two persons did not state that Amnarnath died due to injury caused by knife and Chapad. He admits that at the time of Panchyatnama there is over writing and there is no initial signature. He denied the suggestion that Panchayatnama and other documents were anti timed.
14. CW-1, Dr. Shashi Kumar Gulati from Regency Hospital, Kanpur stated that deceased Amarnath was admitted on 28.3.2014 by his son Rakesh Kumar. Dr. Jayant Verma, Neuro Surgen, operated the deceased on 30.3.2014 and thereafter CW-1 Dr. Shashi Kumar Gulati also conducted second operation. He proved hospital record as Ex. Ka-8. In cross examination, he stated that the injured was operated by CW-2, Neuro Surgen on 30.3.2014 and thereafter he conducted the operation. The injured has again gained consciousness and this fact has been mentioned at Sl No. 53, A/6 of the hospital record, which is signed by his son and one Raju.
15. CW-2, Dr. Jayant Verma, Neuro Surgen, Regdency Hospital, Kanpur stated that on 30.3.2014 he operated on head of the injured Amarnath and proved the hospital record as Ex.Ka-8. In cross examination, this witness stated as under :-
" दि० 28-3-2014 के लगभग 12 बजे चोटहिल अमरनाथ को भर्ती किया गया था। मेरे द्वारा चोटहिल के सर का आपरेशन किया गया था। मेरे द्वारा दाखिल किये गये चिकित्सीय प्रपत्रों में यह उल्लेख नहीं आया कि किसके द्वारा चोट पहुंचायी गयी है। मात्र इस बात का उल्लेख आया कि कुछ लोगों द्वारा चोटहिल को चोट पहुंचायी गयी। मेरे द्वारा चोटहिल के आपरेशन करने के पश्चात दिनांक 29-3-2014 को होश में आ गया था। मेरे द्वारा लाये गये प्रपत्रों में ऐसा कोई उल्लेख नहीं है कि पुलिस को पहले या बाद में सूचना दी गयी हो। मेरे द्वारा दाखिल प्रपत्रो के अवलोकन के पश्चात चोटहिल के सिर, आंख (चेहरा) के अलावा चोटहिल के शरीर पर और कोई चोट का उल्लेख नहीं है।"
16. Thereafter, the statement of the witness under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded and incriminating evidence was put to them. This witness stated that an anti time case is recorded implicating the accused persons falsely. Regarding question No. 14, which was made to Himanshu Soni, he has stated as under :-
"प्र०नं0-14 आपने सभी गवाहों के बयान सुने इस सम्बन्ध में आपको क्या कहना है ?
उत्तर- पी०डब्लू० 1 व 2 उधार पैसा लेन-देन के विवाद के कारण झूठी साक्ष्य व शेष सरकारी गवाह होने के कारण।
प्र०नं० 15 आपके विरूद्ध मुकदमा क्यों चला ?
उत्तर- उधार पैसों के लेन-देन के विवाद के कारण।
प्र०नं0-16 क्या आपको सफाई देनी है?
उत्तर- जी हाँ।
प्र०नं-17 क्या आपको कुछ और कहना है ?
मैंने पचास हजार रु० मृतक को उधार दिया था किन्तु कई बार माँगने के बावजूद भी उसने रूपये वापस नहीं किए इसी पर कहा सुनी हुई थी। जब अज्ञात बदमाशों द्वारा मृतक को मार दिया गया तो मृतक के लड़कों ने पुलिस से साजिश करके यह मुकदमा कराया।"
17. Ambika Prasad in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. also stated on same line and regarding question no. 14 to 17, he also stated that on account of money dispute by PW-1 and PW-2, they have been falsely implicated. The deceased had taken rupees fifty thousand as a loan but it was not returned and some unknown persons have killed him but they have been nominated falsely in this case. Pummu Soni, in reply, stated that due to party conviction in the village, he has been falsely implicated in this case by the police though he has not committed any offence and rather he has told enmity with Ambika Prasad.
18. Nandu, in his statement, further stated that due to party conviction he has been falsely implicated and he has no role in committing offence.
19. Thereafter, the accused side led their evidence. DW-1, Indrasjeet Singh an independent witness was produced who stated as under :-
"सशपथ बयान किया - दिनांक 27-3-14 को मैं अपनी दुकान में था उस समय शाम के 6-1/2 बजे थे। अमरनाथ की दुकान की तरफ से शोर सुनाई दिया कि दौड़ो बदमाश आ गये है मार रहे हैं शोर सुनकर मैं तुरन्त ललकारते हुये अमरनाथ की दुकान पहुंचा जब मैं अमरनाथ की दुकान पहुंचा तो बदमाशान अमरनाथ को चुटहिल हालत में छोड़कर भाग गये थे। मैंने अमर नाथ से पूंछा कि तुम्हे किन लोगों ने मारा है कि उसने बताया कि अंधेरे की वजह से मारने वालों को मैं पहचान नहीं पाया हूँ। जो लोग अमरनाथ को मार रहे थे वो लोग मेरे गांव हस्वा के नहीं थे। जैसे ही मैं अमरनाथ के पास पहुंचा वैसे ही 10-15 लोग गांव के और आ गये थे जिनमें उनके लड़के राकेश कुमार सोनी, उमेश कुमार सोनी व रमेश कुमार सोनी भी आ गये थे। इसके बाद अमरनाथ के लड़के अमरनाथ को एम्बोलेन्स से लादकर अस्पताल ले गये थे। गवाहान ने हाजिर अदालत मुल्जिमान को देखकर कहा यह लोग नहीं थे। अमरनाथ को मारने में यह लोग नहीं थे। मुल्जिमान हाजिर अदालत हिमांशू सोनी, नन्दू सिंह, अम्बिका सोनी, पप्पू सोनी, पम्मू सोनी, अमरनाथ को मारने वालो में नहीं थे। मुल्जिमान हाजिर अदालत मेरे गांव के है और मैं घटना के पहले से जानता पहचानता हूँ।"
20. In cross examination by the Public Prosecutor, he stated that he did not know whether any Chapad was used or not. He met the police after the incident and informed about the same to the police, but police did not record his statement.
