Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Saying so all the accused persons chased Sukhdarshan who out of fear entered into the house of Shambhudayal and raised an alarm. Kamlesh (since deceased) s/o Shambhudayal and Shakuntala after allowing Sukhdarshan inside the house tried to shut the door bu the accused inserted the barrel of the gun through the door and fired which hit Kamlesh who fell down.

(7) The miscreants then opened the door and after entering into the house fired at Sukhdarshan, who fell down in the courtyard. A-2, A-4 and A-13 thereafter caught hold of the hands and feet of Sukhdarshan whereupon A-1 assaulted him with Banka and severed his head and kept it in a piece of cloth. The assailants then surrounded the house of Mahendra Kumar (P.W.1) the complainant, opened the door, demolished the walls and entered into his house. Family members of Mahendra Kumar (P.W.1), namely, Goura the grand mother of Surendra, and his wife Manorama, were inside the house, they requested them not to assault any of the family members. Surendra (since deceased) had a licensed gun. He immediately closed and bolted the door of his room from inside. Since the door could not be opened, A-1 told his associates to sprinkle the diesel on the house and set it on fire. The miscreants then took out the diesel from the drum and sprinkled it on the Chappar (roof) and also poured it into the room through a hole where Surendra was hiding and then lit the fire to chappar and asked Surendra to come out otherwise all his family members would be done to death. Sandeep (since deceased) a boy aged about 10 years, was the younger brother of the complainant, came out and started abusing the accused persons. A-6 then fired from his gun on Sandeep causing injuries to him and thereafter A-6 and A-8 lifted Sandeep and threw him into the fire. Sandeep was burnt alive and died in the said fire. This was the second casualty in the course of the attack levelled by the accused on the family members of the complainant. Surendra (since deceased) then came out of the room and tried to run away as by that time the fire had engulfed his house. When Surendra was running away he was fired at and because of the fire arm injuries he fell down in the kitchen. Thereafter A-2, A-4 and A-13 caught hold of the hands and legs of Surendra, facilitating A-1 to assault him with Banka. A-1 then severed the head of Surendra and kept it in the same piece of cloth where the head of Sukhdarshan was kept. It was then stated that in the meantime Bhuwaneshwari, the grand father of Mahendra Kumar (P.W.1) who was returning from Bajarkha market, on seing the accused in action, tried to rush towards his house but he was also not spared and caused him fire arm injuries. A-2, A-4 and A-13 then caught hold of the hands and feet of Bhuwaneshwari and thereafter A-1 assaulted him with Banka and severed his head and kept it in the same price of cloth where two heads were already kept. The accused persons thereafter went in search of Sheo Pal but he was not found in the house. The accused persons then stated that Sheo Pal was the person who had committed the murder of Chandrika Passi and, therefore, he must be traced. Seeing the ghastly murders of four persons and gun shot injuries on Kamlesh, the family members of Mahendra Kumar (P.W.1) requested the accused persons to spare other family members whereupon A-1 told his associates that let the remaining members of the family be spared to mourn the deaths of their dear ones. A-7 then took away the licensed gun of Sukhdarshan.

