Back
2011 Supreme(UK) 577
2012 (1) N.C.C. 198
UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT
Hon'ble Mr. Chief Justice Barin Ghosh and Hon’ble Mr. Justice U.C. Dhyani
Criminal Appeal No. 150 of 2002
HYAT SINGH BORA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND – Respondent
Decided on : 03.11.2011
For the Respondent:Mr. Amit Bhatt, Addl. Government Advocate
Headnote:(A) Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Sec. 27 — In a case, where recovery memo does not bear the signatures of the accused — But the prosecution story had been proved beyond reasonable doubt with the help of direct evidence sans recovery memo — Also, where the ocular evidence of two non-partisan, natural witnesses is there, fortified by the medical evidence — There is no sense in disbelieving the prosecution story merely on the strength of the arguments that there is no disclosure statement and recovery memo does not bear the signatures of the accused/appellant. (Paras 14 and 19)
(B) Report of chemical analyst — As per report blood stains on the said knife could not be classified, as the same had been disintegrated — Argued that the weapon could not be connected with the offence — Held that the report no where stated that the said knife was not used in commission of the offence — The direct evidence and oral testimony of the witnesses could not be thrown out merely on the basis of said report. (Paras 14 and 19)
(C) Interested witnesses — When the deceased was sitting with his neighbourers, who were of his own community, the accused came and inflicted knife blows on his chest and fled away — Held that both eyewitnesses, relative of the deceased, are the most natural witnesses who have seen this broad daylight killing of the deceased — They are non-partisan and disinterested witnesses — Living amongst the friends and persons of one's own community is not sin — Therefore, no weight in the arguments of accused/appellant — Cold calculations are normally avoided in intangible. (Paras 14, 19 and 20)
(D) Murder Trial — As per the prosecution case deceased was sitting with his four neighbourers, when the accused had come and inflicted knife blows on his chest and fled away — Argued that prosecution story was not reliable as the four persons, could have saved the deceased from the accused and apprehend him — Held — Sometimes the incidents are so stunning that everything freezes and the persons witnessing the incident are unable to do anything — As another blow of knife to any witness might finish his life also — And a person remains helpless in presence of a person holding a knife. (Para 21)
¼v½ Hkkjrh; lk{; vf/kfu;e] 1872] /kkjk 27 & ml dsl esa tgk¡ ij QnZ cjkenxh ij vfHk;qDr ds gLrk{kj ugha djk;s x;s gSa ijUrq vfHk;kstu dh dgkuh QnZ cjkenxh lfgr lh/ks lPps lk{; ds vk/kkj ij fl) gks pqdh gks vkSj tgk¡ ij nks vi{kikrh LokHkkfod lkf{k;ksa dk lk{; miyC/k gS vkSj ftldh iqf"V fpfdRld lk{; ls Hkh gks pqdh gS rks dsoy ek= bl nyhy ds vk/kkj ij fd QnZ cjkenxh ij vfHk;qDr@vihykFkhZ ds }kjk gLrk{kj ugha fd;s x;s gSa vfHk;kstu dh dgkuh ij vfo'okl djus esa dksbZ le>nkjh ugha gSA ¼izLrj 14 vkSj 19½
¼c½ jklk;fud fo'ys"k.k dh fjiksVZ & fjiksVZ ds vuqlkj pkdw ij yxs gq, [kwu ds fu'kku Js.khc) ugha fd;s tk lds Fks pw¡fd os vyx vyx gks pqds Fks & ;g nyhy nh xbZ Fkh fd gfFk;kj vijk/k ls lEc) ugha fd;k tk ldrk Fkk & fu.kZ; esa dgk x;k fd fjiksVZ esa dgha ij Hkh ;g ugha dgk x;k Fkk fd mDr pkdw dk iz;ksx vijkèk dkfjr djus esa ugha fd;k x;k Fkk & mDr fjiksVZ ds vk/kkj ij lkf{k;ksa dk lhèkk lk{; vkSj ekSf[kd lk{; dks vuns[kk ugha fd;k tk ldrkA ¼izLrj 14 vkSj 19½
¼l½ fgrk{kh lk{khx.k & tcfd e`rd vius iM+ksfl;ksa ds ikl cSBk gqvk Fkk] tks fd mlh dh tkfr ds Fks] vfHk;qDr vk;k vkSj mldh Nkrh esa pkdw ?kksai fn;k vkSj Hkkx x;k & fu.kZ; esa dgk x;k fd nksuksa izR;{kn'khZ lk{kh tks e`rd ds fj'rsnkj Fks] os vR;Ur LokHkkfod lk{kh gSa ftUgksaus ;g fnu ds mtkys dh gR;k dks ns[kk gS & os vi{kikrh vkSj vfgrkFkhZ lk{kh gSa & fdlh dk viuh gh tkfr ds O;fDr;ksa vkSj fe=ksa ds lkFk jguk dksbZ iki ugha gS & blfy, vfHk;qDr@vihykFkhZ ds rdks± esa dksbZ cy ugha gS & vewrZ ifjfLFkfr esa gYds rdZ lk/kkj.kr;k NksM+ fn;s tkrs gSaA
¼izLrj 14] 19 vkSj 20½
