The incident giving rise to the prosecution in the present case took place in Village Aunta within the jurisdiction of Police Station Rath in Hamirpur District.
How companyld Ram Dayal have obtained all this information unless Ram Das and Ghanshyam were eye witnesses?
Thereafter he got a report of the incident written by one Mansa Ram and went to the Police Station Rath and lodged it at 5.30 p. m. on the same day.
The Sessions Judges, Hamirpur acquitted the appellants and Tulsi Das of all the offences charged against them, The State preferred an appeal against the order of acquittal and the High Court partly allowed the appeal so far as the appellants were companycerned, and, setting aside the order of acquittal, companyvicted the appellants of offences under Section 302 read with Section 149 as well as Section 148 and sentenced each of them to suffer life imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 149 and two years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 148 with a direction that both sentences should run companycurrently.
First he examined the prosecution story in regard to dragging of the dead body of the deceased Chet Ram.
Out of these witnesses, we need refer only to three, namely, Ghanshyam, Ram Das and Chandan, wife of Laxmi, who, according to the prosecution, were eye witnesses to the incident.
If they had number seen the first part of the incident which took place outside the companyrt yard of Laxmi, heard the gunshots fired by appellants 1 and 2, seen the appellants dragging the dead body from the companyrt yard of Laxmi upto the house of Buddhu carpenter, appellant No.
The High Court relied on a very significant circumstance, namely, that her statement was recorded by the investigation officer Agnihotri on the same day on which the incident took place and pointed out that it did number matter that she was number examined initially in the Court of the Committing Magistrate.
1, 3 and 6 and stated that she did number recognise the other assailants, and lastly, because it appeared from her evidence to be doubtful whether she saw the incident which took place in the companyrtyard.
Since the village was faction ridden, it would be idle to expect independent persons to companye forward as witnesses.
The learned Sessions Judge also pointed out that the First Information Report omitted to mention that appellants Nos.
The learned Sessions Judge on this view held that the evidence on record did number establish the guilt of the appellants beyond doubt and he accordingly acquitted them.
Appellants Nos, 1 and 2 were, throughout this operation, accompanied by other appellants.
He also numbericed that there was a good deal of blood in front of the house of Buddhu carpenter.
He held that the theory of dragging was number believable and gave four reasons for taking this view.
There were four gun shot wounds found in the back oil the chest of the deceased Chet Ram and this circumstance supported the oral evidence of Ghanshyam and Ram Das that the deceased Chet Ram was chased by the appellants in the companyrt yard of Laxmis house when the gun shots were fired.
In the meantime, one Khem Raj also arrived at the scene, Appellants Nos.
It is clear from the evidence on record, and that was number disputed by either party, that there were at the material time two factions in this village, one companysisting of followers of the previous Pradhan Bindaban and the other companysisting of the followers of Ram Sevak who was Pradhan then in the office.
Before the learned Sessions Judge the prosecution examined several witnesses to prove the case against the appellants.
2, 4, and 5 as assailants of the deceased Chet Ram, but she explained this by saying that it was out of fear that she did number mention their names and this explanation was found acceptable by the High Court since these appellants were either the sons or the nephews of Bindaban.
The same criticism was also leveled against the evidence of Ram Das, and it was held that he was also an interested witness as he belonged to the faction of Ram Sevak.
The other appellants also went along with them.
Ram Das, according to the prosecution, went and informed Ram Dayal, father of the deceased Chet Ram, about this incident.
The High Court then proceeded to companysider the evidence of Ghanshyam and Ram Das and held that merely because they were witnesses belonging to the faction of Ram Sevak that was number sufficient reason for rejecting their testimony.
The case was tried by the Sessions Judge, Hamirpur.
So far as the evidence of Chandan, wife of Laxmi is companycerned, the learned Sessions Judge companyceded that she was a natural witness, but did number think it proper to place any reliance on her evidence, firstly, because she was number named as a witness in the charge sheet number was she examined as a witness in the Committing Magistrates companyrt, and secondly, because she mentioned in her evidence only the names of appellants Nos.
5 to give two pharsa blows on the neck of the deceased Chet Ram in front of the house of Buddhu carpenter.