Coming to the evidence of actual occurrence which took place on June 23, 1990 at about 5.00 p.m. it needs to be stated that a complaint was lodged on the very same evening at about 9.05 p.m. in the police station at Mitauli at a distance of 15 kms. from Bajarkha village. Mahendra Kumar (P.W.1) in his evidence testified that at about 5.00 p.m. all the 24 accused along with 8 to 10 unidentified persons came in the direction of Kamlesh's house. At that time Mahendra Kumar (P.W.1) and Surendra were sitting near the couldron and Sukhdarshan was sitting towards the north of the kolhoo. A-1, A-2, A-4 and A-13 were armed with bankas, Prem Giri (A-10) (now dead) was armed with a DBBL gun, A-3 to A-16 were armed with SBBL guns, A-20 was armed with a country made SBBL gun and the remaining accused persons were armed with country made pistols and guns He then stated that the accused persons demanded that Ram Gulam and Sheo Pal be called and they wanted to see how they would remain alive. The accused persons then chased Sukhdarshan who ran and entered into the house of Shambhu Dayal and raised an alarm. Shambhu Dayal and Shakuntala Devi (complainant's mother) took Sukhdarshan inside the house and tried to shut the door but one of the accused inserted the barrel of the gun through door and fired which hit Kamlesh Kumar. The accused then opened the door and fired at Sukhdarshan who fell down in the courtyard. A-2, A-4 and A-13 then caught hold of the legs and hands of Sukhdarshan and thereafter A-1 assaulted him with Banka and severed his head which he kept in a piece of cloth. The accused persons then surrounded the house of P.W.1 and started demolishing the walls. They asked Surendra to come out as he bolted the door of his room from inside. A-1 asked his associates to sprinke the diesel on the chappar and also pour it into the room and set it on fire. Accordingly some of the accused took the diesel from the drum and one of them climbed up the chappar with the help of a ladder, sprinkled the diesel on the chappar and also poured the same into the room and thereafter the house was set on fire. Sandeep, the brother of the complainant, aged about 10 years, came out and abused the accused whereupon A- 6 fired at him as a result of which he fell down. A-5 and A- 8 then lifted Sandeep and threw him into the fire. Sandeep was roasted alive. The witness further testified that the house, wherein Surindra was hiding, when caught fire, he came out of the said house and tried to run away but he was gun down. He fell down in the kitchen. A-4, A-2 and A-13 then overpowered him by catching hold of his arms, feet and thereafter A-1 assaulted him with Banka and severed his head and kept it in the same piece of cloth with the other head. The witness then stated that Bhuwaneshwari (since deceased), his grand father, who was returning from the weekly market, when saw the accused persons in action came near and requested them not to kill the family members whereupon he was fired and thereafter A-4, A-2 and A-13 overpowered him. A-1 then assaulted Bhuwaneshwari with Banka and severed his head and kept it in the same piece of cloth where two heads were already kept. He then stated that the accused persons made a search for Sheo Pal who was alleged to have taken part in committing the murder of Chandrika, the brother of A-1, by severing his head but Sheo Pal could not be traced. P.W.1 further stated that the accused persons were using the firearms freely and created a terror. The incident continued for one and a half hour. The accused personals then carried the three heads with them in a procession celebrating their victory and were shouting slogans "Shyam Manohar Zindabad, Nandlal and Prem Giri Zindabad and Lakhapat Zindabad". Then they went to the house of Chandrika. The witness was cross-examined at great length but the defence could hardly bring on record any material which would discredit his credibility. The evidence of P.W.1 finds corroboration from the first Information Report which was lodged at 9.05 p.m. (within four hours of the occurrence) at Mitauli police station. The complaint was written after the incident was over. Mahendra Kumar (P.W.1), Lallu Ram (P.W.2) and Kamlesh then went in a tractor to lodge the First Information Report. The FIR came to be registered against 24 accused persons. It needs to be noted that Mahendra Kumar (P.W.1) in his complaint had named the accused persons with the weapons which they were carrying and the manner in which they assaulted five persons who lost their lives in the present crime. The FIR fully corroborates the evidence of P.W.1. The evidence of Mahendra Kumar (P.W.1) does not suffer from any infirmity. We have also scrutinized the evidence of Lallu Ram (P.W.2) and it corroborates in all material particulars the evidence of Mahendra Kumar (P.W.1). The trial court as well as the High Court had scrutinized their evidence very carefully and accepted the same as truthful. We concur with the courts below as regards appreciation of the evidence of these two witnesses.

