Back
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Amar Saran and Vipin Sinha, JJ.
Ranjeet —Appellant
versus
State of U.P. —Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.59 of 1983
Decided on 25.11.2014
For the Appellant:Sri Sumit Goyal and Kiran Singh, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Govt. Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Typed application sponsored by appellant against police of Police Station, bears signatures of villagers and MLA of area, provides strong reason for false implication.
Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 302, 394 read with 34 — Murder & Robbery — Conviction & Sentence — Prosecution witnesses crossed way of appellant — He used to go home would not inquired his name and residence from appellant — They not acquainted to him — Act of causing death not assigned to appellant — Recoveries of stolen bicycles not identified — HELD — Typed application sponsored by appellant against police of Police Station — Bears signatures of villagers and MLA of area — Provides strong reason for false implication — Prosecution not succeeded in establishing case against appellant beyond reasonable doubt — Judgment of conviction set aside. [Paras 10 to 13]
Result: Appeal allowed
JUDGMENT
Heard Sri Sumit Goyal, learned counsel for the appellant and, learned Govt. Advocate for the State.
We have perused the record and trial court judgment.
2. This appeal arises out of a judgment of the IIIrd Additional District & Sessions Judge, Saharanpur dated 13.12.1982 in Sessions Trial No. 318 of 1982, P.S. Kotwali Dehat, District Saharanpur convicting and sentencing the appellant Ranjeet to life imprisonment under Section 302/34 I.P.C. and to undergo R.I. for 5 years under Section 394 I.P.C.
3. The prosecution version as disclosed in the F.I.R. was that when witnesses Shakil Ahmad, PW-1, Suleman, PW-2 and the deceased Abdul Rehman (uncle of informant) were returning from Saharanpur to their villages on their bicycles after selling milk at about 12.15 a.m. in the night on 20/21.04.1982 near the big canal, the three accused persons attacked them who were hiding under a peeple tree. One accused person came running from the northern side with a pistol in his hand, who fired on the witnesses and the deceased. The fire struck the deceased Abdul Rehman on his chest who fell down after proceeding for a short distance. The miscreants started threatening the witnesses and the deceased and took away their bicycles and cash i.e. Rs. 900 from the informant Shakil Ahmad and Rs. 50 from Suleman.
4. Only the name of appellant Ranjeet resident of Village Manshapura, P.S. Kotwali Dehat, District Saharanpur has been mentioned in the F.I.R. which was lodged on 21.04.1982 at 03.15 a.m. at P.S. Kotwali Dehat, District Saharanpur, which was 11 k.m. from the place of occurrence. It was described that the cause of death of the deceased was fire arm injury as noted in the postmortem report prepared by PW-4, Dr. Govind Swaroop Gupta on 14.10.1982.
5. Three witnesses of fact have been examined i.e. Shakil Ahmad, PW-1, Suleman, PW-2 and Ayyub PW-3 who rushed later at the spot from their fields with torches and who are also said to have heard the cries of the witnesses and the shot being fired and also claimed to have seen the incident.
6. The case was investigated by Shri R.S. Sarkey, PW-6, P.S. Kotwali Dehat who after reaching the spot of offence recorded the 161 Cr.P.C. statements of PW-1 Shakeel Ahmad and other eye witnesses i.e. PW-2 Suleman and PW-3 Ayyub.
7. The defence has also produced two witnesses i.e. Prakash Chand, DW-1 and Rati Ram, DW-2. The defense has submitted that the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case on account of enmity with the police of P.S. Kotwali Dehat. In his statement, he elaborated that on 09.02.1982 (i.e. two months before the incident) the appellant had sent an application to the S.S.P., Saharanpur, which was in the nature of a complaint against the police of P.S. Kotwali Dehat. The said application was also signed by and thumb marked by other residents of his village. It was on account of this enmity that the police has falsely implicated the appellant in this crime.
8. It has been argued by learned counsel for the appellant that it was too much of a co-incidence that the appellant who was a resident of another village could have been identified by the witnesses and significantly the other accused persons who are said to have been identified by the witnesses were never examined. No recovery of any bicycle or any other corroborative material has been made from the police. Actually the police has falsely implicated the appellant as he had made a report against the police of P.S. Kotwali Dehat to the S.S.P. Saharanpur which was signed by a large number of villagers.
9. Learned A.G.A. on the other hand has submitted that there was no reason for the false implication of the accused-appellant.
10. Having given our thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that there is substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that there was hardly any reason for the witnesses to have crossed the way on which the appellant used