21. Trial Court thereafter vide its judgment of conviction and order of sentence convicted and sentenced the appellants as discussed above. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment, the appellants have filed four separate appeals.
22. Learned counsel for the appellant has made the following submissions:
A. It is argued that both PW-1 and PW-2 are the sons of deceased and apart from them there is no other witness of fact. It is argued that both of them are interested witnesses and it has come in their statement that the place of incidence was a public place and lot of people were there, however, no independent witness was examined by the prosecution. It is also submitted that one of the neighbour- Indrajeet Singh was also present but he was also not examined as a prosecution witness though he was examined as a defence witnesses.
B. It is next argued that there is a delay in lodging the FIR. It is submitted that the FIR has been lodged after due consultation and consideration. As per the prosecution witnesses, the information regarding the incident was given immediately to the police but the FIR was lodged on the next date at around 4:00 PM. The counsel submits that the incident took place on 27.03.2014 at about 6:30 PM and PW-1 has given the complaint to the police Ex.Ka-1 in which he has named persons, namely, Himanshu Soni, Ambika Soni and Pammu Soni and subsequently by giving another undated complaint, two more accused namely, Vimal Soni and Nandu Singh were introduced.
C. It is argued that there is a lot of variation in the two complaints i.e. Ex.Ka-1 which formed the basis of the chik FIR is Ex.Ka-3 and the undated subsequent complaint is Ex.Ka-2 as it is stated by PW-1 that later on he came to know from witnesses that two more persons Vimal Soni and Nandu Soni were also there and Nandu Soni gave knife injuries to his father. Learned counsel submits that the subsequent complaint Ex.Ka-2 was introduced just to bring the injuries sustained by deceased Amarnath to corroborate with knife injuries and at the first instance, it is stated that Himanshu Soni caused injury with a chapad (an instrument used for cutting meat). Learned counsel submits that no date has come on record regarding the second complaint which is totally an after thought and is made just to fill up the lacunae of the prosecution evidence.
D. It is next argued that prosecution has failed to prove motive as it is stated that on account of opening a jewellery shop, the accused side attacked the victim- Amarnath with a motive that he is trying to influence the customer of the accused side. Learned counsel submits that it has come in the statement of PW-1 that his family had three shops of utensils in village- Haswa, one shop was at home which was managed by his mother, the second shop was in the market which his brother Raju was managing the affairs and third shop was near Bank of Baroda where the incident took place and his father was managing the same. Learned counsel submits that the prosecution has failed to prove that the informant side had any shop of jewellery, for which the motive is attributed that accused side felt offended that the deceased was trying to influence their customers in the business of jewellery shop.
E. Learned counsel submits that the only evidence which has come against the appellant is that as per PW-2, his father's maternal uncle's son one Raj Bahadur was also doing a business of utensil shop and in the same he was also doing the work of sale purchase of jewellery, however, Raj Bahadur was never examined as prosecution witness to support the fact. It is argued that even PW-2 has not stated so in his statement and therefore, the motive is not proved. Learned counsel further argued that it has come in the statement of PW-1 that the deceased Amarnath was doing the work of pledging the goods of people by giving loan and on that rivalry, some unknown persons has committed the offence. It is also argued that PW-1 was confronted with his statement made to the police where he stated that in Ex.Ka-3, he has not mentioned the name of Pappu Soni and he cannot tell if the I.O. has not so recorded in his statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. Learned counsel argued that this witness in cross-examination admitted that in his statement, the I.O. has not recorded about catching hold of the hands and feet of his father by the accused person and he cannot tell the reason.
F. Learned counsel next argued that PW-1 is not at all an eye witness as it is a clear from the facts that 'firstly' in the complaint Ex.Ka-1, he has nowhere stated that the incident took place in front of his eyes and rather he has stated that he reached there after the incident. 'Secondly', in the second complaint Ex.Ka-3 this witness stated that later on he came to know that from the witnesses that in the incident Pappu Soni and Vimal Soni were also involved. Though he has admitted that all the accused persons are of his village, and he knew them previously and therefore, this witness has not seen the incident. 'Thirdly', it has come in the statement of PW-6- I.O. that during his investigation when he recorded the statement of PW-1, he did not clearly record that PW-1 has witnessed the incident and 'fourthly', that PW-1 has given undated supplementary complaint, the language of which suggest that he is not an eye witness and trial court has not look into this aspect of evidence.
G. Learned counsel has next argued that the statement of PW-2 is also not trust worthy as this witness has also stated that at the time of incidence, he along with Rakesh and Ramesh were sitting on their shop and his father was sitting on his utensil shop. Learned counsel submits that the description given by this witness that Ambika Soni challenged that Amarnath should be killed as he is trying to influence his customers, upon this, Ambika Soni and Pammu Soni caught hold of hands of his father, Vimal Soni and Pappu Soni caught hold of the feet of his father and Himanshu Soni and Nandu Soni with their chopper and knife caused him injuries do not corroborate the F.I.R. version.
