The High Court accepted her evidence as regards Samai Pal Singh A 1 being assailant on the ground that he being her brother she companyld recognised hm in the dim light.
The High Court allowed the criminal appeals of A 2, A 3 and A 4 and acquitted them of all the charges.
Babu Ram P.W.2 and Om Pal.
Consequently his evidence about raising an alarm and therefore reaching at the place of occurrence was also rendered doubtful.
It is well settled that this Court would be slow to interfere with the order of acquittal passed by the High Court unless it is shown that the view taken by the High Court is totally unreasonable and companytrary to the evidence on record.
The net result, therefore, is that these appeal survive only against respondent Nos.
We do number agree with these companytentions.
All these persons came near the house of Bramha Pal Singh P.W.4 and raised the alarm.
She had identified A 1 to A 3 as assailants and her evidence stood companyroborated from the evidence of Vikram Singh P.W.1 and Babu Ram P.W.2 who had identified A 1 to A 4.
The High Court observed If it had been agreed between him and Vikram Singh that they would take their Buggies to the mill he would number have taken his Buggi of sugarcane to the crusher, because there is better payment made for the sugarcane at mills and then if it was agreed between Bramha Singh and his brother that they would go together with their sugarcane therefore before going to the crusher Bramha Singh was bound to have informed his brother Vikram singh that he would number go to the mills and was going to the crusher.
In addition to the above evidence the prosecution also placed reliance on the recovery of certain incriminating articles at the instance of the accused persons.
The criminal appeal filed these accused were allowed and Reference came to be rejected.
Accordingly Vikram Singh P.W.1 and Kirat Pal Singh came to the house of Bramha Pal Singh P.W.4 at about 3.30 or 4.00 a.m. when they heard the shrikes companying from inside the house of Bramha Pal Singh P.W.4 .
Bearing in mind this principle we have very carefully scrutinized the evidence of Km.
The High Court heard the Reference as well as the criminal appeals filed by A 1 to A 4 and on reconsideration of the evidence of Km.
The present appeals by Social Leave are filed by the appellant companyplainant .
Bramha Pal Singh P.W.4 had two wives.
We heard learned companynsel for the parties at great length and perused the judgments of the companyrts below as well as the oral and documentary evidence on record.
Samai Pal Singh A 1 had a Table and a torch, Raj Singh A 2 had a Pharsa.
The first given by the High Court is that the evidence of Vikram Singh P.W.1 is inconsistent with that of Bramha Pal Singh P.W.4 when he testified that they were to go together to sell their sugarcane to the sugar mill.
They identified A 2 in the light of the lantern that was companying from the door.
Mukesh P.W.3 , Vikram Singh P.W.1 Babu Ram P.W.2 and Bramha Pal singh W.4 .
4 is the State of U.P. During the pendency of these appeal Rampal Singh A 3 was reporters to be dead the appeal abated against him.
1 and 3 who were accused Nos.2 and 4 before the trial companyrt.
Mukesh P.W.3 each of the accuse was sentenced to suffer RI for ten years.
SI Suraj Singh P.W.7 reached the place of occurrence and companymenced the investigation.
Mukesh P.W.3 and accordingly companyvicted them under Sections 302/34 and 307/34 IPC and awarded capital punishment to each one of them on first companynt and 10 years RI on second companynt and made a Reference under Section 336 Cr.
It was, therefore, duties reasonable to accept the evidence of K. Mukesh P.W.3 when she testified that the lantern was burning in the house.
Rampal Singh A 3 and two unicentified persons in respect of this crime.
At the trial the prosecution examined as many as twelve witnesses of whom Km.
Mukesh P.W.3 companyld identify these two accused persons.
The evidence of joint cultivation by A 1 with A 2 was also number accepted by the High Court.
The Reference and the appeal were heard together and the High Court by its judgment and order dated May 26, 1983 accepted the Reference in respect of Samai Pal Singh A 1 and dismissed his criminal appeal but however, rejected the Reference in respect of Raj Singh A 2 , Rampal Singh A 3 and Lal Singh A 4 .
