Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(v)- The prosecution story further unrevealed that on the fateful day at about 7.30 a.m. informant's son Thakurdin was going to his field to harvest green fodder for cattle having a 'Hasiya' (sickle). The informant/ complainant Ghanjua and witness named Rasna, who is also resident of the same village, were going to ease themselves in field and were following the deceased. When the deceased reached near the end of 'Gadhaiya-wala Jwar'/ field of Jagannath Singh Verma situated outside the village, accused Shambhu and Lakhan both son of Gauri Shanker Raidas resident of village Kahata, police station Ata, district Jalaun, who were residing in the village of complainant, hiding themselves in the shrub of crop of Jwar, duly armed with tabbals, appeared and abruptly ensued to inflict tabbals' blows to the deceased Thakurdeen. The deceased after receiving fatal injuries, immediately fell down on the ground. The informant and witness Rasna raised alarm and challenged the assailants and ran towards them making shriek and scream. On hearing the alarm and shrill raised by the complainant and Rasna, informant Ghanjua's another son Gayadin, by chance who was present at the house of witness Kadora s/o Alam hailing to the same village and whose house is situated about 5-6 paces from the place of incident reached at the place of occurrence raising voice. Gayadin and Kadora at the time of incident were talking and preparing tobacco to eat when they heard the cries. They immediately ran towards the place of occurrence and also saw the accused persons attacking the deceased. When the accused persons were challenged they advanced towards Ghanjua and Rasna. Accused Shambhu took out a pistol from his pocket and fired at them with intention to eliminate them. Witness Rasna escaped threadbare without sustaining any injury as Rasna sat down promptly and Informant Ghanjua hide himself in the crop standing in the near by field. On follow up by complainant and other village folks accused, appellant disappeared from the place of occurrence, unleashing reign of terror. On account of horrific and awful scene developed by the accused appellants, the complainant and other folks of the locality could not muster courage to pursue them. At this they turned to Thakurdeen, and found him dead on the spot.

16- It was also divulged by P.W.-2 that prior to one month of the said incident, when his son Gayadeen was coming back from Har to his home, Shambhu called him and told that firstly his father Ghanjua had consented to return back the land after getting his name expunged, now he is playing deceptive and illusory game and therefore now he will face dire consequences. He also exhorted pressure upon him to communicate his father Ghanjua to return back Rs 2/- which he has paid his tanga fare. This fact was narrated by Gayadeen to P.W.2 Ghanjua and after three days of this verbal duel, the accused appellants had executed the said offence of liquidating Thakurdeen. P.W.2 Ghanjua proved strong motive nourished by accused appellants behind the commission of crime. He had also proved that the broken sickle (Hasiya) was lying at a distance of two paces from the dead body of Thakurdeen. Thus the P.W.-2 Ghanjua had given detailed description of the incident in unison of first information report. He had portrayed the vivid and glowing scene narrating the incident in natural and articulate manner. He made his best to prove the prosecution version without any adornment and embellishment 17- The prosecution has examined Rasna on 23.3.1983 as P.W.3. who deposed that about to four months earlier at about 7.30 a.m. he was going to attend nature's call through the field of Vermaji. Thakurdeen was going ahead to him. He was going behind to Ghanjua. When Thakurdeen had crossed about half of the field of Gadhaiya wala Jwar belonging to Vermaji, he heard apathetic and heart-rending voice. He rushed towards voice and saw that accused appellants Shambhu and Lakhan had appeared from the south side of arhar field and were inflicting blows with Tabbal upon Thakurdeen. As soon as P.W.-3 Rasna proceeded running ahead, accused Shambhu shot firing at him, it may be remembered that Rasna was following P.W.-2 Ghanjua. They fell down so as to save their life. Thus both of them narrowly escaped unhurt. P.W.-3 Rasna was thunderstruck and flabbergasted on account of loose of terror hence he could not see disappearance of accused persons. In the meantime Gayadeen and Kadora s/o Alam also arrived at the spot. After disappearance and departure of the accused persons, they reached near Thakurdeen and found him dead on account of fatal injuries and profuse bleeding. Subsequent thereto, the police personnel arrived at the spot and carried out necessary formalities i.e. recovery of blood stained and plain soil, recovery of blood stained sickle (Hasiya) recovery of blood stained dhoti and shoes which were duly marked as Ext.2,3, and 4. P.W.3 Rasna was cross-examined in detail on various points but in the cross examination, nothing could be elicited to discredit his testimony. P.W.3 Rasna had narrated the manner of assault and mode of incident in vivid and natural manner without any colouration.