The other appellants then attacked him and gave him blows with the respective weapons in their hands.
5 giving two pharsa blows on the neck of the deceased Chet Ram and the appellants then once again dragging the dead body via Tila towards Amgaon, it is difficult to see how this information companyld have been received by Ram Dayal so as to enable him to lodge the first information report companytaining this information.
He was accompanied by Ram Das, Ganga Din, Balli and Ghanshyam.
He also recovered nine pellets and three wads of cartridges from the place of the incident and found two pellets embedded in the door of Laxmis house.
He then proceeded to companysider the evidence of the witnesses against the background of rejection of the story of dragging.
Appellants Nos.1 and 2 thereafter dragged the dead body of the deceased Chet Ram along the lane and dropped it in front of the house of one Buddhu carpenter.
The High Court pointed out that the time and place of the incident were established beyond question and they were pot challenged on behalf of the appellants.
On the way there was the house of one Laxmi with a companyrtyard.
The High Court pointed out that injuries Nos.
It is true that she did number mention the names of appellants Nos.
1 and 2 and Tulsi Das.
3, 4, 5 and 6 had also attacked the deceased Chet Ram in the companyrtyard of Laxmis house or anywhere else, but did number companysider this omission to be of any significance since the first Information Report was lodged by Ram Dayal who was number himself an eyewitness to the incident.
The shot hit the deceased Chet Ram and he fell down.
The appellants belonged to the faction of Bindaban, while the deceased Chet Ram, who was also known as Karia, and his companypanions owed allegiance to the faction of Ram Sevak.
He observed that it was likely that when Ram Dayal lodged the report at Police Station Rath, he did number know who were the real assailants of the deceased Chet Ram, but implicated the appellants only because the latter belonged to a different faction than his.
Appellant No.
The State preferred an appeal against the order of acquittal to the High Court.
1 accosted the deceased Chet Ram and said that he would number let him escape and with these words he fired his gun.
1 and 2 were armed with guns, appellants Nos.
On that day at about 3 p. m. the deceased Chet Ram was returning from the house of one Vishwa Nath where he had gone for applying Holi Tilak.
The learned Sessions Judge disbelieved these three eye witnesses by adopting a rather curious process of reasoning.
This incident, according to the prosecution, roused the ire of the appellants and Tulsi Das which culminated in the attack on the deceased Chet Ram on the next day, that is 27th March, 1967.
The shot hit the deceased Chet Ram whereupon he immediately ran into the companyrt yard Bakhri of the house of Laxmi.
The High Court accepted the evidence of Ghanshyam and Ram Das in so far as it related to the incident outside the house of Laxmi, but in so far as it related to the incident inside the house, the High Court preferred number to rely on the evidence of these two witnesses as it felt that it was rather improbable that they would take the risk off going inside the house when the appellants fully armed were assaulting the deceased Chet Rum.
The acquittal of the appellants for offence under Section 201 read with Section 149 was companyfirmed by the High Court and so also was the acquittal of Tulsi Das in respect of the charges preferred against him.
On receiving the First Information Report the investigating officer Agnihotri proceeded to village Aunta and started investigation.
The High Court agreed that the First information Report did number mention that appellants Nos.
The High Court closely scrutinised the evidence and on the appreciation of the evidence came to the companyclusion that the learned Sessions Judge had erred in acquitting the appellants.
The evidence of Chandan, wife of Laxmi was also rejected by the learned Sessions Judge on a rather flimsy ground.
This circumstance lends the greatest assurance to the prosecution case that Ram Das and Ghanshyam were eye witnesses to the incident.
This was witnessed by Ram Das, Ganga Din, Balli and Ghanshyam who had followed the appellants and were standing at the entrance pauri .
3, 4 and 6 had attacked the deceased Chet Ram in the companyrtyard of Laxmi or anywhere else and this omission was a serious blow to the prosecution case.
The first information report mentions the names of the appellants and the weapons which each of them carried, narrates the first part of the incident which took place outside the companyrt yard of Laxmi and sets out the entire sequence of events after the firing of the gunshots inside the companyrt yard of Laxmi.
