IMPORTANT POINT
Just because witnesses are related to deceased would not be a ground to discard their testimony if otherwise it inspires confidence.

Headnote:(i) Indian Penal Code, 1860-Sections 302/34, 148, 302/149 and 307/149-Appellants-accused armed with gun, country made pistols and hockey sticks reached where deceased and prosecution witnesses were singing-Accused fired at two persons who died and others were injured-Out of eight trial Court convicted five accused and sentenced them accordingly-High Court set aside conviction in appeal-State appeal-Just because witnesses were related to deceased would not be a ground to discard their testimony-Two witnesses were independent and were injured in incident-Testimony of an injured witness had its relevance and efficacy-Nothing was elicited in cross examination to discredit their testimony-Individual role was not to be looked into when evidence showed accused to have formed unlawful assembly with common object to murder deceased-Simple injuries on person of accused even if were unexplained, did not vitiate trial-Conviction recorded by trial Court was liable to be restored. (Paras 10 to 16)
       (ii) Indian Penal Code, 1860-Section 149-Common object of unlawful assembly-Can be gathered from nature of assembly, armed used by them and behaviour of assembly at or before scene of occurrence.
       Held : Common object of the unlawful assembly can be gathered from the nature of the assembly, arms used by them and the behaviour of the assembly at or before scene of occurrence. It is an inference to be deduced from the facts and circumstances of each case. In the instant case, the prosecution evidence disclosed that it was a Raksha Bandhan day when the singing was going on, the accused appeared at the scene with gun and country made pistols and hockey-sticks, attacked the prosecution party and started firing indiscriminately resulting in the death of Sheo Ram and Mool Chand. Deduced from the surrounding facts and circumstances of this case, it is clear that the accused did form an unlawful assembly and in furtherance of that common object of the unlawful assembly, crime has been perpetrated. (Para 13)

JUDGMENT

Sema, J.-Nine accused were put on trial before the Addl. Sessions Judge. During the pendency of the trial, one accused died, therefore, eight accused have faced the trial. At the end of the trial, the trial court acquitted accused Nos. 6, 7 and 8 of all the charges. No appeal was preferred by the State against their acquittal. The five accused (respondents herein) namely Kishan Chand, Rama Shankar, Ram Chandra, Gauri Shankar and Chhotey Lal were convicted under various Sections of Law as follows:-

2. Accused Kishan Chand was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment under Sections 302/34 and 302/149 I.P.C. Six months R.I. under Section 323 I.P.C. One years R.I. under Section 148 I.P.C. and 5 years R.I. under Section 307 read with Section 149 I.P.C. and 5 years R.I.

3. Accused Rama Shankar was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment under Section 302 I.P.C. One year R.I. under Section 148 I.P.C. 5 years R.I. under Section 307/149 I.P.C. and 6 months R.I. under Section 323 read with 34 I.P.C.

4. Accused Ram Chandra son of Bala Sukh and Gauri Shanker were sentenced to undergo life imprisonment under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. and Section 302 read with Section 149 I.P.C. Six months R.I. under Section 323/34 I.P.C. One year R.I. under Section 149 and 5 years R.I. under Section 307 read with Section 149 I.P.C.

5. Accused Chhotey Lal was sentenced to undergo one year R.I. under Section 148 I.P.C. Life imprisonment under Section 302/149 I.P.C. and five years R.I. under Section 307/149 I.P.C. The sentences, however, were directed to run concurrently.

6. On appeal, being preferred by the accused persons, the High Court by the impugned order acquitted them of all the charges levelled against them. Hence, this appeal by special leave, has been preferred by the State of U.P.

Briefly stated the facts are as follows:-

7. The accused and the complainants are all residents of Harish Purwa, P.S. Sachendi District Kanpur. On 3.8.1974 at about 5.30 p.m. the accused formed an unlawful assembly in the dharmashala of Shridhar in village Hariram ka Purwa and in furtherance of common object murdered Sheo Ram and Mool Chand and caused injuries to PW1 - Shridhar and PW8 - Mizari Lal. The first information report lodged by PW3-Ram Swarup disclosed that on the fateful day at about 5.30 p.m. Chhotey Lal (PW2) son of Tulsi was singing on the eve of Raksha Bandhan in the dharmashala of Shridhar. Ashok Chand, Mizazi Lal, Soney Lal Gupta, Ram Mohan, Mool Chand his son Ramoo and others were also there. In the meantime, accused Kishan Chand son of Hem Raj, Rama Shankar son of Chhotey Lal, Ram Chandra son of Sada Sukh, Gauri Shankar son of Hem Raj and Chhotey Lal armed with gun, country made pistols and hockey-sticks reached there. Immediately thereafter, accused Kishan Chand gave a hockey blow to Shridhar. Thereupon, the deceased Mool Chand asked him not to quarrel on the festival day. Accused Rama Shankar fired at him. Thereafter, accused Kishan Chand fired at Shridhar who fell down after sustaining injuries. Accused Ram Chandra was at the roof and instigated the accused to kill the informant and others. At his instigation accused Chhotey Lal, Kishan Chand, Rama Shankar, Gauri Shankar and Ram Chandra became more furious and started firing discriminately from their gun and country made pistols. In the process, Shridhar (PW-1) and Mizazi Lal (PW-8) had also received injuries. In the said incident, Sheo Ram and Mool Chand died on the spot.

8. In course of the trial, the prosecution relied upon the testimony of eyewitnesses PW1-Shridhar, PW2-Chottey Lal, PW3-Ram Swarup and PW8-Mizazi Lal. Counsel for the State, contended that the Trial Court, was justified in placing reliance on the eye witnesses account of PWs 1, 2, 3 and 8 and the High Court was clearly in error in disbelieving the eyewitnesses account of prosecution witnesses resulting in acquittal of accused on the basis of perverse finding

9. Per contra counsel for the accused-respondents would contend

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2004 Supreme(SC) 914

IMPORTANT POINTJust because witnesses are related to deceased would not be a ground to discard their testimony if otherwise it inspires confidence.

Cases Referred (1)

IMPORTANT POINT
Just because witnesses are related to deceased would not be a ground to discard their testimony if otherwise it inspires confidence.