H. Learned counsel has also laid much emphasis that PW-2 stated that when his father raised the voice, they ran towards him from their shop and saw the incident. Learned counsels submits that this part of the statement suggest that they also reached at the spot after the incident took place. Learned counsel has next submitted that Raj Kumar, the maternal uncle's son of his father was doing the business of utensil and jewellery, however, he was never examined though he was a witness of inquest report and witness to Ex.Ka-2, the second complaint.
I. It is also submitted that this witness has clearly stated that this statement was recorded after 3-4 days of the incident just to introduce him as an eye witness. Learned counsel has raised another point to argue that PW-2 was not present at the spot as he has stated that his father was critically injured and was bleeding, he picked up his father and took him in the ambulance from where he was taken to hospital. However, he stated that his clothes were not blood stained and therefore, his presence is doubtful. Learned counsel has further argued that this witness stated that his second statement was recorded after the one and a half month by the police, just to cover the entire lacunae in the evidence.
J. It is next argued that there is variation in the occular version and the medical version of the prosecution. Learned counsel submits that as per PW-1 and PW-2 immediately after the incident on 27.03.2014, they took their father in an ambulance to Sadar Hospital where they reached about 8:00 PM. From the hospital, his father was referred to Krishna Hospital, Kanpur but there was no proper medical facilities and therefore, he was taken to Regency Hospital, Kanpur. It is argued that neither the doctor at Sadar Hospital nor Krishna Hospital conducted the medico-legal-examination and there is no M.L.C. on record as the deceased died on 04.04.2014, after the gap of seven days. Learned counsel has referred to the statement of PW-3 Dr. Ratnesh Prabhakar who conducted the post-mortem of the deceased and reported the injuries as reproduced above, out of which, the injuries nos. 1 to 8 were reported as stitched wounds and therefore, this doctor has nowhere stated that at the time of conducting the post-mortem he had opened the stitches to find out the nature of weapon used and nature of injuries sustained by the victim and he has given a clear opinion that it is not possible to tell whether injuries nos. 1 to 8 which are stitched wounds were caused by a sharp edged weapon. This witness further stated that injuries nos. 9 to 11 can be caused with a Kundalya i.e. a blunt weapon which as per PW-1 and PW-2 was not used by the accused.
K. Learned counsel submits that even when the injured witness was admitted in the Regency Hospital on 28.03.2014, no MLR was prepared by the said hospital as it has come in the statement of two treating doctors, CW-1 and CW-2. With reference to CW-2, it is argued that this witness has stated that he operated upon the head of the victim on 28.03.2014 being a neurosurgeon and produced the hospital record as Ex.Ka-8 in which he admitted that nothing is opined how the injuries were caused. With reference to CW-1, doctor who conducted the second operation after CW-2 has also stated that he cannot tell the nature of weapon used. The argument is raised that both CW-1 and CW-2 have stated that post operation, the injured victim Amarnath had gained senses and he suffered injuries on head, eye and face.
L. It is argued that the medical evidence nowhere suggest that either the chapad or the knife was used for committing the offence. Learned counsel submits that CW-2 has stated that in his medical record it has come that the victim has gained consciousness after the operation, however, neither his statement was recorded nor the police tried to find out the manner in which the offence was committed as accused were already named in the F.I.R. falsely.
M. It is next argued that as per the FSL report, the articles sent for examination were a blood stained piece of mattress, a simple piece of mattress, a pair of sleeper and one chapad. As per the report of FSL, the human blood was found at Ex.1 i.e. blood stained mattress and at S. No. Ex.2 and Ex.3, a pair of sleeper and the chapad disintegrated blood was found and therefore its source could not be ascertained. Learned counsel submits that even this part of the evidence do not suggest that the chopper allegedly recovered from Himanshu Soni was used in the offence. It is argued that the second weapon of offence i.e. knife was neither recovered nor sent to the FSL for examination.
N. Learned counsel for the appellants has laid much emphasis on the fact that the second complaint (Exhibit Ka-2) is given with due consideration and to fill-up the lacunas regarding the injuries. It is argued that in this complaint, PW-1-informant (Rakesh Kumar Soni) stated that he came to know from the witnesses that in the incident, Pappu Soni and Vimal Soni were also involved and that his father was given grievous injuries with Chapad and knife.
O. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that this complaint was witnessed by Ram Bahadur, Ram Kumar and Raj Kumar, however none of the three witnesses were the source of information to PW-1 for adding two accused namely, Pappu Soni and Vimal Soni were never examined by the prosecution.
P. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that it has come in the statement of both the Investigating Officers i.e. S.H.O. Subh Narayan Singh (PW-5) as well as IO Chhotelal Patel (PW-6) that Vimal Soni was not present at spot. PW-5 has stated in cross examination that during his investigation, the informant-Rakesh Kumar Soni ( PW-1) told him that Vimal Soni belongs to his famly and he was not present at the spot. This witness also stated that the informant did not tell him while recording the FIR that Ambika Soni, Pammu Soni and Nandu Singh caught hold hands of his father and also not recorded that Nandu Singh gave knife blow to the deceased. It is stated that Umesh Kumar who is also an eye witness and son of the deceased, also did not disclose that Nandu Singh gave knife blow to the deceased though Umesh is also a witness of Panchayatnama.
Q. Similarly, IO Chhotelal Patel (PW-6), the second Investigating Officer who recovered the Chapad from accused Himanshu Soni after his arrest stated that recovery was effected in presence of two persons, namely, Raj Kumar Soni and Rakesh Kumar Soni, however both these persons were not examined as an independent witness to prove the recovery and therefore, the recovery is not proved in terms of Section 27 of Evidence Act. This witness further stated that on 2.4.2014, he has recorded the statement of PW-1, PW-2 and other witnesses including Raj Kumar and Raj Bahadur but they did not state about any other accused except those named in the FIR, including Pappu Soni and only on 6.4.2014, PW-1 named Pappu Soni.
R. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there is substantive improvement in this regard as the deceased died on 4.4.2014 and later on, Pappu Soni was named on 6.4.2014.
S. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though Exhibit Ka-2, the second complaint is undated, however, PW-6 has stated that on 3.4.2014 i.e. after about seven days of incident, Rakesh Kumar Soni (PW-1) told him that at the time of incident, he could not get information regarding involvement of Vimal Soni and Pappu Soni and on coming to know this fact he has given the complaint. However, on that date, he did not nominate the aforesaid two persons in the case, this also suggests that in order to cover-up the second complaint, PW-6 has given its date as 3.4.2014 and if he received the same then he has prepared fake proceeding dated 6.4.2014 as he added the name on 6.4.2014 after death of the victim. This witness stated that neither in the complaint nor the FIR, the informant stated that Nandu Singh gave knife blow to his father and only on 3.4.2014 when he gave the second complaint, this information came on record and, therefore, Nandu Singh has been falsely implicated.
T. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that the articles which were recovered i.e. Exhibit Ka-1 & Ka-2 as well as Chapad remained in long custody of PW-6 as it is clearly admitted by him in cross examination and the police sent the same to the Forensic Science Lab after a period of two months which again raises suspicion about the recovery effected in this regard.
U. A reference is drawn to recovery memo (Exhibit Ka-13) where the date was changed from 2.3.2013 to 2.4.2013 without any initial signatures and there are other cuttings also on the same regarding the recoveries and on the cutting and overwriting there is no initial signature and, therefore, it is apparent that this documents is manipulated by the Investigating Officer.
V. Learned counsel for the appellant next argued that both PW-1 & PW-2 are not the eye witnesses and the FIR is delayed by one day and was registered with due deliberation as PW-3 has stated that on receiving information on the date of incident i.e. 27.3.2014 at 6:45 p.m., he reached at the spot and till that time, no FIR was registered. However, he has given the information to the Higher Police Official that Amarnath is seriously injured and he has sent him to the hospital. However, who gave him injuries was not reported to the Higher Police Official. This witness stated that thereafter for the first time, he went to the spot on 2.4.2014, after the FIR was registered.
W. It is next argued that the delay in lodging the FIR itself reflects that it has been registered with a due deliberation of nominating the accused persons otherwise when PW-6 has reached at the spot immediately after the incident at about 6:45 PM where the incident took place at about 6-6:30 PM, he must have enquired from the people of the vicinity as to who had committed the offence but name of the accused never surfaced there and then.
X. It is next argued that one Indrajeet Singh who is having a house where the incident took place appeared as DW-1 and has stated that immediately after the incident when he reached at the spot, he met the victim who was in sense but he did not name the accused persons as assailants. This witness has further stated that police has reached at the spot at that time and he met the police and he told about the incident but the statement was not recorded.
Y. Learned counsel for the appellant next argued that some unknown miscreants have caused the injuries and on his asking, Amarnath, victim told him that due to dark, he could not identified them and even 10-15 people of the village also gathered there. It is next contended that this independent witness was intentionally not examined by the prosecution who has given vital informations as the police immediately after the incident reached at the spot as stated by PW-6 that (i) Amarnath was in senses and (ii) he did not tell and rather stated that he could not identify the assailants, (iii) that the accused persons did not cause injury to Amarnath as he knew all of them well as they belongs to his village. It is thus, submitted that from the statement of DW-1 also, it is proved that PW-1 & PW-2 are not eye witnesses and they reached at the spot later on.
Z. Learned counsel for the appellant next argued that Raj Bahadur, the cousin of deceased-Amarnath who was a witness to the Panchayatnama, the recovery memo Exhibit Ka-13 and as per both PW-1 & PW-2 was doing business of jewellery whom the motive is attributed for causing the injury to Amarnath was not examined to prove this fact. Even two other witnesses, namely, Ram Kumar and Ram Bahadur whose names surfaced in investigation and who are witness to the second complaint ( Exhibit Ka-A-2) were not examined as witness to prove the guilt of the appellants.
AA. Sri Rajiv Lochan, learned counsel for the appellant-Ambika Soni, who as per prosecution version caught hold the deceased has additionally argued that at the first instance in the FIR, it is not stated that which assailants caught hold of the hands of the victim and which assailants caught hold of the feet of the victim. It is also argued that in the first complaint as well as chik FIR , name of Pappu Soni and Vimal Soni was not there and in the first complaint as well as chik FIR, no knife was attributed to Nandu Singh.
AB. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that in order to co relate, the injury sustained by the victim, later on 3.4.2014 as per PW-6, the complaint Ex-Ka-2 was given which was undated and the reason for not mentioning a date, on the same was to create presumption that it was given promptly though PW-6 has stated that only on 3.4.2014, PW-1 for the first time named Pappu Soni and Vimal Soni. However, on that date, neither his statement was recorded nor the two accused were added in the FIR and only on 6.4.2014 i.e., after death of victim on 4.4.2014, their names were added in collusion with the complainant / informant's side.
AC. Learned counsel for appellant further submits that it has come in the statement of both the Investigating Officers, PW-5 & PW-6, that during investigation, on verification and as per the statement of PW-1 itself that the subsequently named accused-Vimal Soni belongs to his family and he was not present at the spot, his name was dropped during the police investigation and no charge sheet was presented against him.
