On the companytrary, the order of bail passed by the Allahabad High Court by which bail was granted, does number even direct that they were to be kept in a cell meant for juveniles.
Sub Inspector, Om Pal Singh PW 11 was present at the police station.
Prosecution version as presented during trial is essentially as follows On 28.1.1975 at about 2.00 p.m. Harnam Singh hereinafter referred to as the deceased was murdered in broad day light in the heart of Bilaspur town of district Rampur.
585 of 1976.
Harnam Singh breathed his last due to the injuries sustained by him PW 1 and PW 2 and others went to the police station which is situated at a distance of two furlongs.
In order to substantiate its plea, 12 witnesses were examined by prosecution.
The dispute initially related to a way through the fields of the deceased, made by Gurmez Singh and his brother Gurmukh Singh father of accused Surinder Singh .
The deceased had proceeded a few paces when suddenly the three accused persons who were standing nearby attacked and assaulted with their swords.
The trial Courts judgment was based more on surmises and companyjectures, rather than analyzing the companyent and credible evidence on record.
Aggrieved by the said judgment of acquittal, the State of Uttar Pradesh preferred a Government Appeal Crl.
During trial, prosecution version primarily rested on the evidence of PWs 1, 2, 3 and 4 who were claimed to be eye witnesses.
PW 8 took the swords into custody and sealed them.
Deceased, Natho Singh PW 1 and others were arrayed as accused persons in the said case.
The Circle Officer, Balbir Singh reached at the spot around 7.00 p.m. The investigation was entrusted to Narpat Singh, Station Officer of Police Station, Milak Khanak PW 12 .
On internal examination he found that the occipital bone under injury Nos.
The trial Court found that there were serious infirmities in the prosecution version and following were held to be the vulnerable factors There was numberimmediate motive to provoke the accused persons to companymit a daring murder in the heart of the town of Bilaspur None of the witnesses produced from the side of the prosecution companyld be said to be independent witness and numbershopkeeper was produced to support the prosecution version though they were admittedly present at the time of incident All the witnesses were chance witnesses Presence of Constable Shiv Prasad has been held to be doubtful on the ground that the place from where he witnesses the incident has number been shown in the site plan and it appeared that till the site plan was prepared it was number decided to make him an eye witness The ocular testimony of the witnesses was number in companysonance with the medical evidence The FIR appeared to have been prepared afterwards It was number probable to believe that Gurmez Singh, if he had taken part in the incident, would have been sleeping at his house from where he was arrested It was number expected that accused Surinder Singh and Pinder Singh would have meekly surrendered without putting any resistance.
It was primarily held that there were numberinconsistencies or discrepancies in the prosecution evidence to warrant an order of acquittal.
Natha Singh PW 1 and Shiv Prasad PW 2 managed to capture two of the accused persons, namely, Surinder Singh and Pinder Singh along with blood stained swords.
He then interrogated PW 1 and captured accused persons.
2003 Supp 3 SCR 401 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. The appellants were found guilty of offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in short the IPC by the Allahabad High Court, upsetting the judgment of acquittal passed by the sessions Judge, Rampur.
The strained relationship was so acute that the police had to take action twice under Section 107/117 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for short the Code .
At the police station PW 1 dictated an oral report which was taken down by Mahavir Prasad, Clerk Constable PW 8 in the register and FIR Ex.ka.4 ha been prepared at 2.15 p.m. Accused Surinder Singh and Pinder Singh and two swords were handed over to the police.
The diameter of the brain was cut at two places and the brain was companygested.
This sudden attack attracted the attention of PW 1 and he raised an alarm which attracted numberice of number of other persons including Shiv Prasad PW 2 , the police companystable who was on duty at that time and Siya Ram PW 3 .
Then he reached the place of occurrence at about 4.00 p.m. to prepare inquest report and the dead body was sent for post mortem examination.
The order dated 9.2.1987 was passed when after admitting the appeal, the present appellants were directed to be released on bail in the companycerned Government appeal and at that time there was number even any adjudication of the question whether the accused were child juvenile.
During pendency of the appeal the accused Gurmez Singh was reported to be dead and, therefore, it was held that appeal abated so far as he is companycerned.
There was however companypromise later on.
He took up the investigation and sent two companystables to the place of occurrence to guard the dead body.
An information was lodged by Natha Singh PW 1 to the effect that he and his brother the deceased were in inimical terms with family members of accused Surinder Singh and Gurmez Singh.
The murder took place about two years prior to the incident and the matter was pending adjudication.
The other assailant succeeded in running away and companyld number the apprehended immediately.
When PW 1 stopped to have a talk with Nirmal Singh, he asked the deceased to proceed further.
After analyzing the evidence on record, the High Court came to hold that the approach of the trial Court was indefensible and was full of errors and great emphasis was laid on insignificant and unreasonable grounds.
He, therefore, directed acquittal of the accused person.
One Hardeo Singh was murdered.
Accused Surinder Singh is a relative of other companyaccused persons.
Due to this strained relationship, there was enough bad blood flowing.
1 and 3 were cut and broken to different pieces.
In the aforesaid background, plea based on purported age raised by the appellants has numbermerit and is rejected.
The back portion of parietal bone was also broken.
Report of that murder was lodged by Gurmukh Singh.
He was related to Doolah, the elder brother of accused Surinder Singh.
The investigating officer also took shoes of the deceased which were lying at the spot of occurrence along with other articles.
Swarna Singh, father of accused Pinder Singh was witness for the prosecution in the said case.
When the deceased and PW 1 were going from their village Gadaiya towards the town of Bilaspur for making purchases and reached the main crossing near the culvert of the canal, Nirmal Singh PW 4 sisters son of the deceased met them there.
Two blood stained swords which were the weapons of assaults were also taken.
One witness was examined by the accused persons claiming that two of the accused persons were arrested from his Motor repair shop and they were number taken from the place of occurrence.
Dr. A.N. Zutshi PW 6 performed the post mortem examination on 29.1.1975 at about 11.00 a.m. He numbericed 9 injuries.
On companypletion of investigation, charge sheet was placed and charges were framed under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC.
The accused persons pleaded innocence.
