Back
1996 Supreme(All) 304
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
N. L. GANGULY, R. N. RAY
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH - Appellant
Versus
PREM PAL - Respondents
G. A. 2168 Of 1980
Decided On : 03/14/1996
K.Kulshrestha, Kamal Krishna, S.K.YADAV
The court reiterated that the prosecution has the burden of proving the guilt of the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt and that mere delay in lodging the FIR and investigation, without prejudice to the defense case, is not a ground for acquittal.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL APPEAL - ACQUITTAL - GROUNDS - DELAY IN LODGING FIR - UNEXPLAINED DELAY IN INVESTIGATION - DOUBTFUL PROSECUTION EVIDENCE - INDEPENDENT WITNESSES NOT EXAMINED - POSSESSION OF DISPUTED LAND - MANNER OF INCIDENT - VERACITY OF EYE WITNESSES - INVESTIGATION - FIR - ANTE-TIMED DOCUMENT - BENEFIT OF DOUBT - SECTION 302/149, 307/149, 325/149, 320, I. P. C.
Fact of the Case:
The prosecution alleged that the accused persons formed an unlawful assembly and assaulted and inflicted injuries on the informant, Daulat Pal Singh, causing his death. The accused persons claimed self-defense and alibi.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court acquitted the accused persons on the grounds of delay in lodging the FIR, unexplained delay in investigation, doubtful prosecution evidence, failure to examine independent witnesses, and lack of proof of possession of the disputed land by the deceased.
Issues: 1. Whether the delay in lodging the FIR and investigation prejudiced the defense case. 2. Whether the prosecution evidence was reliable and sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. 3. Whether the trial court erred in acquitting the accused persons.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that mere delay in lodging the FIR and investigation, without prejudice to the defense case, is not a ground for acquittal. 2. The court found that the prosecution evidence was doubtful and insufficient to prove the guilt of the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. The court noted that the FIR was ante-timed, the investigation was faulty and partial, and the prosecution failed to examine independent witnesses. 3. The court held that the trial court did not err in acquitting the accused persons.
Final Decision: The government appeal was dismissed, and the acquittal of the accused persons was upheld.
( 1 ) THIS Government appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 23-5-90 passed by the III Addl. Sessions Judge, Etah, acquitting the opposite parties-accused Prem Pal and 4 others in S. T. No. 767 of 1979 under Sections 147, 148, 302/149, 307/149, 325/149 and 320, I. P. C.
( 2 ) SHRI K. C. Saxena, Addl. Government Advocate argued the appeal specifically raising the submission that the acquittal of the accused persons is not justified at all. From the evidence on record, the trial Court committed a manifest error in not placing reliance on the evidence of the prosecution which proved the prosecution case against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. The occular testimony of the witnesses is in no way contradict the medical evidence. The submissions of the learned A. G. A. necessitated him to place the entire evidence before the Court.
( 3 ) ACCORDING to the prosecution, informant-complainant Daulat Pal Singh lodged a report at P. S. Jalesar at. 11. 20 a. m. on 4/07/1979 alleging that the accused persons by forming an unlawful assembly armed with gun, country/made pistol and lathis, assaulted and inflicted injuries to the informant thereby committed offences under Sections 147, 148, 323 and 307, I. P. C.
( 4 ) A short pedigree of the deceased is given below for appreciating the facts of the case.
( 5 ) ACCUSED Prem Pal, Karan Pal Singh. Mahabir and Viresh are real brothers and they belong to village Kunda P. S. Hasayan Distt. Aligarh. Accused Ram Charan belongs to Village Bishunipur P. S. Jalesar Distt. Etah. There has been dispute regarding the agricultural holding in respect of Khasra plot No. 220 of Village Jamalpur P. S. Jalesar between Prem Pal accused on one hand and deceased Daulat Pal Singh on the other hand. The land initially belongs to Kashi Ram, on whose death, mutation was effected in the name of Smt. Katoori Devi. Smt. Katoori Devi died some time in 1971-72. The land devolved on Dault Pal Singh. The accused Prem Pal and his brothers obtained a sale deed in respect of the said plot from sons of Smt. Katoori Devi out of her previous husband. Daulat Pal Singh claimed to be in possession of the land since before the date of the incident.
( 6 ) ACCORDING to the prosecution case, Dault Pal Singh was ploughing the aforesaid field at 7. 30 in the morning on 4-7-1979. His son Damodar was helping him by removing and cutting unwanted weeds and bushes. All the five persons came to the field at about 7. 30 a. m. , in the meantime, Malkhan Singh, Mukat Singh, Prem Pal Singh and Ompal Singh also reached the disputed plot. The accused persons abused Daulat Pal Singh who also hurled counter abuses. Accused Karan Pal Singh and Prem Pal Singh asked Daulat Pal Singh to stop ploughing the field. Daulat Pal Singh refused to stop ploughing saying that the land belongs to him. Accused Karanpal Singh asked co-accused Prem Pal to shoot at Daulat Pal Singh. Prem Pal fired from his gun causing gun-short wounds to Daulat Pal Singh who fell on the ground after receiving the shot. Malkhan Singh witness, questioned the accused persons about this conduct, whereupon accused Karan Pal Singh said that he had come to support Daulut Pal Singh and that he should also be killed. Upon this, accused Ram Charan fired on Malkhan from his country-made pistol and the pellets hit Malkhan on the forehead and the chest. Malkhan sat on the ground. Prem Pal, the witness, then started running whereupon accused persons Karan Pal Singh. Mahabir and Viresh chased him and caught him in the field of Nanhu. They assaulted Prem Pal accused with lathis. The occurrence was witnessed by all the witnesses. After hearing hue and cry, the persons from the neighbouring villages were also attracted to the scene of the occurrence who also witnessed. The accused persons after causing injuries, fled away towards the village Kunda.
( 7 ) DHARMENDRA alias Dharam Vir, the son of Malkhan, who had come to the spot, went back to the village Kunda and
