2002 Supreme(SC) 773

2002(5) Supreme 209
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Patna High Court)
M.B. Shah, Bisheshwar Prasad Singh & H.K. Sema, JJ.
Ram Anup Singh & Ors. -Appellants
versus
State of Bihar -Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 59 of 2002
Decided on 7-8-2002
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : U.R. Lalit, Sr. Advocate, Abhay Prakash Sahay, P.R. Ramasesh, Ram Tapsya Singh, Sujeet Kr. Sinha, Advocates.
For the Respondent : H.L. Aggarwal, Sr. Advocate, Kumar Rajesh Singh and B.B. Singh, Advocates.

IMPORTANT POINT
In a case of murder of all four members of his brother s family over dispute on family properties, though it was a heinous and brutal crime, yet it did not fall in the category of the rarest of rare cases as the evidence did not disclose the immediate cause of the incident and there was no evidence that the accused was a menace to society.

Headnote:(i) Indian Penal Code, 1860-Section 302-Arms Act-Section 27-Murder of four members of brother s family-Strained relations over land-PW 10, the informant fully supported prosecution case-FIR lodged by him promptly-All witnesses named in FIR-Version given by PW 10 in Court consistent with the version disclosed in FIR-His evidence fully corroborated by medical evidence on record and testimony of eye witnesses-Six eye witnesses, three of them relations of informant-All six witnesses belonging to a nearby village had come for Panchayat to be held between appellants and deceased family-Their testimony could not be ignored-Conviction of appellants held sustainable.

       Held : The consistency in the evidence of the eye witnesses is also understandable in the facts of this case. The witnesses were known to each other and they also knew the appellants and their victims. The occurrence took place in the morning and there was sufficient light to enable the witnesses to identify the appellants and the deceased. The assault on the victims was not simultaneous. They were shot dead one after the other. The witnesses were only 10 to 15 steps behind the assailants, and had therefore the opportunity to notice the manner in which the occurrence took place and the role played by the appellants. There was therefore no scope for any confusion in the mind of the witnesses. Their statements were recorded immediately after the arrival of the Investigating Officer. In these circumstances the case of the prosecution cannot be disbelieved merely because the testimony of the eye witnesses is consistent by raising a suspicion that they may be got up or tutored witnesses. (Para 20)

       The eye witnesses no doubt belong to village Jamunia Jasauli but one cannot ignore the fact that Jamunia Jasauli is at a distant of only half a kilometer from village Dilman Chapra. On the request of Madan Singh (deceased) and on the persuasion of the informant these witnesses had come to take part in the Panchayati to be held that morning. They cannot therefore be described as mere chance witnesses. They had come to that village with a purpose and were not mere passers by. We have found their deposition to be convincing and truthful. (Para 19)

       The occurrence took place between 6.30 and 6.45 a.m.. Soon thereafter the Sub-Inspector of Police, PW-12 reached the village on hearing a rumor after making an entry in the Station Diary. Though the Police Station is about 13 kilometers away from the village of occurrence, he showed great promptness in reaching the village of occurrence at about 8-8.15 a.m. He recorded the statement of the informant, PW-10 and commenced investigation. There was hardly any delay in lodging the FIR, and therefore, there was no opportunity for the informant to concoct a false story. All the eye witnesses are named in the FIR and their presence is confirmed by the fact that their statements were also recorded immediately by the investigating officer. Moreover, by noon even the Superintendent of Police and the Dy. Superintendent of Police had reached the village of occurrence to supervise the investigation. The post-mortem examination of dead bodies was also held on the same day by 4 different medical officers. This is a rare case where we have found that the investigating agency acted with great promptitude. We, therefore, do not suspect that the prosecution concocted a false case. (Para 21)

       The Trial Court as well as the High Court have carefully scrutinised the evidence on record. The medical evidence on record fully supports the prosecution case, and it has been so found by the High Court as well as by the Trial Court. We have also gone through the deposition of the medical officers. We are satisfied that the injuries suffered by the deceased resulting in their death as found by the medical officers, corroborate the manner of occurrence as deposed to by the eye witnesses. Counsel for the appellants submitted that the firing was obviously from close range, but this fact is also established by the medical evidence on record. In fact some of the injuries bore charring marks. We are, therefore, satisfied that the medical evidence fully corroborates the case of the prosecution. (Para 22)

       (ii) Indian Penal Code, 1860-Section 302-Sentence-Murder of four members of brother s family-Strained relations-Deceased having no son had gifted his property to his daughter and son-in-law-Appellants did not approve it-Several panchayats held to resolve the dispute-No reason for immediate cause for the occurrence-No evidence that appellants are a menace to society-Sentence of death not justified-Appellants sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life-They shall not be released before completing an actual term of 20 years including the period already undergone by them.

       Held : There is no evidence on record to suggest that the appellants are a menace to society as evident by their past deeds. It is not possible to conclude that they are those who cannot be reformed or rehabilitated and that they constitute a continuing threat to the society. In fact, apart from the incident in question, there is not even an allegation about the appellants having indulged in such behaviour in the past or having resorted to violence and committed any offence whatsoever. They appear to belong to a middle class farmer family for whom land has great value. But even so, there is nothing to suggest that they may repeat such barbarism in future so that they would constitute a continuing threat to the society. Having regard to all the facts and circumstances, and also having regard to the fact that the evidence does not disclose the immediate cause of the incident, we do not find it safe to confirm the sentence of death awarded by the High Court to Lallan Singh and Babban Singh. (Para 27)

       Minor disputes arose between Madan Singh and Ram Anup Singh from time to time. However, while all these events took place over ten years, there is not even a suggestion that the appellants ever resorted to violence or that any untoward incident took place in the past. The appellants were no doubt aggrieved but they did not take the law into their hands though they tried all other non violent methods available to them, including litigation and Panchayati. In the background of such facts one fails to understand why on the date of occurrence suddenly the appellants decided to do away with all the members of the family. The High Court has also considered this aspect of the matter and found that there was nothing to suggest that the crime perpetuated by the appellants was by way of retaliation. The High Court is right in making this observation because there is nothing on record to suggest that any untoward incident had taken place on the earlier day or a few days before the occurrence which may have aggravated the situation and motivated the appellants to resort to the drastic action of killing all the members of the family of Madan Singh. We have a lurking suspicion that something must have happened on account of which the appellants resorted to the mass killing. (Para 26)

       (iii) Evidence Act, 1872-Section 3-Relation witnesses-Murder of brother s family over land dispute-All the witnesses named in FIR-Their statements also recorded immediately by investigating officer-Consistency in evidence of witnesses-Witnesses known to each other and they also knew appellants and their victims-Their evidence cannot be discarded merely on ground that they are related and interested witnesses. (Paras 18 to 20)