(18) It was then contended for the appellants that if really the incident was reported at 9.05 p.m. then surely the inquest reports which were prepared on the following day must mention the title of the crime. But it was left blank and, therefore, this omission was a serious infirmity and demolishes the very substratum of the prosecution based on the first Information Report which is a concocted document. At the first flush the argument appeared to us attractive but on scrutiny and consideration of the materials on record we are unable to accept this submission. If really the complaint was not lodged at 9.05 p.m. then the police could not have reached at the place of occurrence at 11.00 p.m. Such minor omission is nothing but a bonafide error or casual approach on the part of the investigating agency which does not affect the substratum of the prosecution story. It was then urged that Kamlesh was taken the police station in an injured condition but he was not sent to the hospital for treatment. In fact Kamlesh was not traced for the whole night and only on the following day he appeared and was admitted in the hospital where he died after 17 days due to septicaemia. It was, therefore, urged that neither Kamlesh nor the complainant ever went to the police station to lodge a complaint at 9.05 p.m. and this complaint was manufactured at a later stage with the connivance of police, We see no substance in this contention also because the fact remains that Kamlesh was injured during the incident in question. If he was not sent to the hospital for medical examination and treatment by the investigating agency no fault could be found with the complainant's evidence and the FIR (Ex. Ka-1). In these circumstances we see no merit in all these contentions raised on behalf of the appellants. (19) No serious arguments were advanced before us as regards the cause of death of any of these five deceased persons. It was also not seriously challenged that the finding of the courts below that Bhuwaneshwari, Sukhdarshan, Surendra and Sandeep met with homicidal death during the incident in question. Suffice it to mention that Bhuwaneshwari, Sukhdarshan and Surendra had sustained many incised injuries due to assault by Banka on their vital parts in addition to the prosecution was first fired at by A-6 and then he was thrown into the smouldering fire. The injuries caused on his dead body either by fire arm or by banka could not be detected in the post-mortem report for the obvious reason that his body was completely charred. The autopsy report of Sandeep also did not indicate that any pellet was found embeded in the body or any pellet could be recovered from the place where he was burnt to death. This fact has got a relevance when we consider the death sentence awarded to Rajendra (A-6). After going through the medical evidence on record we have no manner of doubt that these four persons met with the homicidal deaths. They were brutally murdered. As far Kamlesh (since deceased) was concerned it was proved beyond any pale of doubt that he was the first person to sustain gun shot injuries and died in the hospital due to septicaemia which was the result of injuries on his person during occurrence in question.

(viii) victory procession with three heads raising slogans "Shyam Manohar Zindabad" etc. etc., and thereafter they went towards the house of Chandrika; (ix) impact of terror upon the minds of surviving members of the family of the deceased persons; (x) motive coupled with vengence and revenge against innocent persons to satisfy the ego. (28) We have already analysed the evidence of the prosecution as well as the defence. Look at the modus operandi adopted by the accused persons who formed an unlawful assembly and its common object was not only to commit the murders of Sheo Pal and Ram Gulam but also the commit the mass murders of family members of Sukhdarshan (since deceased) as they were under the belief that Sheo Pal and Ram Gulam were hiding and taking shelter in the house or Sukhdarshan. The accused persons first fired at Kamlesh, injured him and thereafter opened the door and searched for Ram Gulam and Sheo Pal. Kamlesh was immobilised by causing a gun shot injury. Sukhdarshan (since deceased) came out of his room. He was fired at on a non-vital part by immbolizing him and thereafter the accused persons assaulted him with Banka; A-2, A-4 and A-13 held him facilitating A-1 to severe his head. The accused did not stop there but thereafter the accused persons assaulted him with Banka; A-2, A-4 and A-13 held him facilitating A-1 to severe his head. The accused did not stop there but thereafter they fired at Surendra and assaulted him by Bankas. A-2, A-4 and A-13 caught hold of him and A-1 severed his head. Sandeep a young boy of 10 years when came out of the room which was then set on fire was bodily lifted by and A-5 and A-8 who threw him into the smouldering fire. He was roasted alive. Bhuwaneshwari who was returning from the market was fired at and was given the same cruel treatment by severing his head. This only shows that they were thirsty to severe the heads from the alive but injured bodies in order to take revenge of the murder of Chandrika. All the three heads were put together in a piece of cloth and a victory procession was taken out by accused giving slogans "Shyam Manohar Zindabad; Nandlal and Premgiri Zindabad etc., etc.", and then they went to the house of Chandrika. A Simple question which requires to be considered is as to whether the conscience of a society was not shocked to see such ghastly and burtal murders? The accused persons had shown scant regard for the human dignity. Upon taking overall view of the circumstances in the light of the ratio laid down by this Court in the aforesaid judgments and taking into account the manner of commission of crime, motive for commission of crime and criminals, magnitude of the crime and little regard for the human dignity and in particular a young boy of 10 years.