Back
1982 Supreme(All) 67
High Court Of Allahabad
P.N. Goel, S.J. Hyder, JJ.
Genda Lal - Appellant
Versus
State - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 2199 of 1977
Decided on: Jan 27, 1982
Keshav Sahai
The court cannot rely on unreliable and contradictory prosecution evidence to convict the accused. The defense of self-defense can be established if the injuries sustained by the accused are consistent with their version of events. A first information report that is ante-timed and suspicious cannot be relied upon to prove the prosecution case. The evidence in one case cannot be read in another case, even if the two cases are cross cases.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL APPEAL - FACTUAL DISPUTE - SECTION 302/149, 307/149, 148, 147, 323 IPC - EVIDENCE APPRECIATION - EYE WITNESS TESTIMONY - MEDICAL EVIDENCE - FIRST INFORMATION REPORT - TIME OF LODGING - CROSS CASE - EVIDENCE IN ONE CASE CANNOT BE READ IN ANOTHER CASE - FREE FIGHT - RULE OF PRUDENCE - SUSPICIOUS FIRST INFORMATION REPORT - DELAY IN MEDICAL EXAMINATION - INJURIES ON APPELLANTS - VARIANCE IN PROSECUTION VERSION - ACQUITTAL.
Fact of the Case:
A dispute between two factions in a village led to a violent incident resulting in the death of Turram Singh and injuries to several others. The prosecution alleged that the appellants, belonging to one faction, attacked the deceased and others with lathis, kattas, and guns. The defense claimed self-defense and implicated the other faction in the incident.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution evidence was unreliable and contradictory. The first information report was ante-timed, and the prosecution witnesses were withholding the truth. The court also noted that the injuries sustained by the appellants were consistent with the defense version of self-defense.
Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution had proved the charges against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. 2. Whether the defense of self-defense was established. 3. Whether the first information report was ante-timed and unreliable. 4. Whether the evidence in one case could be read in another case.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the prosecution had failed to prove the charges against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution witnesses were unreliable, and the first information report was ante-timed and suspicious. 2. The court accepted the defense of self-defense, holding that the injuries sustained by the appellants were consistent with their version of events. 3. The court held that the first information report was ante-timed and unreliable, as it was lodged at a time when the appellants were already in police custody. 4. The court held that the evidence in one case could not be read in another case, even if the two cases were cross cases.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellants, and acquitted them of all charges.
S.J. Hyder, J.
1. Genda Lal and six others have appealed to this court against the judgment and order dated September 26, 1977 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Trial No. 148 of 1975. Genda Lal and Virpal appellants have been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 147 and 323/149 IPC. They have been sentenced to undergo one year's RI on the first count. On the second count, they have also been convicted to undergo RI for a similar period. Komal Singh, Natthu, Ramesh and Sripal have each been found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 148 IPC and two years' RI have been awarded to them for the said offence. A further conviction for the offence punishable under section 307/149 has been found to have been proved against them and they have been sentenced to undergo RI for a period of five years. Bisham Pal appellant has been sentenced to undergo RI for a period of two years under Section 148 IPC. He has also been found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302/149 IPC and has been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment on that count. The different sentence recorded against the appellants have been made concurrent. The initial version of the prosecution case is to be found in the first information report lodged at Police Station Nidhauli Kalan District Elah by Jawahar Singh son of Ram Charan Singh on July 26, 1974 at 9.15 p.m. In the first information report, it is, inter alia, stated that Genda Lal appellant and his partymen were being run down by the police under Section 107/117 CrPC on account of which they entertain ill-will against the first informant and his relations and supporters. On account of this ill-will, on July 26, 1974 at about 7.30 p.m. when Darbari was going from the house of Ram Singh towards his own residence, Genda Lal and Virpal armed with lathis, Komal Singh, Natthu, Ramesh carrying Kattas, Bishampal Singh armed with the gun of his own father came to the scene of occurrence and mounted an assault on Darbari. The victim cried out far help and ran towards the house of Ram Singh when he was surrounded by the appellants. Darbari was given a beating with lathis by Genda Lal and Virpal and they also stated that they will finish him once for all. At this stage, Bishampal Singh, Ramesh and Natthu fired with their weapons and the gun shot found their mark on the person of one Turram Singh. On account of the noise created by this incident, Ram Singh, Nem Singh, Bhuwaneshwar Pratap, Leeladhar and Bharat Singh and many other persons of the village came to the scene of the occurrence. Wife of Turram Singh, Smt.Kamla, also arrived and she rushed to save her husband whereupon Komal Singh and Sripal fired at her with their respective weapons and she was also injured. The first information report concluded by stating that Turram Singh had died at the spot on account of the gun shot wounds sustained by him and Smt.Kamla and Darbari have received injuries.
2. Now, it is not in dispute that Genda Lal appellant, Ram Swarup and Thakur Das are three brothers. Bishampal Singh is the son of Genda Lal whereas Komal Singh appellant is the son of Ram Swarup Sripal and Ramesh appellants are sons of Thakur Das. Natthu appellant is a cousin of Genda Lal. Genda Lal had a maternal cousin named Chandan, and Virpal is the son of Chandan. It is thus the common case of the parties that all the appellants belong to the same family. PW 1 Bhuneshwar Pratap, in his evidence, has conceded that Ram Singh, Jawahar Singh, Darbari and Sonal Singh belong to the party of which Bhuneshwar Pratap is the head. Turram Singh deceased is admittedly the son of Jawahar Singh and as such was also a supporter of Bhuneshwar Pratap.
The investigation of the case was taken up by Mewa Ram Lakhoria SI. He visited the scene of occurrence and performed necessary formalities which included the making of some recoveries.
3. The injuries of Smt.Kamla and Darbari Lal were examined by Dr. S. Prasad. He noted as many as 12
