IMPORTANT POINTS
Statements of key witnesses recorded after eight days without proper explanation cannot be accepted.
Unless the blood on the weapon is at least proved to be human blood, the recovery cannot be admitted in evidence.

JUDGMENT :

MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, J.

These appeals arise out of the judgment dated 10.02.2015 of the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in Criminal Appeal No. 178 of 2011 and Criminal Appeal No. 179 of 2011 confirming the judgment and order of conviction dated 20.01.2011 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Pendra Road, District Bilaspur in S.T. No. 57 of 2010 convicting the appellants and other accused for offences punishable under Sections 148 and 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘IPC’) and sentencing them accordingly.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on account of previous enmity with Pitambar Singh (since deceased), the Accused No. 1 - Balwan Singh (appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 727 of 2015), on 22nd January, 2007, at evening time, was talking with the other accused regarding preparation to kill Pitambar Singh. Their conversation was heard by Sunderlal Rathore @ Sunder Singh Rathore (PW11) and Shatrughan Singh (PW12), who were passing through the same place. Further, it was the case of the prosecution that all the accused, armed with deadly weapons, went towards the field of one Bhagwat Seth and committed the murder of Pitambar Singh. PW9 and PW16, who were near the scene of the occurrence, rushed to the spot after hearing the cries of the injured, and saw all the accused assaulting the deceased with lathis and tabbal (an agriculture implement made up of iron). It is stated by PW9 and PW16 that the tabbal was held by the Accused No. 4, namely, Ashok Singh. The injured died instantaneously and the accused fled away.

The dead body was seen by one Drupad Singh (PW1) at 7 o’clock the next morning, who in turn informed Nar Singh Rajput (PW17), the informant. Thereafter, Drupad Singh and Nar Singh Rajput together went to the place where the dead body was lying, and saw that Pitambar Singh was murdered. The deceased was the uncle of the informant.

3. The Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court, believing the testimonies of PW9 and PW16 who were the eye witnesses of the incident, and the testimonies of PW11 and PW12 who deposed about the conspiracy to commit the murder of the deceased, convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 148 and 302/149 IPC. It is pertinent to state that although charge was also framed under Section 120B IPC, the accused were acquitted in respect of the said offence.

4. Shri Sanjay Hegde, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant Balwan Singh, and Shri Rajeev Kumar Bansal, learned counsel appearing for appellants Latel Ram and Santu @ Santram, drew the attention of the Court to the relevant portions of the depositions of the important witnesses, and submitted that the prosecution had planted the eye witnesses, namely, PW9 and PW16 for the purpose of prosecuting the accused, though these witnesses were not present near the scene of occurrence. They contended that the statements of these alleged eye witnesses were recorded about eight days after the incident in question, though they were very much present in the village or though the police knew that these witnesses were the alleged eye witnesses of the incident. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, the evidence of PW11 and PW12 is also vague, cryptic, and unreliable inasmuch as the courts below have acquitted the accused for the offence under Section 120B IPC.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the State argued in support of the judgments of the courts below.

6. We find from the records that though the incident took place on 22nd January, 2007, the statements of the alleged eye witnesses, namely, PW9 and PW16, were recorded after eight days of the incident. The prosecution has tried to explain the delay in recording the statement of the eye witnesses by contending that they were scared of the accused, particularly Balwan Singh who was the village Sarpanch (Panchayat Chairman); the accused Balwan Singh was stated to be powerful and influential; only