AD. Learned counsel for appellant submits that presence of Nandu at the spot is highly doubtful as he is only a friend of other accused and at the first instance, role was attributed to him was that he had caught hold the hands of his father whereas in the second statement Ex-Ka-3 on 6.4.2014, he was assigned role of giving knife blow after due deliberation, by the informant's side.
AE. Counsel has also argued that there is delay of 22 hours in registration of the F.I.R. which is not explained by the prosecution though it has come in the statement of PW-6 that after 15-20 minutes of the incident, he has reached at the spot but did not report name of any assailants to the higher Police Officials which suggests that the incident was committed by unknown persons as the victim was in the business of pledging the articles of the persons in public by giving money and if the money was not returned, he used to seize the same and, therefore, on that account, he was assaulted by unknown persons otherwise, immediately when PW-6, the Investigating Officer, reached at the spot, he could get the name of the appellants as many persons of the vicinity including DW-1, Inderjeet, came there who has deposed that victim-Amarnath told him that he could not see who were the assailants.
AF. It is next argued that naming of accused Nandu Singh by giving second complaint (Ex.Ka-2) is otherwise barred as PW-1 has stated that he came to know about this fact from the witnesses, therefore, Ex.Ka-2 was given on the basis of hearsay evidence which is not admissible.
AG. It is submitted that in Ex. Ka-2, three persons, Ram Bahadur, Raj Kumar and Raj Bahadur were cited as witnesses upon whose information PW-1 stated that he had nominated Pappu Soni and Vimal Soni as additional accused as well as introduced one new weapon of offence i.e. knife. However, none of the three witnesses were examined by the prosecution to prove this aspect of the evidence.
AH. It is next argued that in their statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. all the accused have stated that they have been falsely implicated as deceased owed Rs.50,000/- to them and they have not committed the offence.
AI. It is thus submitted that PW-1 and PW-2 are not the eye-witnesses of the incident; 'secondly', there is consistent improvement in the prosecution version; 'thirdly', the F.I.R. was registered after a delay of about 22 hours with due deliberations; 'fourthly', the police did not believe the version of the informant and dropped the proceedings against Vimal Soni who was named in the second complaint (Ex.Ka-2); 'fifthly', in the F.I.R., there is no mention of causing injury with a knife; 'sixthly', the second complaint (Ex.Ka-2) is undated and is given with due deliberations to corroborate the weapon of offence with the injuries of the victim; 'seventhly', no blood staines were found on the clothes worn by PW-1 and PW-2 though they have stated that they had lifted their injured father and took him to the hospital in ambulance and lastly, as per DW-1, injured-Amarnath was in senses but he did not name the accused person as assailants.
23. In reply, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. for the State have argued that prosecution has discharged the burden as both the PWs are the eye-witnesses and their reliability and presence at the spot cannot be disputed being the sons of the victim as they have stated that they were also present at the shop abutting the shop of the victim where incident took place.
It is also argued that upon pointing out of Himanshu Soni, weapon of offence, Chapad, was recovered which was concealed under heap of bricks and was sent for forensic examination and it was opined that humon blood was found on the same.
It is also argued that the delay in registration of the F.I.R. was due to the fact that both PW-1 and PW-2 took their father to Sadar Hospital and from there, they took him to Krishna Hospital, Kanpur, from there, he was referred to Regency Hospital on the next date i.e. 28.3.2014 and was immediately operated upon for his head injuries by Doctor, CW-1 and CW-2. Therefore, both PW-1 and PW-2 were busy in taking care of his injured father and the delay is duly explained.
It is argued that statement of PW-2 is also a reliable witness as he has described the manner in which all the assailants caused injuries to his father.
Counsel submits that the second complaint (Ex.Ka-2) was given later on because PW-1 was purtured on seeing the injured condition of his father and by giving a reason that he later on came to know from the witnesses about the name of Pappu Soni and Vimal Soni, he has given a natural version to the police.
It is also argued that motive is proved as it has come in the statement of PW-1 and PW-2 that on one of the shops, they were also doing business of jewellery on which the appellants felt offended that deceased-Amarnath was trying to influence their settled customers.
It is also submitted that statement of DW-1, Inderjeet Singh, is not trustworthy as immediately after the incident, the injured became unconscious and he was taken to the hospital. It is submitted that the condition of the injured was so critical that the Sadar Hospital referred him to the Krishna Hospital, Kanpur, even Krishna Hospital on finding that they did not have appropriate medical facilities, referred the victim to the bigger hospital i.e. Regency Hospital for giving proper treatment.
Learned A.G.A. for the State has argued that there was no occasion to conduct the medico legal examination at the first two hospitals and they did not admit victim and rather referred him immediately to the bigger hospital and, therefore, mere fact that the medico legal report is not on record, do not raise any suspicion about the prosecution version.
It is also argued that independent witness did not come forward as they did not want to depose against other inhabitants of the village in order to avoid any enmity.
Learned A.G.A. has further submitted that if the weapon of offence was not sent to the Forensic Science Lab for a period of two month, no fault can be found with prosecution version as it was duty of the Investigating Officer to send the same immediately.
It is also argued that upon the confession of Himansu Soni recorded by PW-6, he got recovered the weapon of offence which was having blood stains and was sent to F.S.L. for examination.
