Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. The appellants numbering eight have been convicted under Section 302/149, Indian Penal Code for committing the murder of one Prem Singh in prosecution of their common object and also under Section 148/147, Indian Penal Code for rioting and have been sentenced to imprisonment for life for the first offence and to R. I. for 1 year for the second offence by 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Damoh by judgment dated 1-12-1987. Aggrieved by their convictions and sentences, the appellants have filed the present appeal.

2. The prosecution story briefly stated was that on 21-11-1986 at about 7.15 p.m. deceased Prem Singh was taking tea outside the hotel of one Baddan in a market place (referred to as Bajariya) of the town of Hindoriya, P.S. Hindoriya, district Damoh. All the eight appellants came in a body at that time and surrounded the deceased. Some time earlier appellant No. 7 Ganga Prasad had come to verify about the presence of deceased Prem Singh and had returned back only to bring the remaining appellants with him to the place of the incident. Appellant Ganga Prasad also exhorted the other appellants to kill the deceased. Thereupon appellant No. 1 Girja Prasad inflicted knife blows on the chest of deceased Prem Singh, appellant No. 2 Tampu fired a Katta (country made pistol) and appellant No. 4 Rajjan hurled a hand grenade at the deceased. This caused a great scare in the entire market area with the result that shopkeepers at once closed their shops and ran away from the place. It was further the prosecution story that deceased Prem Singh sustained injuries. The appellants 3 and 8 i.e. Gampu and Ayodhi also hurled hand grenades. The deceased was forcibly taken to some distance near a medical shop of one Shikharchand in that market place where he fell down. After the incident the appellants ran away. Some of them were seen running away on a motor-cycle and some on a moped.

3. The deceased's brother Komal Singh (P.W.I) and his companions Narayan (P.W.2) and Ganga Singh (P.W.3) were taking betel leaves in a nearby Pan shop at the time of the incident. They picked up injkured Prem Singh from near the medical shop and carried him on a hand-cart to Hindoriya Police Station where Komal Singh (P.W.I) lodged a report (Ex.P-1) about the incident at 7.45 p.m. The deceased was rushed to Damoh Hospital where he was declared to be dead at 8-15 p.m.; vide report of the doctor on Ex.P-6A. In post mortem examination the deceased was found to have sustained the following injuries as per report Ex.P-25 : -

7. We find that the first information report (Ex.P-1) was lodged by deceased's brother Komal Singh (P.W.I), who also claimed himself to be an eye-witness. The police-statement (Ex.P-5) of this witness was also recorded. On the evidence of A. S. I. Dinesh Singh Parihar (P.W.7) he had recorded that police statement at Damoh Kotwali Police Station on 22-11-1988, i.e.,a day subsequent to the date of incident. The first information report (Ex.P-1), purports to have been recorded on 21-11-1986 at 7.45 p.m. at Hindoriya Police Station by S. O. Hindoriya Shri Tripathi (P.W.21). It does appear from the evidence of Komal Singh (P.W.1) that he gave conflicting answers indicating that report, Ex.P-1, was recorded at Damoh Police Station on 22-11-1986, i.e., a day subsequent to its purported date; but also indicating the contrary viz. that report, Ex.P-1, was really recorded at Hindoriya Police Station on the purported date and time and that what was really recorded at Damoh Police Station on the subsequent date was his Police Statement, Ex.P-5. Thus, whereas at one stage Komal Singh admitted in paras 47 and 63 of his deposition that report, Ex.P-1, was recorded at Damoh Police Station and also signed by him there, he stated contrary things in paras 71, 74, 78 and 79 of his deposition to the effect that the report, Ex.P-1, was recorded at Hindoriya Police Station and also signed by him there. He stated at one stage that report was recorded at Hindoriya Police Station by a Head Constable but subsequently he corrected himself by saying that for as much as one hour, the arrival of Sub-Inspector was awaited and after the latter arrived at Hindoriya Police Station that the report was then recorded. The witness did not stick to this version thereafter but again took somersaults. It appears to us that the witness was really confused about what was his report and what was his police statement. He confused one for the other. The conflicting answers which he gave not once but at different stages stemmed from this confusion only. Two things, however, stand out in his evidence, which support the prosecution case that the first information report, Ex.P-1, was a genuine document which had not been antedated. Firstly, it was the unshakable version of the witness that he did visit Hindoriya Police Station before going to Damoh. Secondly, it was also his version that he had disclosed the circumstances of the crime at Hindoriya Police Station. These two things make it very likely that what was recorded at Hindoriya Police Station was report, Ex.P-1. This is not a case where the maker of the report had not at all visited the police station at which his report was shown to have been recorded. We find that there is no foundation for the argument that the first information report, Ex.P-1, was an ante dated or subsequently recorded document.