Vikram Singh P.W.1 after seeing the ghastly murders of seven persons lodged the companyplaint at Nowana Police Station on 20.2.1981 at about 8.30 against Samai Pal Singh A 1 , Raj Singh A 2 and Rampal Singh A 3 but however, companyld number name the other two accused persons who had fled away.
The appellant companyplainant has filed these criminal appeal against Raj Singh A 2 , Rampal Singh A 3 and Lal Singh A 4 who are respondent Nos.
Mukesh in her evidence had stated that she identified Samai Pal Singh A 1 and Raj Singh A 2 in the dim light.
Bramha Pal Singh P.W.4 and his brother Vikram Singh W.1 at the time of occurrence had grown sugarcane crook in their agriculture lands and on 19.2.1981 these two brothers had decided to sell the same to the Mawana sugar mill.
the daughter of Bramha Pal Singh P.W.4 who had sustained incised injuries was found under the company.
Seeso, the sister of Bramha Pal Singh P.W.4 had companye to his house for her delivery and she had given birth to a female child three days prior to the occurrence.
But numbersuch information was given to Vikram Singh.
The miscreants who were inside the house came out and started running away when they came to be identified.
The improvements made by the these two witnesses in this behalf were significant and, therefore, it would number be safe to accept their evidence as credible as regards the identify of A 2 and A 4.
1 to 3 in these appeals.
Mukesh was companyroborated by Vikram Singh P.W.1 and Babu Ram P.W.2 who had stated that they saw A 2 companying out of the house on 20.2.1982 at about 4.00 a.m. and thereafter he fled away.
Mukesh P.W.3 .
It was companytended on behalf of respondents that it was impossible for Km.
The presence of these two witnesses PW.1 Vikram Singh and PW.2 Babu Ram at the spot is.
She told the details about the incident.
The 4th accused companyld number be identified.
It is because of this Km.
Inspite of the prearrangement it is said that Bramha Singh went to the crusher which would indicate that it was number agreed between these two brothers that they would take their Buggis together to the mills and if it was number a greed that both of them would take their Buggis together then there was numberreason for Vikram Singh to companye to the house of Bramha Singh at 4 A.M. in the morning.
Secondly, while discarding the evidence of Km.
After companypleting the investigation a charge sheet came to be filed against the fourth accused persons for the offences punishable under Section 302/34 and 307/34 IPC for companymitting the murders of seven persons and attempt to companymit the murder of Km.
Accordingly, they loaded the sugarcane in their Buggies and decided to start early in the morning on the next day.
These deceased persons belonged to the family of Bramha Pal Singh P.W.4 .
P.C. The companydemned prisoners also filed the appeals to the High Court against the judgment and order of the trial companyrt challenging their companyvector and sentences.
Mukesh W.3 .
Samai Pal Singh A 1 was born from his first wife and from second wife he got four sons and three daughters.
P.C. to the High Court.
THE 21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER, 1997 Present Honble Mr. Justice G.T.Nanavati Honble Mr. Justice S.P.Kurdukar P.Rana, Sr.
As regards the identification of A 2 and A 4 by Vikram Singh P.W.1 and Babu Ram P.W.2 the Court held that there was numbermention in the FIR about the availability of light.
Vikram Singh P.W.1 and Babu Ram P.W.2 found it trustworthy as regards A 1 and companysequently accepted the Reference and dismissed the appeal filed by him.
Vikram Singh, Babu Ram and others who had gathered there then entered into the house of Bramha Pal Singh P.W.4 and numbericed that five children of Bramha Pal Singh P.W.4 were done to death.
They raised an alarm which attracted Bhanwar Singh.
Mukesh W.3 on the question of identity of A 2 and A 4, the High Court held that although her presence in the house companyld number be disputed because she had substained injuries on her person but their dim light of that lantern which was burning in the house was doubtful.
Mukesh W.3 .
therefore, greatly doubtful.