24. In reply, counsel for the appellant reiterated the argument raised earlier and submitted that delay in sending the weapon of offence for forensic examination is unexplained by the Investigating Officer, the absence of medico legal examination got conducted by Regency Hospital where victim remained admitted from 28.3.2014 till 4.5.2014 when he died and in view of the statement of both the treating doctors i.e. C.W.1 and C.W.2 who have stated that they cannot tell about the nature of the weapon used in commission of offence, the prosecution version is doubtful. It is also submitted that substantive improvements were made by the prosecution, part of which, were disbelieved by the Trial Court.
25. After hearing counsel for the parties and on going through the Trial Court's Record as well as the paper book and on re-appreciation of the entire evidence, we record our finding as under :
A. The argument raised by the counsel for the appellant that PW-1 and PW-2 being sons of the deceased are interested witnesses and no independent witness was examined by the prosecution, has some force as on a careful perusal of the evidence, we find that Rakesh Kumar, PW-1/Informant is not en eye-witness and is only an informant for the following reasons:
(i) In the complaint given to the police at the first instance, this witness has not specifically stated that he witnessed the incident rather stated that when the accused came armed with weapons and attacked his father, his brothers, Ramesh Kumar and Umesh Kumar, reached at the spot and saw the incident.
(ii) Even in cross examination of PW-6, it has come that during his investigation, it could not be ascertained that PW-1 was in fact a witness of fact and has seen the incident. On a specific question asked to him whether Ramesh Kumar PW-1, in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. stated that he witnessed the incident, the specific reply by PW-6 was that informant did not tell specifically these facts in his statement.
(iii) PW-1 when gave the second complaint (Ex.Ka-2), clearly stated that at the time of incident, he could not get the correct information and later on, he came to know from the witnesses that in the incident, two more accused namely, Pappu Soni and Vimal Soni, were also there, this also reflect that he has not witnessed the incident.
In cross examination, PW-1 has stated that in his first complaint (Ex.Ka-1), he has not stated that Pappu Soni and Vimal Soni caught hold of hand and feet of his father and stated so in the second statement made to the Investigating Officer after four days.
(iv) In the second complaint, he had named three witnesses i.e. Ram Bahadur, Ram Kumar and Raj Kumar. Out of which, Raj Bahadur was also a witness to Panchayatnama. As per PW-1, Raj Bahadur was his father's first cousin and was doing business of jewellery, however, this witness was never examined to say that PW-1 has witnessed the occurrence.
(v) In cross examination PW-1 admitted that he know Pappu Soni and Vimal Soni personally by face and, therefore, by not naming them at first instance and rather putting a new story in second undated complaint Ex.Ka-2 that other witness told him their name afterwards, the second complaint was given with due deliberation as PW-1 has not witnessed the incident.
However, we uphold the finding recorded by the Trial Court that Umesh Kumar, PW-2, is an eye-witness as per FIR. Though, he has also made improvement on the line of second complaint(Ex-Ka-2). PW-2 has made a statement that on the date of incident i.e. 27.03.2014, at about 6.30 PM, he along with his brother-Rakesh and Ramesh were sitting on their jewellery shop and his father was on the utensils shop. He has given the description of the accused persons who came to the shop, out of which, Nandu Singh was carrying knife and Himansu Soni was carrying a chapad, rest of the accused were empty handed. Ambika Soni exhorted to kill his father-Amarnath as he was influencing their customers in the business of jewellery. Ambika Soni and Pammu Soni caught hold of the hands of his father, Vimal Soni and Pappu Soni caught hold of feet of his father and Himanshu Soni and Nandu Singh, with their respective weapons i.e. chapad and knife, caused injuries. When his father raised the voice, PW-2 along with others, reached the spot and saw the incident.
In cross examination, this witness stated that he has told the Investigating Officer that along with the accused named in the F.I.R., Pappu Soni and Vimal Soni also came. However, he cannot not tell if this fact was not recorded in his statement. This witness stated that even when his second statement was recorded, after one and a half months, he again disclosed this fact but cannot tell the reason, why the Investigating Officer has not recorded the same.
He further stated that he has not made statement that since Vimal Soni is from his family and as per his information, Vimal Soni had no role and is innocent. He pleaded ignorance how the statement was recorded. He also stated that as per his information, Pappu Soni was not in the business of either jewellery or utensils. This witness faced lengthy cross examination but his deposition could not be shattered by the defence except the improvements as admitted by him. Therefore, his statement is partly reliable qua the FIR version.
B. Next argument raised by counsel for the appellant that there is delay in lodging the F.I.R. which has been registered after due consultation and consideration, is also without force as it has been explained both by PW-1 and PW-2 that immediately after the incident, they took their father to Sadar Hospital, from there, they took him to Krishna Hopsital, Kanpur where, due to lack of medical facility, he was referred to Regency Hospital, Kanpur and immediately on the next day, the victim was operated upon by a Neuro Surgeon i.e. CW-2. Therefore, both the witnesses have stated that they were taking care of their father who was in dire need of medical assistance and only after that, they recorded the Chik F.I.R. and, therefore, the delay is explained.
Argument raised by counsel for the appellant that it has come in the statement of PW-6 that on receiving the information of the incident, he reached the spot after 15-20 minutes and thereafter, he did not send any report about the names of the accused, is a normal course as a police officer on a receiving an information of cognizable of offence is bound to reach at the spot. This witness has stated that only after Chik F.I.R. was recorded in which name of the accused surfaced, he started the investigation. Therefore, the delay is properly explained by the prosecution.
C. The next ground raised by counsel for the appellant that motive is not proved as prosecution has failed to prove that the informant side was running the business of jewellery, is also not correct as it has come in the statement of both PW-1 and PW-2 that his father's cousin Raj Bahadur was also having a utensils shop and was doing the business of jewellery. It has come in their statements that Raj Bahadur was brought by their father to village-Haswa and his father helped him in opening the shop reflect that business of jewellery undertaken by Raj Bahadur, was also the family business of the informant side.
