IMPORTANT POINT
Plea of alibi by appellant Jasbir is rightly disbelieved by Courts below. But due to conflict of evidence regarding nature of weapon used by appellants Jagdish and Randhir, their presence is doubtful and thus their conviction cannot be maintained.

Headnote:(i) Criminal Trial of 7 persons-Plea of alibi by appellant Jasbir-Not believed by Courts below on concurrent findings-Appeal to Supreme Court-Whether needs any interference? (No)-Appeal dismissed.
       Held : The Trial Court did not accept the plea of alibi inasmuch as the distance between Meerut and the village Simli where the incident took place is only 35 kms., after 7.15 p.m. he could go to his village and come back to report for the morning parade at 6 a.m. the next day. It held that there was overwhelming material to indicate his presence in the village on the date of the incident and witnesses have spoken about his active participation in assaulting the deceased persons. This finds affirmation in the judgment of the High Court. The High Court opined that it was possible for a person to travel to the village and come back during the intervening period between 7.15 p.m. and 6 a.m. next day. In that view of the matter, as a finding of fact, two courts have come to the identical conclusion and we do not find anything perverse or unreasonable in the conclusion reached by them and hence we dismiss the appeal filed by Jasbir. (Paras 5 and 6)
       (ii) Criminal Trial of 7 persons-Plea of Jagdish and Randhir appellants of their non-presence-Discrepancy as to weapon used by them for attack-Lathi or pharsa-In FIR, medical evidence and oral evidence - Result - Their appeals allowed on benefit of doubt.
       Held : We have been taken through the FIR and the statement made by Satpal when the inquest was held. He stated that he noticed that Randhir, Jagdish, Rohtash, Satbir, Jasbir, Rani and Banwari were armed with halberds and climbed up the roof of the house. Halberd is described to be a kind of battle-axe which can be used as spear as well. In other words, it is a combination of spear and battle-axe with a long handle. When the statement made by him in the FIR and at the inquest is clearly to the effect that they had the halberd, to say that they were armed with lathis would not be correct or accurate at all. In such cases when there has been long enmity between the parties, it is not unusual to lug in persons who are innocent as well. When there were no injuries caused by lathis, it cannot be explained away in the manner as has been done either by the Trial Court or by the High Court, particularly when the witnesses are specific that large number of blows on the person of the injured and the deceased have been inflicted with lathis. The High Court should not have assumed that pharsa may look like lathi whereas it was nobody s case that the pharsa was used by Randhir and Jagdish or none of the witnesses stated that Randhir and Jagdish had some weapon which looked like a lathi but was really a pharsa or a halberd. Therefore, it will not be safe to rely upon the evidence tendered by these persons as to the presence of either Randhir or Jagdish. In the result, we allow the appeal preferred by Randhir and Jagdish and set aside the conviction recorded by the Trial Court, as affirmed by the High Court. Their appeal stands allowed while that of Jasbir stands dismissed. The said two appellants shall be set at liberty if they are in jail. (Paras 10 and 11)

JUDGMENT

Rajendra Babu, J.-Seven persons were charge sheeted for causing the death of Hoshiar Singh, Ram Chander, Pawan Kumar, Ajit on the intervening night of 4/5th October 1993 by entering into dwelling houses of Hoshiar Singh and Surat Singh and causing grievous hurt to Sahbo, Sarjo, Ashok and Surat Singh.

2. In brief, the prosecution version put forth before the Trial Court is that on the intervening night of 4/5th October 1993, when Satpal, his brother Ram Chander, his father Hoshiar Singh, his mother Sahbo and his mother s sister Sarjo were sleeping on the roof of their house, seven accused armed with Gandasis and Pharsas climbed on the roof of the house and inflicted injuries upon Hoshiar Singh and Sahbo and again they targeted Surat Singh and also inflicted injuries upon Pawan and Ajit. It was specifically stated that Jagdish and Randhir gave lathi blows on the back, buttocks, legs and heads of Surat Singh. Rani, Rohtash, Satbir Singh and Jasbir also inflicted injuries upon Ashok. Similarly it was alleged that Jagdish and Randhir gave lathi blows when they attacked Hoshiar Singh and Sarjo. On the alarm raised, the assailants took to their heels and carried their weapons of offence with them. Ram Chander and Ajit succumbed to the injuries at the spot while Pawan and Hoshiar Singh died later on in the hospital.

3. The Trial Court, accepting the evidence adduced by the prosecution convicted all the seven persons. When the matter was carried in appeal, the High Court, after analysing the evidence of various witnesses, held that Rani did not resort to the violence particularly when other near relations duly armed with weapons already planned to avenge the death of her husband and gave benefit of doubt to her and thereby allowed her appeal and dismissed the appeals filed by the other six accused.

4. Of the six accused, only five accused preferred this appeal by special leave. This Court dismissed the appeals of Satbir and Rohtas and granted leave in respect of Jasbir, Randhir and Jagdish.

5. So far as Jasbir is concerned, the defence set up is that of alibi relying upon the records relating to his attendance in his battalion at Meerut Cantonment in respect of which Devender Singh Bist [DW.1], Nai Subedar and Lt. Col. Sudershan Kumar [DW.2], both of them were posted in 510, Army Base Workshop, Meerut, have spoken. The attendance register of Jasbir was produced. It was stated that the attendance is taken at 6 a.m., 8 a.m., 1600 hrs. and, 1845 hrs. and at 2200 hrs., when the lights are off. Jasbir was a craftsman and used to live outside the cantonment area. It was stated that he was free to leave the cantonment area to go to his private residence at 7.15 p.m. and report back next morning at parade at 6 a.m. In the light of the evidence tendered by Lt. Col. Sudershan Kumar [DW.2], the Trial Court did not accept the plea of alibi inasmuch as the distance between Meerut and the village Simli where the incident took place is only 35 kms., after 7.15 p.m. he could go to his village and come back to report for the morning parade at 6 a.m. the next day. It held that there was overwhelming material to indicate his presence in the village on the date of the incident and witnesses have spoken about his active participation in assaulting the deceased persons. This finds affirmation in the judgment of the High Court.

6. The High Court opined that it was possible for a person to travel to the village and come back during the intervening period between 7.15 p.m. and 6 a.m. next day. In that view of the matter, as a finding of fact, two courts have come to the identical conclusion and we do not find anything perverse or unreasonable in the conclusion reached by them and hence we dismiss the appeal filed by Jasbir.

7. So far as Jagdish and Randhir are concerned, it is stated that they had used lathis to inflict injuries upon the deceased persons. The defence pointed out the infirmities in the prosecution case, in that the same was not in con

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

2002 Supreme(SC) 1236

IMPORTANT POINTPlea of alibi by appellant Jasbir is rightly disbelieved by Courts below. But due to conflict of evidence regarding nature of weapon used by appellants Jagdish and Randhir, their presence is doubtful and thus their conviction cannot be maintained.

Judicial Analysis

IMPORTANT POINT
Plea of alibi by appellant Jasbir is rightly disbelieved by Courts below. But due to conflict of evidence regarding nature of weapon used by appellants Jagdish and Randhir, their presence is doubtful and thus their conviction cannot be maintained.