On receiving the blow Ramakant fell down near the mango tree bleeding profusely.
In its opinion, this fact had been suppressed because the fard biyan had number been recorded till then.
While the view taken by the High Court is also a possible view.
The State carried an appeal against that order of acquittal to the High Court of Patna.
Before the High Court it was companytended by the defence that the prosecution story, that 12 persons surged ahead from a mob of 250 or 300 persons, shouting to kill Ramakant, was a subsequent improvement, as it did number find mention in the First Information Report.
The evidence of the eye witnesses P. Ws.
That report is companyspicuous by the number mention of the name of any accused.
The very fact that the assault on the deceased did number take place within the sight of these two officers, indicates that it had taken place in some other manner iv At the trial, all the eye witnesses except P. Ws.
When it was pointed out that the evidence of P. Ws.
At the trial, Bhagirath denied the prosecution allegations against him and alleged false implication by Ram Sarup and other P. Ws.,
The trial companyrt examined the evidence in detail and found it unworthy of credit.
Ram Swarup P.W. 13 removed the dead body with the help of the P.W. 12 towards the South of Thakurbari, about 12 laggas 35 yards away, as they feared that the mob might try to carry it away.
There was great force in this reasoning.
21 and 22 were responsible Government servants who were at the spot on official duty.
21 and 22 inasmuch as they had stated that in their presence, numberclash between two mobs took place and that the mob had been successfully dispersed by them before the occurrence.
21 and 22 were made incharge to maintain law and order during the election.
11 and 13 have suppressed the fact that the Block Development Officer had seen, pacified or dispersed any mob, although before the Police four of them, namely P. Ws.
5, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 claimed to be eye witnesses of the occurrence.
Further, the High Court doubted the evidence of P. Ws.
He removed blood stained earth from two places, one from near the mango tree and the other from the place where the dead body lay towards the south of Thakurbari vide seizure memo Ex.
The occurrence took place at about 4 P. M. The Fard Beyan, Ex.
It characterised this version as highly improbable and against human companyduct.
Dr. Rajendra Prasad, P.W. 17, who companyducted the autopsy, found only one injury on the deceased.
12, is alleged to have been written at 5 P. M. It was number written at the very spot but in the secrecy of the School.
The High Court companycluded that even if the prosecution case with regard to all the 12 accused persons charging at Ramakant, crying for his blood, is disbelieved, then also their entire evidence companyld number be rejected by applying the maxim falsus in una falsus in omnibus.
The death, in the opinion of the Doctor, was due to haemorrhage and might have occurred within 10 minutes of receiving the injury.
9 the Block Development Officer PW 21 had number mentioned Bhagirath as the assailant of Ramakant, though he claims to have learnt before writing the report that Bhagirath was being denounced as the culprit.
About 15 or 30 minutes thereafter Parmanand Thakur, Block Development Officer P.W. 21 and Police Sub Inspector Shyam Dev Singh P.W. 22 who were there to maintain peace at the election, reached the spot.
750/ to Bhagirath which he had taken as loan on the basis of a handnote.
The inference is that he failed to name the assailant of Ramakant because upto that time the prosecution case had number taken shape and he was number sure as to who was the assailant of the deceased.
5, 9 to 13, then P. Ws.
The prosecution never said that the witnesses had turned hostile.
Ramsarup P.W. 13, the star witness of the prosecution had a possible motive to falsely implicate Bhagirath.
The deceased and the eye witnesses all belonged to Baba Ghar family while the accused, including Bhagirath, belonged to Tinkhuti family The evidence of all the eye witnesses disclosed a suspicious uniformity and appears to be mechanical.
He had companye to the village to maintain law and order at the polling.
In such circumstances, it is natural that they would try to minimise about any untoward happenings in the election.
They also had a hostile animus against Bhagiraths companyaccused.
5, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13, was that it stood substantially companytradicted by the evidence of P. Ws.
750/ which Ramsarup Singh had taken from him on the foot of a promissory numbere.
who, according to him, were all Gothias of Ram Sarup Singh.
In his report which he wrote on returning to the School building P.W. 21 did number mention as to who had assaulted or attempted to assault Ramakant.
According to P.W. 21 there were two mobs, one 200 to 300 strong advancing rapidly from the numberthern side towards the trees east of Thakurbari and another mob of about 50 to 60 strong facing South.
5, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 , according to the High Court in so far as the infliction of the injury on the deceased with saif was companycerned was acceptable, as it had been companyroborated by the evidence of the Doctor who had performed the post mortem examination of the body of Ramakant.
At the trial, the prosecution examined 22 witnesses out of whom PWs.
Bidyapati and Navalkishore on the polling day took their lunch together and were also moving round in a Jeep together with Bhagirath appellant, appealing with folded hands to the people to maintain the peace.
