State Of U. P. vs Lalla Singh - 1977 Supreme(SC) 343

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1977 Supreme(SC) 343

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.C. GUPTA AND P.S. KAILASAM, JJ.
State of U.P. Appellant
Versus
Lalla Singh and others Respondents.
Criminal Appeal No. 85 of 1974
Decided on 28-11-1977.
Advocates appeared
Mr. D. P. Uniyal Sr. Advocate (Mr. O. P. Rana Advocate with him), for Appellant; Mr. D. Mookerjee Sr. Advocate (Mr. Parmod Swarup Advocate with him), for Respondents Nos. 1, 3 & 4. Nemo for Respondent No. 2.

Headnote:
Indian Penal Code - S. 302/ 201 - First Information Report- Rely on evidence- Sentenced to Imprisonment for life - oRder of acquittal – Offence of murder – Injury - At that time he took down the statement of Satya Pal. At about 1-30 P.M. the body of Phool Singh was recovered at a distance of 80 or 90 paces from the culvert. Receiving information that the body of Smt. Jhabbo was lying near the river Khandania he proceeded there and recovered her body from the bed of the river. He prepared the necessary reports and despatched the two bodies for postmortem. He came back to the culvert of the canal at the village Mannia and prepared the site plan of the scene of occurrence. The dead body of Mukhtar Singh could not be recovered at that time. On June 20, 1977 the dead body of Mukhtar Singh was found in the canal. An inquest was conducted and the dead body was sent for the post-mortem examination. The doctor who conducted the post-mortem found that all the three deceased had died as a result of injuries received by them and that the injuries inflicted were sufficient to cause their death in the ordinary course of nature – Held, On reading the testimony of the eye-witnesses we are satisfied that they are telling the truth. They are all natural witnesses and the First Information Report was lodged without any delay. The trial Court relying on the testimony of the eye-witnesses found the accused guilty of the murder of the three deceased. The evidence of the eye-witnesses is convincing and we can find no reasonable ground for rejecting it. In our opinion the High Court has rejected the evidence of the eye-witnesses on wholly unacceptable and flimsy grounds - We are fully conscious of the fact that this appeal is by special leave under Art. 136 of the Constitution and is an appeal against acquittal. In such a case this Court would not interfere, if there are not sufficient grounds for doing so, with the decision arrived at by the High Court. We are satisfied that the conclusion arrived at by the High Court is speculative and in disregard of the evidence and therefore unsupportable. We therefore allow the appeal, set aside the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the High Court and restore the conviction of the four respondents on the various charges as found by the Sessions Judge - Regarding the sentence, the Sessions Judge has imposed death sentence on the first respondent, Lalla Singh, for the murder of Smt. Jhabbo as he had severed her head. On the other two counts Lalla Singh was sentenced to imprisonment for life and as already stated the other three respondents were sentenced to imprisonment for life on each of the three counts for causing the death of the three deceased - Learned counsel for the respondents, submitted that in the event of this Court allowing the appeal by the State the question of sentence of the first respondent should be considered. The trial Judge inflicted the extreme penalty on the first respondent as he was found guilty of the most gruesome act of cutting the head of the deceased Smt. –Appeal allowed

JUDGMENT

KAILASAM, J. :—This appeal is by the State of Uttar Pradesh by special leave against the judgment dated April 25, 1973 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad allowing the Criminal Appeal filed by the respondents against their conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge Pilibhit and acquitting them of all the charges.

2. The four respondents were committed to the Court of Sessions to stand their trial on charges under S. 302, Indian Penal Code, relating to the murder of three persons, Phool Singh, Mukhtar Singh and Srimati Jhabbo on June 18, 1971. They were also charged for offenes under Section 201, Indian Penal Code, for removing the dead bodies of these persons and thereby causing the disappearance of evidence and screening themselves from these offences.

3. Ram Swarup Singh and Brij Raj Singh respondents 3 and 4 are brothers. They are the brothers-in-law of Lalla Singh, the first respondent. The second respondent, Bhagwan Singh, is their friend and they are all the residents of the same village. The deceased Phool Singh and Mukhtar Singh were brothers and the third deceased Smt. Jhabbo is the wife of Phool Singh. The accused and the deceased were living in the same village.

4. The trouble arose over the children of Lalla Singh, the first respondent, plucking some unripe Jaman fruit from a Jaman tree in front of the house of the deceased on the evening of the day previous to the occurrence i.e. June 17, 1971. The deceased Smt. Jhabbo, the wife of the deceased Phool Singh, asked the children not to pluck Jaman fruit. The wife of Lalla Singh, the first respondent, arrived at the spot and there was a wordy quarrel between the wife of the first respondent and Smt. Jhabbo. Respondent No. 1 Lalla Singh and respondent No. 4, Brij Raj Singh, came there armed with lathis and the latter gave some blows to Smt. Jhabbo. There after Brij Raj Singh and Lalla Singh left the scene, Brij Raj Singh threatening her that if a complaint was lodged they would kill them. At the time of the occurrence the two deceased Phool Singh and his brother Mukhtar Singh had gone to the Bazar of Udare. They returned after sunset, along with their sisters son, Brijendra Singh, P.W. 7, who had gone to the market for the purchase of a bull. Smt. Jhabbo told them about the occurrence. All of them spent the night in the house of the deceased and on the next morning i.e. 18-6-1971 at about 7 A.M. the deceased Phool Singh and Mukhtar Singh, Brijendra Singh. P.W. 7, the village Chowkidar and Satya Pal Singh, the son of Phool Singh started for the police station to lodge a complaint. When they reached near the canal culvert at a place called Mannia, the four accused came there, Lalla Singh, the first respondent, had a spear, Bhagwan Singh, the second respondent, and Ram Swarup Singh, the third respondent, had Kantas and Brij Raj Singh, the fourth respondent, had a lathi. They surrounded the two deceased Phool Singh and Mukhtar Singh and started beating them. P.W. 1, Satya Pal Singh and P.W. 7 Brijendra Singh and the village Chowkidar saw the occurrence from some distance. The occurrence was also witnessed by Nawab Singh, Kishore, Moti Teli and Babu Nai. Nawab Singh and Kishore are P.W. 2 and P.W. 8 respectively. After killing Phool Singh and Mukhtar Singh the respondents threw their bodies in the canal and walked away.

5. Satya Pal returned to his house and informed his mother, Smt. Jhabbo, of the occurrence. By that time the four respondents reached the house of Satya Pal and caught hold of Smt. Jhabbo and started beating her. They dragged her and took her away. Satya Pal ran to a village called Manpur and narrated the occurrence to Sardar Singh. At that time Balwant Singh P.W. 4 came there and told Satya Pal that the respondents had also killed his mother Smt. Jhabbo and thrown the body in the river Khandania. Satya Pal ran to village Bhadag Kanja to the house of his cousin brother-in-law Lallu Singh and along with him went to the police

Click Here to Read the rest of this document