D. Next argument raised by the counsel for the appellant that statement of PW-1 and PW-2 were recorded after 3-4 days of the incident is also not raising doubt on the prosecution version as it has come that the deceased died on 4.4.2014 during his treatment at Regency Hospital, Kanpur. Therefore, mere fact that the statement was recorded after 3-4 days do not raise suspicion on the prosecution version.
E. Another argument raised by counsel for the appellant that no M.L.C. of the injured was done either at Sadar Hospital or at Krishna Hospital, is also without any merit as it is a case of the prosecution that the injured was taken to the Sadar Hospital, from there, he was referred to Krishna Hospital and, thereafter, he was referred to Regency Hospital where he got admitted. Since both Sadar Hospital and Krishna Hospital did not provide any medical assistance except first aid, no M.L.C. was conducted.
F. Next argument raised by the counsel for the appellant that the injuries sustained by the victim are neither proved nor are reciprocating the weapon of offence attributed to the appellants, Himansu and Nandu Singh as it has come in the statement of PW-3, the Doctor who conducted the postmortem that the injury Nos.1 to 8 were stitched wound and injury Nos. 9 to 11 were caused by a blunt weapon. The argument of the counsel that the doctor while conducting postmortem did not open the stitches to find out the nature of the weapon of offence used is without any substance. PW-3 has stated that injuries were sustained by a sharp edged weapon and stitches are normally given to a victim when he suffers incised wound and, therefore, no benefit can be granted to the accused on this aspect.
G. Counsel for the appellant has next argued that it has come in the statement of CW-1 and CW-2, the two treating doctors of Regency Hospital, that after first operation of brain was conducted by CW-2, a Neuro Surgeon, the victim gained consciousness and when the second operation was conducted by CW-1, he again gained consciousness. However, the defence failed to cross examine both these witnesses on the point whether the injured was fit to make statement as both the Doctors have nowhere stated that after getting consciousness, the victim was fit to make statements about the incident.
Therefore, we find force in the argument raised by the counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. that looking into the nature of the injuries, the victim became unconscious at the spot and even thereafter as per postmortem, he died due to coma because of the injuries sustained by him and, therefore, the accused failed to prove that the victim after the incident, at any time, was fit to make statement.
H. The next argument raised by the counsel for the appellant that as per the F.S.L. Report, three articles were sent i.e. a bloodstained piece of mattress, a plain piece of mattress, a pair of slippers and one chapad. It is argued that at Ex.1, the bloodstained mattress, at Ex.2 & 3, pair of slippers and chapad was having disintegrated blood, therefore, the source could not be ascertained. It has come in the statement of PW-6 that the articles were sent for F.S.L. examination after two months and, therefore, F.S.L report did not prove that the chapad was having human blood.
However, the defence side could not dispute that the Chapad was recovered from appellant-Himansu Soni in presence of the witnesses as proved by the Investigating Officer ( PW-5) and it was the same Chapad which was sent for examination to Forensic Science Lab, therefore, the recovery of chapad from the appellant-Himanshu Soni is duly proved.
I. Argument raised by the counsel for the appellant that a neighbour of the deceased namely, Indrajeet Singh, appeared as DW-1 and deposed that after the incident, he reached the spot and met the victim who stated that he could not identify the accused due to dark, did not support the defence version in any manner as prior to his examination, no application was given to any higher police official that this witness had gone to the place of incident, after the incident took place and he be cited as witness.
J. Next argument raised by counsel for the appellant that Raj Bahadur who is the cousin of deceased Amarnath and as per the prosecution was doing the business of jewellery, which was the motive attributed for the commission of offence, was not examined as a witness to prove this fact. However, since this witness was not cited an eye witness, mere his non-examination do not raise dent on the prosecution version.
K. The next defence set up by the accused cited that the deceased was in the business of providing loan to the people by pledging their valuable articles like jewellery and would forfeit the same, if the amount is not paid and due to that reason, some unknown persons have caused the murder of deceased Amarnath, is not proved by leading any cogent evidence and putting this defence to the witnesses of fact. Even the argument raised by counsel for the appellant that both, PW-1 & PW-2 have admitted that they were having three shops of utensils, one managed by their mother, one by the witnesses and the third by the father, deceased Amarnath where the incident took place and there is no shop of jewellery is not correct because the prosecution version as specifically stated by PW-2 is that he was present at the shop of jewellery run by his brother Rakesh and Ramesh when the accused persons came and attacked his deceased father and, therefore, there is no force in the arguments raised by counsel for the appellant that prosecution has failed to prove that the family of the deceased was not in the business of jewellery.
26. In view of the finding recorded by the trial court holding the appellants- Himanshu Soni, Ambika Sonia and Pammu Soni guilty of primary offence under Section 302 of I.P.C., is upheld.
27. However, we find merits so far accused Nandu Singh and Pappu Soni concerned for the following reasons:
A. So far the accused Nandu Singh is concerned he was not assigned any injury in the first information report submitted to the police by PW-1. He was subsequently assigned a knife blow in an undated complaint Ex.Ka.1 just to introduce a sharp edge weapon like knife which was attributed to him, in order to co-relate the injuries nos. 1 to 8 sustained by the victim. However, the prosecution has failed to prove when this complaint Ex.Ka.2 was given, though the I.O.- PW-6 stated that after the death of the victim Amarnath on 04.04.2013, he took cognizance of the complaint on 06.04.2013 wherein two new accused persons namely Vimal Soni and Pappu Soni were introduced.