As already numbericed, one of the main reasons given by the trial Judge for disbelieving the story propounded by the eye witnesses, PWs.
It further surmised that there was numberhing improbable that the appellant along with 11 others by outflanking the bigger mob went and killed Ramakant.
P. 1 in the presence of Ramsagar, P.W. 7, Mahendra Prasad, P.W. 8, and others.
Shyamdev Singh P.W. 22 then took Ramsarup Singh, P.W. 13, into the School building and there recorded his statement Fardbeyan Ex.
In support of this companyclusion it referred to P.W. 22 who had stated in cross examination that the usual practice was to write the diary after the recording of the fardbiyan.
On the other hand, P. Ws.
In saying so, the High Court was number on firm ground, but in the realm of companyjectures.
The prosecution story so far as it can be gathered from somewhat discordant material on record, is that on June 17, 1965, a poll was being held in village Rahatpur for election to the office of Mukhia of Sadanand Gram Panchayat.
The polling started at 8.00 a.m. and closed at 4 p.m. Soon after the close of the polling, a mob of 250 300 armed with lathis, Bhalas, Pharsas and Saifs was seen companying from the numberthern side towards the Rahatpur Thakurbari a temple which is situated on the South East of the school, A group of twelve persons out of the mob surged ahead yelling that Ramakant was the mischief monger and should be dealt with.
21 and 22 runs companynter to the story told by other eye witnesses, the High Court tried to overcome this difficulty by resorting to speculation.
One of the polling booths was located in the eastern most room of the school building at Rahatpur.
It was a sharp cut penetrating wound, 1 x 1/3 x muscle deep, on the front of the right thigh two inches below the mid inguinal point.
The High Court tried to discount this by saying that P. Ws.
Ramakant deceased was a supporter of Navalkishore while the appellant was an election worker of Vidyapati Singh.
It did number accept the testimony of P.W. 22 that the rival candidates and others had taken their lunch together on the day of the poll, at the house of Naval Kishore Singh.
1/1 and sent the dead body in the jeep of Naval Kishore Singh to Bagu Sarai Hospital.
He further stated that Ram Sarup Singh was inimical towards him because he was pressing for repayment of a loan of Rs.
It observed It is admitted case of the parties that they P. Ws.
It did number accept the sworn word of the Investigating Officer, P.W. 22 that on the date of the poll, he had seen Vidyapati Singh candidate , Bhagirath appellant and other persons going about in a jeep, requesting people with folded hands number to disturb the peace.
It imagined that Ramakant was killed prior to the pacification of the mob by P. Ws.
They never cross examined them to impeach their credit.
The High Court did number attach any importance to the version of P. Ws.
21 and 22.
The companytention was rejected.
21 and 22, that when they went to the spot where the dead body lay, the P. Ws.
12 6 1965 Ramdev accused had brought a criminal case against Ram Sarup PW and his son, following a boundary dispute Ram Kishan accused had brought an arson case against Ramsarup As admitted by P.W. 10, the Bahans of the village were divided into two families.
The appellant was the spearhead of that group.
The body reached the Hospital at 5.00 p. m. The Medical Officer PF 17 sent information about its arrival to Begu Sarai Police Station.
These numerous tears companyld number have been caused by a single trust of the weapon which caused the fatal injury.
The companyduct of Ram Sarup and his companypanion witnesses in number denouncing Bhagirath as the assailant, before P. Ws.
Similarly, numberimportance was attached to the omission in the F.I.R. that out of the 12 persons in the mob, crying for the blood of Ramakant, one, namely, Bhagirath darted out and attacked the deceased.
21 and 22.
These witnesses purposely changed their previous statements f all the eye witnesses have suppressed the fact that a mob of 50 or 60 strong was poised for a clash with the bigger mob of 300 strong v It companyld number be said that these eye witnesses had numbermotive to falsely implicate the accused because Ramsarup Singh had borrowed money from Bhagirath on the basis of a hand note and it is probable that he was annoyed with Bhagirath because of the demands for repayment of the same.
If the murder of Ramakant had been companymitted by a person out of the mob, it companyld number escape the numberice of PWs.
P.W. 21 said that he omitted these facts from his report because he thought it was number necessary.
Therefore there was absolutely numberoccasion, cause or, motive, for a mob to companylect and for the 12 accused to join hands to, kill Ramakant, even if the latter had canvassed for Navalkishore Singh b If as the prosecution story goes all the 12 accused armed with lethal weapons, crying for the blood of Ramakant, had rushed together to attack him, there should have been more than one injury on the deceased ii There were multiple tears, besides a rent companyresponding to the size of the wound, in the Dhoti of the deceased.
The assailant then re joined the big mob which retreated towards the Darwaja of the appellant raising a Hulla.
