Back
2019 Supreme(All) 698
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
RAM SURAT RAM (MAURYA), ANIL KUMAR-IX, JJ.
Ranveer And 3 Others - Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 133 of 1991
Decided On : 09-04-2019
For the Appellant : Devendra Dahma, Hemendra Pratap Singh, Keshari Nath Tripathi, Mukhtar Alam, N.K. Sharma.
For the Respondent:Govt. Advocate, B.K. Solanki, Vinod Kumar Srivastava.
Headnote:
Penal Code, 1860 – Section 307 – Convicting the appellants, under Section 302/34 IPC and sentencing imprisonment for life – Appeal against – Held, Enmity is a double edged weapon, which may be a reason for commission of crime and also for false implication – Clear there is no any universal or inflexible Rule of rejection even with regard to the evidence of witnesses who may be called partisan or interested witnesses – He could not say that Ranveer had opened fire putting his pistol upon Shishupal or from some distance. According to Dariyab Singh (PW-3), Ranveer opened fire from the front of Shishupal. Dariyab Singh (PW-3) stated that on the next day darogaji came for recording his statement when he was ready for going to medical. He did not go to the place of occurrence on that day along with darogaji – No reason has been given as to why Chandra Pal Singh (PW-7) would pressurize for giving an affidavit in favour of the accused, when he had himself supported the prosecution case. From these contradictions, presence of Gyan Singh and Dariyad Singh (PWs-2 and 3) at the place of occurrence, which was at a distance of one Km. from village abadi, is doubtful. These witnesses were inimical, on strict scrutiny, it cannot be said that there was no inconsistency in their statements – Conviction set aside – Appeal allowed. (Paras 19 and 20)
Facts of the Case:
Dispute in respect of the land was going on between the informant and Ranveer and others. Shishupal son of Sri Than Singh (father's elder brother's son of the informant, in relation of the village) was a witness in his sale deed – Then in the way, he took one bundle of dry chaff from his field and was coming towards his village from the fields of village Tuamai. In the way, Ranveer Singh son of Ram Singh armed with pistol, Parsadi son of Ram Singh, armed with farsa, Nawab Singh son of Ram Singh, armed with spear and Hari Shankar son of Geetam Singh, armed with farsa met him. They assaulted Shishupal Singh from their respective weapons, in order to kill him, due to which he fell down there. This incident was witnessed by Dariyab Singh son of Sri Ram Prasad, Dan Singh son of Sri Charan Singh.
Finding of the Court:
Enmity is a double edged weapon, which may be a reason for commission of crime and also for false implication – Clear there is no any universal or inflexible Rule of rejection even with regard to the evidence of witnesses who may be called partisan or interested witnesses – He could not say that Ranveer had opened fire putting his pistol upon Shishupal or from some distance. According to Dariyab Singh (PW-3), Ranveer opened fire from the front of Shishupal. Dariyab Singh (PW-3) stated that on the next day darogaji came for recording his statement when he was ready for going to medical. He did not go to the place of occurrence on that day along with darogaji – No reason has been given as to why Chandra Pal Singh (PW-7) would pressurize for giving an affidavit in favour of the accused, when he had himself supported the prosecution case. From these contradictions, presence of Gyan Singh and Dariyad Singh (PWs-2 and 3) at the place of occurrence, which was at a distance of one Km. from village abadi, is doubtful. These witnesses were inimical, on strict scrutiny, it cannot be said that there was no inconsistency in their statements – Conviction set aside.
Result: Appeal allowed
Anil Kumar-IX, J.
1. Heard Sri Mukhtar Alam and Sri Keshari Nath Tripathi, for the appellants, Sri Jitendra Kumar Rawat, holding brief of Sri Vinod Kumar Srivastava, for the informant and Sri I.P. Srivastava, A.G.A. 1st, for State.