B. No recovery of knife was effected from Nandu Singh as stated in the second version of the complaint which as per the PW-6 was given somewhere on 03.04.2013 or 06.04.2013. Though in the intervening period PW-6 has recorded the statement of PW-2 as stated by him that after 3-4 days, the statement was recorded by I.O.
Therefore, the second version wherein, a knife was attributed to Nandu Singh is not proved as PW-5 in cross examination admitted that in case diary after registration of FIR he did not mention that Nandu Singh gave knife blow. He further stated that even PW-2 in his statement did not state that Nandu Singh gave knife blow to deceased.
C. Even otherwise, for the first time PW-1- informant has stated that from the witnesses, he came to know that in the incident Pappu Soni and Vimal Soni were also involved. In this complaint, three persons namely, Ram Kumar, Ram Bahadur and Raj Kumar were nominated as the witnesses, however, none of them was examined to prove this fact that they had given this information to PW-1 that Nandu Singh has caused injuries with a knife or Pappu Soni and Vimal Soni are also accused.
D. Even otherwise, Nandu Singh is not a person from the family of the Ambika Soni who as per the prosecution version, had a motive to attack the victim Amarnath. The motive attributed is that since Amarnath was in the business of jewellery and was influencing the customers of the accused side, therefore, the accused caused him injuries. However, nothing has come on record that Nandu Singh was either a servant of the accused person or had any motive to attack the victim. Even otherwise Nandu Singh in the first version Ex.Ka.1 Nandu Singh was only attributed that he had caught hold of the hand and feet of his father whereas while appearing in court PW-1 and PW-2 made improvements by saying that Nandu Singh caused injury with a knife, a version which was not given in the FIR. Therefore, the presence of Nandu Singh at the spot is highly doubtful especially when a new version has been introduced in the undated complaint Ex.Ka.2 that one of the weapon of offence was knife which was never recovered from appellant- Nandu Singh during the investigation. Therefore, we find that accused Nandu Singh is entitled to benefit of doubt.
E. We have also found that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against Pappu Soni, another accused who was introduced for the first time in the second complaint is Ex.Ka.2. It has come in the statement of PW-6 and PW-7, the two Investigating Officers that during investigation, they recorded the statement of both PW-1 and PW-2 that second named person in this complaint Ex.Ka.2, Vimal Soni was found to be innocent as both PW-1 and PW-2 stated that he is their relative and was not present at the spot. The police did not submit the challan against Vimal Soni. Therefore, once partly the version in the second complaint Ex.Ka.2 was found to be an afterthought, as the prosecution has not been able to prove when Ex.Ka.2 was given as it is undated but as per PW-6, either on 03.04.2014 or 06.04.2014 complaint was given and he took cognizance of the same only on 06.04.2014 when the deceased has died. However, PW-6 in cross examination admitted that informant did not record in his statement that Nandu Singh gave knife blow and only stated that he caught hold of hands and feet of his father. He further deposed that he recorded statement of Rakesh Kumar, Ramesh Kumar, Umesh Soni all sons of deceased Amarnath and Raj Bahadur on 2.4.2014 but none of them named Pappu Soni. Therefore, the presence of Pappu Soni is also doubtful.
F. It is also relevant that in this complaint PW-1- informant has stated that he came to know from witnesses that Pappu Soni and Vimal Soni were also present. However, none of the three witnesses i.e. Ram Kumar, Ram Bahadur and Raj Kumar were examined to support this version. It has come in the statement of both PW-1 and PW-2 that Raj Bahadur was first cousin of deceased and was doing the business of jewellery. This witness is also a witness of Panchayatnama and had taken the victim to hospital and despite the fact that he is cited as an eye witness, he was never examined by the prosecution.
G. Both PW-1 and PW-2 have admitted in cross examination that Pappu Soni is not doing business of jewellery and therefore, the motive against him is also not proved. Morever PW-1 also admitted that he personally knew Pappu Soni by face but he was not named in First Information Report.
H. As held above in para 25(A) that PW-1 is only an informant of the incident and he is not an eye witness, for the reasons recorded above, therefore, Ex.Ka.2 is based on hearsay wherein, Pappu Soni along with Vimal Soni were introduced for the first time and in view of the fact that there is no date on Ex.Ka.2, it was given intentionally at later stage. Therefore, there is nothing to believe the version given in second complaint Ex.Ka.2 as part of it is already disbelieved by the police during the investigation as no charge-sheet was presented against Vimal Soni. In view of above by giving benefit of doubt, we also acquit accused Pappu Soni.
28. In view of the finding recorded above, we dismissed the appeal filed by accused Himanshu Soni, Ambika Soni and Pammu Soni by upholding their conviction in terms of the impugned judgment of conviction dated 27.09.2018 and order of sentence dated 27.09.2018. However, we acquit accused Nandu Singh and Pappu Soni by giving benefit of doubt.
29. As per the trial court judgment, Nandu Singh was never granted bail and he is in custody since 2014. He will be released forthwith if he is not required in any other case. Accused Pappu Soni was on bail and was taken in custody at the time of passing of the impugned judgment. He is also directed to be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.
30. With the aforesaid modification, Criminal Appeal No.5954 of 2018 & Criminal Appeal No.5924 of 2018 are dismissed and Criminal Appeal No.6012 of 2018 & Criminal Appeal No.6457 of 2018 are allowed.
31. Trial court records be transmitted back forthwith.
Order Date :-9.8.2024 DKS/SKS/Mukesh/Mohini