48. PW- 3 Rasna that on the day of event, at about 7.30 A.M., was going to attend natures call through the field of Verma Ji. Field of Thakurdeen was going ahead to him. He was going behind the Ghanjua (P.W.- 2). Thakurdeen has crossed about half of the field of Madhaiya belonging to Verma Ji, has heard apathetic and heart rendering voices. Then he rushed and saw that accused appellants Shambhu and Lakhan appearing from South side of Arhar filed and inflicting blows with the tabbal upon him. As soon as he proceeded running, accused Shambhu sought firing at them. He fell down, so as to safe his life. Thus he escaped unhurt. The witness has also stated that in the meantime, Gayadeen and Kadora arrived at the spot. After departure of the accused appellants from the place of occurrence they reached near Thakurdeen and found that on account of fatal injury and profused bleeding, him dead. Subsequently, P.W.-2 informed to the police station concerned and police personnel arrived at the spot and completing necessary formalities. Nothing could be elicited to discredit his testimony. PW. 3 Rasna had narrated the manner of assault and mode of incident in vivid and natural manner, without any colouration and very spontaneous and natural way. Thus, P.W.-2 Ghanjua, P.W.-3 Rasna and P.W.-4 Kadaura are not only the eye witnesses and they have given eye witness account of the entire incident. As discussed above (P.W.-2) Ghanjua/ complainant and (P.W.-3) Rasna. P.W.-4 Kadaura has deposed that on the day of incident at 7.00 to 7.30 A.M. Gayadeen another son of complainant (P.W.-2) was sitting with him at his doorstep. He asked Kadora to provide him tobacco. In the meantime, they heard shriek and scream "dauro bachao". At this both of them reached at the spot and saw that accused appellants Shambhu and Lakhan were hitting deceased Thakurdeen with Tabbal near narrow alley in the field of Verma Ji. Rasna and Ghanjua were also present who were making hue and cry on receiving injuries on his upper side of body and neck. Accused were using tabbal with pointed sharp edge. Thakurdeen fell on the ground. When Ghanjua and Rasna headed towards the deceased accused appellants opened the fire by "katta" upon them. Ghanjua and Rasna fell in the field of Jwar and saved them unhurt. Later he along with other reached to Thakurdeen who was lying dead. This witness is also is an eye witness of the occurrence who saw accused appellants hitting Thakurdeen with tabbal and opening fire on Ghanjua and Rasna. The Thakurdeen was lying at a distance of one and half feet of narrow alley running from the filed of Verma Ji, at some paces. Rasna, Ghanjua and other were present and raising alarm and shriek. Assailants had inflicted injuries with tabbal upon Thakurdeen at his neck and head etc. In his cross-examination defence could not extract any material belying and discrediting the testimony of P.W.-3 Rasna. Testimony of P.W.-4 Kadora was delineation of glowing picture of incident which added impetus in the prosecution version. He proved his presence on spot at the time of incident by narrating all interrogations in a simple and natural way. Thus, P.W.- 2, P.W.- 3 and P.W.-4 are eye witnesses. They have given credible trustworthy and believable evidence. Their evidence appears to be of sterling quality. Rest of witnesses are formal in nature.

54. Learned Amicus Curiae has argued that the witnesses P.W.-3 Rasna and P.W.-4 Kadora has not supported the prosecution version as they have filed affidavits prepared outside the court regarding their presence at the spot at the time of occurrence and falsely naming them as witnesses. In this regard it may be mentioned that the P.W.-3 Rasna and P.W.-4 Kadora had earlier given affidavits Ex. Kha-1 and Kha-2 to the effect that they have not seen any occurrence and have been wrongly cited as witnesses by the complainant. However during their examination in the court these two witnesses denied having given such affidavits. They stated that they had taken some loan for purchasing pumping set. They could not get proper pumping set with full accessories and therefore were not satisfied. They had come to court to move an application that in view of the aforesaid circumstances they will not avail loan thereof. According to the witnesses they had contacted a lawyer in the courts and explained him of the the application they wanted to be drafted. The lawyer obtained their thumb impressions on several papers and asked to come back again after 3-4 days. After a few days they learnt that some affidavits on their behalf have been filed in the court of law for the benefit of the accused persons. They filed their counter affidavits which are already on record. Thus it is not going to make any difference as the witnesses have filed counter affidavits. Further the statements of the witnesses on oath before the court constitute the evidence and their previous statements not before the court, can only be used for the purposes of contradiction or challenging the veracity of the witnesses. The evidence given by P.W.-3 Rasna and P.W-.4 Kadora in the court is wholly consistent and probable and it does not appear that they are telling lie or that they had not seen the occurrence. In view of this even if they had voluntarily given some affidavits earlier in support of the accused, it would not made any difference. It may, however, mention that the circumstances do not indicate that they had voluntarily given affidavits e.g. Kha 1 and Kha 2 for the accused. The defence has examined D.W.-1 Sri Krishna Lal, Advocate, who prepared the affidavits Ex. Kha 1 and Kha 2 allegedly on the instructions of P.W.-3 Rasna and P.W.-4 Kadora and identified them before a Notary and filed those affidavits in the court on behalf of these witnesses. The perusal of his statement does not inspire confidence. He is the counsel to whom the witnesses have gone for the first time for any work. The witness said that he was knowing to Kadora and Rasna from before only because they used to visit Sri Daya Ram Ahirwar, Advocate, who has his seat near the seat of Sri Krishna Lal, Advocate. Since they used to make such visits to him, this witness came to know him also. Sri Daya Ram Ahirwar, Advocate has not been examined to corroborate and support the statement of this witness. The witness could not tell whether Rasna and Kadora used to come to Daya Ram Ahirwar, Advocate in connection with any civil or criminal case. He could not get opportunity of any such of which he know tell any date on which these witnesses visited Sri Daya Ram Ahirwar, Advocate. He said that he is unable to tell in which court he had filed affidavits of these witnesses and at what time these affidavits were presented in the court. In view of these statements not much reliance can be placed on the statement of D.W.-1 Krishna Lal, Advocate and it is highly doubtful that Rasna and Kadora had voluntarily given any affidavits in favour of the accused on 5.1.1983 as alleged by the defence. We are, therefore, of the opinion that statements of P.W.-3 Rasna and P.W.-4 Kadora, cannot be discarded merely on the ground that they allegedly gave some affidavits stating that they had not seen the occurrence in their examination on oath before the court. They have denied the filling of any such affidavits and supported the prosecution version to the hilt. Hence, arguments of learned Amicus Curiae are not accepted.