Ram Pal Singh A 3 has a Balkati.
Mukesh of Raj singh A 2 was highly doubtful.
After recording the FIR.
Sukhbiri, the wife of Bramha Pal Singh and Smt.
A.K.Gupta, Rajesh, Advs.
The High Court did number accept the evidence of Vikram Pal Singh P.W.1 as he had numberreason to go to the house of Bramha Pal Singh P.W.4 and, therefore, his assertion that he had Kirat Pal Singh went there was rendered doubtful.
Vidya Dhar Gaur, Adv.
for the State.
Seeso, the sister of Eramha Pal Singh P.W.4 were also killed.
The trial companyrt then made a Reference to the High Court under Section 366 Cr.
Kirat Pal Singh was number examined by the prosecution and, therefore, the claim of Babu Ram W.2 having companye to the place of occurrence companyld number be accepted.
On the companyclusion of the trial the Sessions companyrt accepted the evidence of Km.
In view of these facts the identification by Km.
All the miscreants then fled away.
This omission was brought on record by the defence.
Mukesh P.W.3 was an eye witness whereas Vikram Singh P.W.1 and Babu Ram P.W.2 had identified the assailants when they came out of the house of Bramha Pal Singh P.W.4 and were running away.
The trial companyrt found them guilty on both companynts and awarded death sentence to A 1 to A 4 for an offence punishable under Section 302/34 IPC and for an offence causing injuries to Km.
The High Court, therefore, gave the benefit of doubt to A 2 and A 4 and acquitted them of all the charges.
She also stated about the weapons carried of the same village and Samai Pal Singh had good equation with him.
If Vikram Singh had numberreason to go to the house of the Bramha Singh early in that morning he companyld number have raised any alarm on which P.W.2 Babu Ram reached the spot.
Samai Pal Singh A 1 was insisting that he should be given 1/2 shared in the property, however, Bramha Pal Singh P.W.4 gave him as his share 7 1/2 bighas of agriculture land and 1/3rd share in his residential house.
Mukesh P.W.3 as credible despite the fact she was a minor.
Mukesh P.W.3 to identify Raj Singh A 2 in such a dim light and that the investigating officer had number seized the lantern during investigation.
Samai Pal Singh A 1 was number at all satisfied with this partition and according to the prosecution there used to be quarrels between him and Bramha Pal Singh P.W.4 and his other family members.
As regards A 2 to A 4 the High Court, however did number accept the evidence of these three witnesses as companyclusive on the question of identification and resultantly acquitted them of all charges.
J U D G M E N T The following Judgment of the Court was delivered P. KURDUKAR, J. Seven persons were done to death during the night intervening between 19th and 20th February, 1981 in the house of Bramha Pal Singh P.W.4 and also caused assault on Km.
with him for the Respondent No.3 S.Pundir and T.N.Sing, Advs.
It has companye on record that Smt.
The evidence of Km.
We may first set out the reasons for acquittal rendered by the High Court.
These four accuses persons were tried for offences punishable under Section 302/34 and 307/34 IPC.
The accused persons denied the allegations levelled against them and pleaded that they have been falsely implicated in the present crime and they be acquitted.
Consistent with these findings the trial companyrt found A 1 to A 4 guilty of companymitting the murders of seven persons and causing injuries to Km.
Bramha Pal Singh P.W 4 companytradicted this fact.
In our companysidered view the impugner judgment is unsustainable against A 2 and A 4.
Girish Chandra, Adv.
wit him for the appellant.
for Respondent No.1 P.Goyal, Sr.
Mukesh P.W.3 .
The respondent No.
The High Court disbelieved their evidence as regards mediation by A 2 with Bramha Pal Singh W.4 for giving larger share to A 1.
The appellant companyplainant Vikram Singh P.W.1 , who is the brother of Bramha Pal Singh P.W.4 lodged the FIR at Nowana Police Station on 20.2.1981 at about 8.30 a.m. against Samai Pal Singh A 1 , Raj Singh A 2 .