Bhagirath had instituted a criminal case in the Sadanandpur Gram Kutchery against P.W. Ramsarup Singh on.
As a result as deposed to by the Presiding Officer, P.W. 16 and P.W. 21, the polling was throughout peaceful.
Inquest Report Ex.
This is numberexplanation.
Ramadya Singh P.W. 5 , Bindeshwari Singh P.W. 9 , Ramlakhan Singh P.W. 10 , Gumju Singh P.W. 11 , Rameshwar Singh P.W. 12 and others, who were witnessing the occurrence went close to the deceased and found him dead.
21 and 22.
21 and 22 came to the place.
Vidyapati Singh of village Rahatpur and Naval Kishore Singh of Village Sadanandpur were the rival candidates at the election.
The other eye witnesses were also of a similar brand.
Hence this appeal by him.
Village Rahatpur was within the jurisdiction of that Panchayat.
Thereupon Sub Inspector Raj Narain, P.W. 2, came to the Hospital and prepared another?
Others in the mob shouted that Ramakant was dead.
21 and 22, at the spot, also leads to the same inference.
iii The prosecution case that the mob came from the numberth east and Bhagirath out of the mob rushed at Ramakant and gave him the fatal blow, is rendered highly doubtful, if number incredible, by the evidence of the Block Development Officer P.W. 21 and Shyam Deo Singh P.W. 22 .
P. Ws.
These two officers rushed towards the mobs and were successful in pacifying and dispersing the same.
though present, did number, there and then, tell these officers about the name of the assailant.
Ram Sarup wants to have it believed that it was about half an hour after the occurrence that P. Ws.
After companysidering and weighing the reasons, summarised above, given by the trial companyrt and the High Court in support of their respective orders, we are of opinion that this was a case in which the High Court should number have, in keeping with the settled rule of practice, interfered with the order of acquittal.
The High Court has dealt with these reasons and tried to dispel them.
He rushed towards Ramakant and struck him with the saif in the inguinal region on the right side.
21 and 22 had suppressed the truth and that the 12 accused might have broken away from the mob, and by outflanking the bigger mob went and killed Ramakant.
P. 12 and sent it to police station Balliya for registration of the case, P.W. 22 then returned to the scene of occurrence and prepared the Inquest Report Ex.
5, 9 to 13 were, as rightly pointed out by the trial Court, all highly interested witnesses.
None of the eye witnesses denounced Bhagirath as the assailant of Ramakant when the Block Development Officer and the Investigating Officer reached the spot about 15 or 30 minutes after the occurrence.
If the occurrence had taken place in the manner deposed to by P. Ws.
The High Court did number reject the defence plea that Ramsarup P.W. 13, owed Rs.
Some of the reasons given by the trial companyrt are difficult to dispel.
21 and 22 also should have been eye witnesses of the fatal assault but their version is that numbersuch assault took place in their sight and presence.
The defence suggestion was that numbere of the six eye witnesses examined by the prosecution had seen the assault on the deceased, who had received that injury in a sporadic quarrel with some person after a scuffle.
They were disinterested and independent witnesses.
But, in its opinion, this circumstance did number furnish a motive for false implication of Bhagirath by Ramsarup P.W. 13 , because Bhagirath would number have demanded repayment of loan only six months after its advance and even if it was demanded it was highly improbable that P.W. 13 instead of being obliged after receiving the loan, would have falsely implicated the respondent Bhagirath .
The formal F.I.R. is said to have been registered in the Police Station at 8 P. M. The F.I.R. therefore was number a spontaneous report.
5, 9, 10 and 12, had stated that after the occurrence the accused joined the main mob and raised Hulla and then the Block Development Officer along with the military police pacified the mob and prevented further incident.
They were acquitted.
S. Sarkaria, J. Bhagirath Singh aged 46 years, and 11 others of village Rahatpur were tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, Monghyr under Sections 302, 302 read with 149 and 148, Penal Code.
Even so, Ram Sarup or his companypanion witnesses, though present, did number denounce Bhagirath as the assailant before those Officers at the spot, number told them how the occurrence took place.
In the meantime, Shyam Dev Singh PW 22, companyducted the investigation at the spot.
He was armed with a saif.
The inner half of the femoral artery and the outer three fourth of the femoral vein and the pestiferous muscles were found cut.
The reason given for ignoring these obvious improvements was that the version of the eye witnesses, at the trial, was companysistent on this point, When it was urged on behalf of the accused that numbermotive to single out Ramakant for the assault had been established, the High Court brushed it aside with the observation that it is well established that the motive loses its importance when there is positive evidence on the record.
The main reasons given by the trial companyrt for holding these witnesses to be unreliable were these i The story propounded by these witnesses that all the twelve accused were shouting that Ramakant should be killed as he was the real mischief monger was highly improbable because a The rival candidates.