¼n½ gR;k ds dsl dh lquokbZ & vfHk;kstu ds dsl ds vuqlkj e`rd vius pkj iM+ksfl;ksa ds lkFk cSBk Fkk tcfd vfHk;qDr vk;k vkSj mldh Nkrh esa pkdw ls okj fd;s vkSj Hkkx x;k & ;g rdZ fn;k x;k fd vfHk;kstu dh dgkuh fo'oluh; ugha Fkh pw¡fd pkj O;fDr e`rd dks cpk ldrs Fks vkSj vfHk;qDr dks idM+ ldrs Fks & fu.kZ; esa dgk x;k fd dHkh dHkh ?kVuk bruh pdek nsus okyh gksrh gS fd izR;sd oLrq lqé gks tkrh gS vkSj tks yksx ?kVuk dks ns[k jgs gSa dqN Hkh djus yk;d ugha jgrs pw¡fd pkdw dk nwljk okj fdlh Hkh lk{kh dk thou lekIr dj ldrk Fkk vkSj dksbZ Hkh O;fDr] ml O;fDr ds lkeus tks pkdw fy, gq, gS & vlgk; cuk jgrk gSA
¼izLrj 21½
[Per : Hon'ble U.C. Dhyani, J.]
This appeal, preferred under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C.), is directed against the judgment and order dated 12.06.2002, passed by Sessions Judge, Pithoragarh in Sessions Trial No. 10 of 1999, whereby accused/appellant Hayat Singh is convicted under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred as I.P.C.) and sentenced to imprisonment for life, and directed to pay fine of Rs. 20,000/- in default of payment of which he has been further directed to undergo imprisonment for a period of one year.
2. Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State, learned counsel for the complainant and perused the lower court record.
3. Prosecution story, in brief, is that, Sapan Kumar Sarkar lodged a first information report (Ext. Ka-1) with police station Didihat, District Pithoragarh stating therein that on 27.01.1999, he along with Dayal Kumar Haldhar, Ravindra Nath Mandal, Chiranjeet Roy were talking to each other in the courtyard of rented accommodation of Asit Kumar Mandal, who is known to them and is an associate of Kanyal Painter. At about 01:30 P.M. his neighbor Hayat Singh Bora, who is a vegetable vendor, came there hurling abuses on Asit Kumar Mandal complaining that he keeps ill-will towards him. He took out a knife from his pocket, pounced upon Asit Kumar Mandal and in an attempt to kill him struck two blows of knife on his chest. Sapan Kumar Sarkar (informant) and others rushed to save him, but by then Asit Kumar Mandal started yelling due to injuries suffered by him and blood started pouring out of his chest. In the meantime, Hayat Singh fled from the scene of occurrence wielding knife and threatening them. Asit Kumar was immediately taken to hospital where he succumbed to the injuries suffered by him. It is also mentioned in said report that Hayat Singh Bora had killed Asit Kumar and his dead body is in the hospital. On the basis of said first information report chik FIR (Ext. Ka-7) of the incident was lodged against the accused on 27.01.1999 i.e. on the same day of incident.
4. The police took the dead body in their possession, and prepared inquest report (Ext. Ka-9) and other necessary papers, and the dead body was sent in a sealed cover for postmortem examination to District Hospital, Pithoragarh. The postmortem examination was conducted by Dr. D.S. Nabiyal (P.W.2) on 28.01.1999, at 12:15 P.M. and prepared autopsy report (Ext. Ka-2). The Medical Officer found two ante mortem injuries on the body of the deceased, and opined that the deceased had died of shock and haemorrhage due to ante mortem vital organ injury. The police started the investigation and accused/appellant Hayat Singh Bora was arrested on 27.01.1999 i.e. on the same day, and the blood stained knife used in the commission of murder was also recovered on the disclosure made by him. A memorandum of recovery (Ext. Ka-3) was got prepared in the presence of the witnesses. P.W.4 S.I. B.B. Yadav also recovered blood stained soil, simple soil as well as blood stained clothes of the accused from the lintel where the murder took place. He also sent the case property to Forensic Science Laboratory for chemical analysis. After interrogating the witnesses, and on completion of investigation, charge sheet (Ext. Ka-5) was filed against the accused/appellant Hayat Singh Bora relating to offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C. On 12.07.1999, a report (Ext. Ka-6) was received from the Forensic Science Laboratory, Agra in relation to the chemical analysis of the blood stained knife and blood stained clothes of the accused. It was mentioned in said report that human blood was found present on the clothes of the accused. However, as to the knife, it is mentioned that bloodstains in said weapon could not be classified, as the same were found disintegrated.
5. The Magistrate, on receipt of the charge sheet, after giving necessary copies to th