2. Ranveer, Parasadi, Nawab and Hari Shankar have filed this appeal from the judgment of VIIIth Additional Session's Judge, Aligarh, dated 29.01.1991, passed in S.T. No. 137 of 1988, State vs. Ranveer and others, [arising out of Case Crime No. 194 of 1987, under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the 'IPC')], Police Station Akarabad, district Aligarh, convicting the appellants, under Section 302/34 IPC and sentencing imprisonment for life to them. Parasadi (appellant-2) has died during pendency of the appeal and the appeal has been abated for him.
3. On the complaint (Ex-Ka-1) of Rakshpal Singh (PW-1), FIR (Ex-Ka-14) of Case Crime No. 194 of 1987 was registered under Section 307 IPC at P.S. Akrabad, district Aligarh, on 22.12.1987 at 18:55 hours, by Head Moharrir Bhagwan Singh (PW-8), against Ranveer, Parasadi, Nawab sons of Ram Singh and Hari Shankar son of Geetam Singh. It has been stated in the FIR that a dispute in respect of the land was going on between the informant and Ranveer and others. Shishupal son of Sri Than Singh (father's elder brother's son of the informant, in relation of the village) was a witness in his sale deed. On 22.12.1987 at about 5:15 PM, Shishupal was coming to his village from Sikandra Rau. Then in the way, he took one bundle of dry chaff from his field and was coming towards his village from the fields of village Tuamai. In the way, Ranveer Singh son of Ram Singh armed with pistol, Parsadi son of Ram Singh, armed with farsa, Nawab Singh son of Ram Singh, armed with spear and Hari Shankar son of Geetam Singh, armed with farsa met him. They assaulted Shishupal Singh from their respective weapons, in order to kill him, due to which he fell down there. This incident was witnessed by Dariyab Singh son of Sri Ram Prasad, Dan Singh son of Sri Charan Singh. In the meantime, several persons of his village collected there and they had brought Shishupal to the police station in serious condition. Proper action be taken after lodging report.
4. After lodging of FIR, SI Gobardhan Das (PW-9), started investigation. He copied the check FIR and G.D. entry in case diary. He and Constable Vijay Singh allegedly took Shishupal Singh to Primary Health Centre, Akrabad, from where he was referred to the higher centre and was taken to the hospital of J.N. Medical College Aligarh, where Dr. Mohammad Arshad (PW-6) conducted his medical examination on 22.12.1987 at 8:30 PM and prepared Injury Report (Ex-Ka-8), in which following injuries were noted:-
(1) Incised wound 4 cm x 2cm x 1 cm over sternum; grievous in nature; caused by sharp weapon.(1) Incised wound 4 cm x 2cm x 1 cm over sternum; grievous in nature; caused by sharp weapon.
(2) Incised wound 8 'x 1'' (muscles are visible) inguinal region; grievous in nature; caused by sharp weapon.
(3) Incised wound (i) 5'' x 1/4'' palmar aspect of right hand; grievous in nature; caused by sharp weapon (ii) 1'' x 1/8 '' over right thumb grievous in nature; caused by sharp weapon.
(4) Incised wound (i) 3'' x 2'' x 1'' in ulnar aspect of right hand; grievous in nature; caused by blunt weapon (ii) 1-1/2'' on dorsal aspect of right hand; grievous in nature; caused by blunt weapon.
(5) Incised wound avulsion of left pinna; grievous in nature; caused by blunt weapon.
(6) Incised wound 4 cm x 1/8 cm left cheek; grievous in nature; caused by sharp weapon.
(7) Lacerated wound 4 cm x 1/8 cm left side of upper neck; grievous in nature; caused by sharp weapon.
(8) Incised wound 6'' x 2'' x 1'' right side of upper neck; grievous in nature; caused by sharp weapon.
(9) Incised wound 6'' x 1/8'' on right scalp; grievous in nature; caused by sharp weapon.
(10) Lacerated wound 4 cm x 1 cm on occipital region; grievous in nature; caused by shar
