Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The case of the prosecution has been set out in the judgments of the courts below. Therefore, it is not necessary to set out in detail the facts of the case in this judgment. Suffice it to say that the prosecution case is that there was long standing enmity between the respondents and the deceased Jaleshwar Singh who was a leading land owner and agriculturist of Mangalpura and the Pradhan of that village for 18 or 20 years before he was murdered at about 8 p.m. On 24.9,1974 at the end of the Moonj jungle situate about 1-1/2 furlongs away from Mangalpura village when he was coming along the footpath running through that moonj jungle in the company of Ram Surat (PW 1), Subhan Sain (PW 2), Bansidhar (PW 3) by the respondents attacking him with a tamancha (country-made pistol) and daos (long heavy knives used for slaughtering goats and cutting wood). There was bright moonlight during that night it being the day of Bhado Sudi 9 and there were also torch-lights with P.Ws. 1 and 3. PWs. 1 to 3 belongs respectively to Mangalpura, Ram Nagar and Shankerpura which is situate about 1-1/2 miles north of Mangalpura. P.W.1 is Adhyaksha (President) of the Co-operative Society of Mangalpura besides being a member of the Gram Sabha of that village. The respondent Jagan Nath belongs to Gosainpur which being a nearby village is included in Mangalpura Gram Sabha while the other three respondents belong to Mangalpura itself. The respondent, Jagan Nath is also a member of the same Gram Sabha. There was admittedly long-standing enmity between the respondents and the deceased Jaleshwar Singh right from 1959. The deceased had stated in his complaint Ex.Ka-13 dated 14.2.1973 that the respondents and one Chandrika Mallah were planning to kill him due to election and litigation enmity and were collecting money for that purpose amongst themselves. The respondents and others had moved two complaints for the removal of the deceased as Pradhan of Mangalpura. m e first of those complaints had been rejected by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Ballia on 10.5.1974 while the second was pending enquiry before that Officer at the time of his death. The deceased accompanied by PWs 1 to 3 was returning on 24.9.1974 from Ballia where he had gone in connection with the enquiry into the second complaint which had been posted on that day. The facts relating to the admitted enmity between the respondents and the deceased are mentioned in para 10 of the trial court's judgment.

Mr. Dalveer Bhandari, learned counsel for the appellant State of Uttar Pradesh took us through the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 and the other witnesses as also through the judgments of the courts below and submitted that the learned Judges of the High Court were not justified in holding that PW 1 is not the author of the first information report and that it was written by PW 16 at the police station to the dictation of PW 15. He also submitted that the learned Judges of the High Court were not justified in rejecting the evidence of the eye- witnesses. PWs. 1 to 3 also of PWs. 5 and 6 and acquitting the respondents. On the other hand, Mr. R.K. Garg, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the first information report is not the "brain child" of PW 1 and that it had been prepared at 11 a.m. on 25.9.1974 as stated by PW 16 after PW 15 had visited the scene of occurrence and seen the injuries found on the headless body of the deceased Jaleshwar Singh. He submitted that the evidence of PW 1 that he had gone to Ballia in connection with the enquiry into the complaint filed for the removal of the deceased Jaleshwar Singh from the office of Pradhan of Mangalpura village and that he was accompanying h m from Ballia and was present at the time of the occurrence is not believable at all having regard to the fact that although it is stated in the first information report that PW 1 went to Ballia alongwith the deceased Jaleshwar Singh he has admitted in his evidence that he did not go with the deceased to Ballia and stated that he went to Ballia separately and reached the office of the Sub-Divisional Officer only at about 1.30 p.m. On 24.9.1974 and also that his name is not mentioned in the order sheet relating to that case. He further submitted that the learned Judges of the High Court were justified in rejecting the evidence of not only PW 1 but also of PWs. 2 and 3 as unreliable and that it would appear from the fact that the investigating officer had gone in search of circumstantial evidence by way of dress, shoes, letter, thumb-impression etc., mentioned above for identifying the headless trunk as that of the deceased Jaleshwar Singh that he did not believe the testimony of PWs. 1 to 3 who are put forward as eye- witnesses in the case.

