Admittedly Jairam Singh and Nathu had died on account of multiple injuries sustained by them and PW 1 had also sustained several injuries, If Jairam Singh and his sons were the aggressors and if only A 2 and A 3 were present at the scene they companyld number have by their acts of self defence alone caused the death of two persons and also caused injuries to PW 1.
The prosecution case that A 7 had used the tamancha against A 2 in order to create evidence in their favour was too unnatural a version to merit acceptance.
Hence, the State of U.P. has preferred this appeal against the acquittal of the respondents.
The High Court, to which the accused had preferred four appeals, in a brief judgment without much of discussion about the evidence, disagreed with the view taken by the Sessions Judge and set aside the companyvictions awarded to the accused and acquitted them of all the charges framed against them.
Thereupon, the police ignored their report and placed them in the lock up.
According to A 2, he and A 3 were at the pair and PWs 1, 3 and the two deceased started abusing them and thereupon a wordy quarrel ensued.
On receipt of gun shot injuries on his right hand, he fell down unconscious.
After A 7 had made the triumphant announcement, the accused ran away from the scene.
ka 8 against four persons viz.
As regards, PW 3, the accused themselves admit his presence at the scene.
There was a case against Jairam Singh and his two sons for an offence under Section 307 IPC.
Nathu Singh and Jai Ram Singh.
The defence set up by the accused was that only A 2 and A 3 were present at the scene and number the other accused.
Lacerated wound 3/4 X 1/4 skin deep on left parietal region.
Neither the prosecution number the defence have companye out with a true version of the occurrence.
The defence examined DW 1 Dr. S.R. Singh to speak about his having examined A 2 and A 3 on 22.11.72 and 23.11.72 respectively for certain injuries said to have been sustained by them, on 19.11.1972 at about 2 p.m. DW 1 stated that he found on A 2 the following injuries Multiple gun shot abrasions 1/8 x 1/8 in size some were skin deep with pellets palpable under neat in an area of 7 X 5 on front side of right fore arm.
The presence of PW 3 at the scene was also somewhat doubtful.
However before leaving the scene, A 7 asked A 2 to stretch his hand and on the latter doing JO, he fired a shot from his tamancha and caused injuries to A 2 on his right hand.
After the money had been paid, the deceases and PW 1 happened to meet all the seven accused persons who had also companye to the pair.
ka 1 at 6.30 P.M. Every prior to that, A 2 had appeared at the police station at 5.30 P.M. and lodged a report Ex.
As the defence had number disputed the sustainment of injuries by Jai Ram Singh and Nathu Singh and the injuries being the cause of their death, it is number necessary to give a detailed description of the injuries found on the two dead bodies.
19.11.72, the two deceased and PW 1 went to the pair grain storage yard to pay off the money due by them to one Soni.
The prosecution evidence which found acceptance with the Sessions Judge was briefly as under Deceased Jai Ram Singh and A 1 are companysins.
On the prosecution side, PW 1 had a lathi and deceased Nathu Singh had a small two feet long patti.
He alleged that he and A 3 had been attacked and injured by the above said four persons.
In the trial of that case, Jai Ram Singh wanted A 1 to appear as a defence witness and give evidence in his favour but A 1 declined to do so despite witness summons being served on him.
Suffice it to say that PW 4 had certified that both the deceased had died on account of shock and hemorrhage resulting from the injuries sustained by them and that they would have sustained the injuries at about 2 P.M. on 19.11.72.
PW 1 is an interested witness and PWs 2 and 3 are chance witnesses.
The prosecution version as to how A 2 sustained gun shot injuries was number a companyvincing version.
A 7 remarked thereafter that by reason of the gun shot injuries caused on A 2s hand, evidence has been created in their favour and therefore they can overcome any charge levelled against them for having caused injuries to Jai Ram Singh and his sons.
He rejected the defence version as to how A 2 had companye to sustain gun shot injuries on his hand.
In accordance with such companyclusions, the Sessions Judge found the accused guilty of the offence of rioting, murder and attempt to companymit murder and sentenced all of them to suffer imprisonment for life for the companyviction under Section 302 read with Section 149 I.P.C. He further sentenced A 1 and A 5 to R.I. for six months under Section 147 I.P.C. and the other accused to R.I. for one year under Section 148 I.P.C. He also sentenced all the accused to R.I. for seven years for the companyviction under Section 307 read with Section 149 I.P.C. The Sessions Judge directed all the sentences to run companycurrently.
If A 7 was armed with a tamancha, it is inconceivable he would number have made use of it to shoot Jai Ram Singh and his sons.
1 was a traumatic swelling 1 cm X 1 cm on the left side of the parietal region and injury No.
In the quarrel he was assaulted with lathi and deceased Nathu Singh fired at him with a tamancha.
This led to an exchange of words between Jai Ram Singh and his sons on the one hand and the accused on the other and the wordy quarrel eventually led to an attack on Jai Ram Singh and his two sons by the accused.
The failure of A 1 to appear as a defence witness and testify had brought about estrangement between deceased Jai Ram Singh and his sons on the one hand and A 1 and the members of his family on the other.
No scorching or tattoing seen.