The learned Judges of the High Court have rejected the evidence of PW 1 for two reasons, namely (1) that whereas he had stated in the first information report that he went to Ballia along with the deceased on 24.9.1974 he has stated in his evidence that he went to Ballia only later at about 1.30 p.m. On that day and did not accompany the deceased from Mangalpura and (2) that the name of PW 1 is not mentioned in the order-sheet of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Ballia relating to the case in connection with which the deceased had gone to Ballia on that day. No doubt there is discrepancy between the recital in the first information report and the evidence of PW i on the question whether PW 1 went along with the deceased to Ballia on 24.9.1974 or had gone to Ballia separately and met the deceased at that place at about 1.30 p.m. On that day. It is not a material discrepancy. It would appear from the fact that on the letter (Ex.XII) an endorsement had been made by the deceased to the effect that on 24.9.1974 he had given Rs. 10 to PW 1 for bringing witnesses that PW 1 who was his pairokar might have gone to Ballia with or without witnesses on 24.9.1974. It he had not gone to Ballia on that day and had not accompanied the deceased from Ballia when he left that place for Mangalpura it is not probable that PW 1 would have been seen by PW 6 soon after the occurrence or he could have got the first information report scribed by PW 16 at 9 p.m. On 24.9.1974 itself and handed it over at the police station at 11.30 p.m. on the same day and accompanied PW 15 from the police station to the scene of occurrence at 1.30 a.m. On 25.9.1974. Therefore, we accept the evidence of PW 1 that he had gone to Ballia on 24.9.1974 and had left that place for Mangalpura by a bus along with the deceased and was present at the time of occurrence and had witnessed the same. The learned Judges of the High Court had not rejected the evidence of PW 2 that on 24.9.1974 he had been to Ballia to meet his ailing relation Shamshuddin Sain at Baheri in Ballia and was in his house upto 4 or 4.30 p.m. He has stated that he thereafter boarded the bus in which the deceased and PW 1 were seated for proceeding to his village for which he had to get down from the bus and cross a river. They have rejected the evidence of PW 2 that he was present along with the deceased at the time of the occurrence and had seen the occurrence merely because after one crosses the 'dah' (river) there are two routes to proceed to Shankerpura one of them going from the ghat towards Shankerpura and the second towards Mangalpura on the west and then north to reach Shankerpura, and the learned Judges thought that it is improbable that PW 2 would have taken the route which is longer by 1 or 1-l/2 miles instead of the shorter route proceedings from the ghat. The learned Judges have failed to give the importance which it deserves to the evidence of PW 2 that much jungle falls in the first route and therefore people go by that route only during day time and the second route is plain and therefore they go through that route during night. They have also failed to take note of the fact that it was night time and PW 2 would have had the company of the deceased and PWs. 1 and 3, if he went by the longer route and would have had to go all alone if he went by the shorter route running through the ghat. The learned Judges have rejected the evidence of PW 3 who is a trader in bullocks merely because he has stated in his evidence that on 24.9.1974 he went to Ballia for purchasing a weak bullock whereas he had purchased a stronger bullock for Rs. 1200 from near about his village a few days later. They have observed that it is improbable that PW 3 would have gone to Ballia on 24.9.1974 for purchasing a weak bullock when strong bullocks were available in neighbourhood itself. PW 3 who trades in bullocks might purchase weak as well as strong bullocks depending upon the need as rightly submitted by Mr. Dalveer Bhandari. The fact that PW 3 had gone to Ballia for purchasing a weak bullock is not a sufficient reason for disbelieving his evidence that he had gone to Ballia on 24.9.1974 for purchasing a bullock and that he travelled by the bus in which the deceased and PWs. 1 and 2 were travelling on their return from Ballia on that day. As stated earlier the name of not only PW 2 but those of PWs.1 and 3 as eye-witnesses are mentioned in the first information report which has been found to have been recorded at 9 p.m. itself at the spot and to have been handed over at Bansidh police station at 11.30 p.m. On the same day. PWs 1 to 3 have all been examined by PW 15 at Mangalpura on 25.9.1974 itself. It is not probable that they would have been easily and readily available for examination on 25.9.1974 itself if they had not been present at the time of the occurrence and had not witnessed the occurrence. PW 1 alone belongs to Mangalpura while PWs 2 and 3 belong to different villages as already mentioned. We, therefore, accept the evidence of PWs 2 and 3 as well regarding their presence at the time of the occurrence and witnessing the scene. PWs. 2 and 3 are independent witnesses, and PW 1 is a respectable witness as he is a member of the Gram Sabha and President of the Co-operative Society though admittedly he was the pairokar of the deceased in the case for which he had gone to Ballia on 24.9.1974. The name of PW 1 not finding a place in the order sheet is not a sure basis for holding that he could not have gone to Ballia on 24.9.1974. PWs. 1 to 3 have deposed about the occurrence as mentioned above, and we are of the opinion that there is no convincing reason for rejecting their evidence as unreliable and that the learned Judges of the High Court were not justified at all in rejecting their evidence for the flimsy reasons mentioned by them. We are also of the opinion that the learned trial Judge was absolutely justified in acceping the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and convicting the respondents for the offence of murder and that the learned Judges of the High Court had not justification whatsoever for reversing that judgment and acquitting the respondents This is not a case where two views on the evidence available on record are possible. We, therefore, allow the appeal and affirm that of the learned trial Judge convicting the respondents for the offence of murder of Jaleshwar Singh. But though the case is of gruesome and coldblooded murder and the learned Sessions Judge was justified in awarding the sentence of death having regard to the fact that the occurrence took place over a decade ago, we sentence the respondents to undergo imprisonment for life. The bail bonds of the respondents who are on bail are cancelled, and they shall be taken into- custody forthwith for serving the remaining part of the sentence.