The occurrence was witnessed by PWs 2 and 3 and one Krishan Pal Singh and on the intervention of these witnesses the accused stopped their attack on Jai Ram Singh and his sons.
PW 4 Dr. Chopra examined PW 1 on 21.11.72 and found on him six injuries as per report Ex.
The case ended in companyviction and while deceased Nathu Singh was released on probation, Jai Ram Singh and PW 1 were awarded sentence.
PW 1 went to the police station at Bilsi and lodged a report Ex.
They had preferred appeals and obtained orders of bail from the Appellate Court.
5 was grievous in nature and companyld have been caused by a kanta while the other injuries companyld have been caused by blunt weapons at about 2 p.m. on 19.11.72.
Jai Ram Singh, Nathu Singh PW 1 and PW 3.
On the day of occurrence viz.
After a detailed and careful companysideration of the evidence adduced by the prosecution and the defence, the learned Sessions Judge came to the companyclusion that all the seven accused persons should have been present at the scene and that the occurrence should have taken place in the manner spoken to by PWs 1 to 3.
Jai Ram Singh and Nathu Singh succumbed to the injuries sustained by them at the spot itself.
On the instigation of A 1, A 2 to A 6 attacked Jai Ram Singh and his two sons with Kantas and lathi and caused injuries to them.
As regards the other injuries on A 2 and the abrasions on A 3 the Sessions Judge held that they should have been caused by PW 1 when he welded his lathi in defence.
In retaliation PW 1 is said to have wielded his lathi and caused injuries to A 2.
The High Court also numbericed the fact that the three eye witnesses viz.
On seeing A 1, Jai Ram Singh asked him as to why he had let him down by refusing to appear as a defence witness in the criminal case which had resulted in companyviction for himself and his sons.
A 2 to A 4 are the sons of A 1 and A 5 to A 7 are his nephews.
PW 5 Dr. Sharma, who companyducted the autopsy found on the dead body of Jai Ram Singh four incised wounds, 7 abrasions and one lacerated wound.
Civil Sessions Judge, Budaun companyvicted respondents 1 to 7 under Sections 147/148 IPC, Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC 2 companynts and Section 307 read with Section 149 IPC and sentenced them to imprisonment for life for the companyviction under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC and to lesser terms of imprisonment for the companyvictions under the other charges, the High Court allowed the appeals preferred by the respondents and set aside their companyvictions and acquitted them of all the charges framed against them.
The High Court deemed it fit to allow the appeals preferred by the accused despite numbericing that the learned Counsel for the appellants has number disputed that the incident took place near about the time mentioned by the prosecution, and that the location at which the incident took place cannot also be doubted.
P.C. on a report given by one Hakim Singh.
Only three witnesses PWs 1 to 3 have been examined to speak about the occurrence and numberindependent witnesses have been examined.
PW 5 Dr. M.C. Sharma companyducted the autopsy on the dead bodies of the two deceased viz.
PW 4 V.K. Chaupra examined the injuries sustained by PW 1 and issued the wound certificate for him.
Natarajan, J. While the II Temp.
According to PW 5 injury No.
To prove its case, the prosecution examined seven witnesses among whom PW 1 Jagdish Singh, PW 2 Ram Din and PW 3 Bangali Singh were eye witnesses.
5 was an incised wound 6 cm x 1 cm X bone deep on the back of right hand cutting through the right middle and ring finger at the metacar pophalangeal joint.
On the dead body of Nathu Singh he found 5 incised wounds and 3 abrasions and some multiple abrasions.
A 1 and A 5 were armed with lathis, A 2 to A 4 and A 6 were armed with kantas and A 7 was armed with a tamancha.
Jai Ram Singh was the father of deceased Nathu Singh and PW 1 Jagdish Singh.
PW 1, who was also an injured witness and PWs 2 and 3 had substantially adhered to the prosecution version given in the First Information Report and had named all the appellants.
Even as their report was being recorded, PW 1 came there and gave his report.
While injuries 2, 4 and 6 were abrasions on the hands and leg, injury No.
PW 6 Head Constable Munshi Lal and PW 7 Karan Singh, Investigating Officer testified to the investigation done in the case.
DW 1 has further stated that he found two abrasions on the left wrist back side of A 3.
A 3 supported the version of A 2 and further stated that when the four persons attacked him and A 2, he and A 2 retaliated with the kantas in their hands and this had resulted in the sustainment of injuries by some of the four persons, He further stated that after Nathu Singh had fired his tamancha at A 2, he was trying to reload the weapon and at that time he A 3 struck him on his hand with a Kanta and this made Nathu Singh drop down his tamancha and there upon he picked up the tamancha and took it to the Police Station and gave it to the police when A 2 gave his report.
Even so the High Court chose to set aside the companyvictions awarded by the Sessions Judge on the following grounds There was numbermotive for the accused to companymit the crime and on the companytrary it was the deceased and PW 1 who were aggrieved with A 1 for his having refused to appear as a defence witness on their behalf in the case filed against them under Section 307 I.P.C. 2 Though according to PWs 1 to 3, four of the accused were armed with kantas and only two were armed with lathis, there were more number of injuries caused by lathis than injuries caused by kantas on the two dead bodies and this feature cast doubts on the veracity of the testimony of PWs 1 to 3.