The High Court then companysidered the medical evidence and observed that the number of injuries found on the dead body of the deceased Chet Ram and the nature of such injuries clearly showed that they must have been caused by number less than five or six persons and they also companyroborated the oral evidence of Ghanshyam and Ram Das that the appellants were armed with guns, spears, axe and pharsa.
1 and 2 in the post mortem report tallied with the injuries alleged to have been inflicted by appellant No.
5 on the neck of the deceased Chet Ram in front of the house of Buddhu carpenter and they were injuries which companyld have been caused by pharsa, injuries Nos.
The prosecution case was that an incident took place on 26th March, 1967 between appellants 1 and 2 and Tulsi Das on the one hand and one Maddu on the other in which the deceased Chet Ram and one Ram Das assisted Maddu by taking him to the Police Station and lodging a report against appellants Nos.
Ram Dayal immediately left in search of the dead body of his son, but number finding it he returned disappointed.
He recorded the statements of the witnesses, He numbericed that there was a lot of blood in the companyrt yard of Laxmi and there were also some pieces of broken teeth at that place.
There was companysiderable bitterness and enmity between these two factions and their mutual enmity had already taken twelve lives.
And fourthly, he thought that if the dead body was dragged for such a long distance, there should be quite big post mortem wounds on the dead body, but numbersuch post mortem wounds were found.
So far as Rani Dayal is companycerned, he dismissed the evidence of this witness on the ground that he was number an eye witness, but at the same time relied on his evidence for the purpose of holding that there was enmity between the factions of Bindaban and Ram Sevak and the appellants belonged to the former faction while Ram Dayal Ram Das and the deceased Chet Ram belonged to the latter and it was, therefore, number difficult to believe that Ram Dayal and Ram Das had falsely implicated the appellants.
Thirdly, he felt that it was difficult, if number impossible, for two persons to drag the dead body upto a distance of four furlongs.
5 gave two blows on the neck with his pharsa in order to make sure that Chet Ram was dead.
5, 6 and 7 were typical axe injuries and injuries Nos.
Appellants Nos.
The evidence of Ghanshyam was discarded on the ground that he was a nephew of Ram Dayal and as such number a very reliable person, The evidence of Khem Raj was also rejected and the reasoning given was that he was a ploughman of Prithviraj who was the brother of Ram Sevak.
The deceased Chet Ram was, at this point of time, a few paces ahead of his companypanions.
1 and 2 fired their guns at him.
12 and 13 were clear spear injuries.
The appellants and Tulsi Das chased him into the companyrtyard and appellants Nos.
5 with a pharsa, appellant No, 4 with an axe and Tulsi Das with a lathi.
Ram Das, Ganga Din, Balli and Ghanshyam too followed the appellants and they saw that after the dead body of the deceased Chet Ram was dropped in front of the house of Buddhu carpenter, appellant No.
3 to 6 with spears, appellant No.
Moreover, it may be numbered that the first information report was lodged at 5.30 p. m, on 27th March, 1967 while the dead body was recovered on the next day and yet the particulars in regard to the firing of gun shots and giving of two pharsa blows by appellant No.
The learned Sessions Judge found it difficult to believe the testimony of this witness when he said that he and the other witnesses entered the paur of Laxmi and from there saw that part of the incident which took place inside the house and they remained standing there even when the appellants dragged the dead body of the deceased Chet Ram out of the companyrtyard and carried it away by dragging it.
1 and 2 thereafter again removed the dead body and dragged it to village Tola where one Chaitu saw them and from village Tola they dragged the dead body to village Amgaon where, it appears, the dead body was thrown into the Bhaira Nala.
The Post mortem examination of the dead body was thereafter performed by Dr. K. P. Mittal and after the report of the post mortem examination was received, a charge sheet was submitted against the appellants and Tulsi Das.
The appellants were also charged for offence under Section 148 and Tulsi Das for offence under Section 147.
N. Bhagwati, J. The appellants and one Tulsi Das were charged for offences under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code.
Firstly, he thought that the dragging of the dead body from the companyrt yard of Laxmis house to Bhaira Nala was unnecessary.
The dead body companyld number be traced on that day, but on the next day, Agnihotri, following the stains of blood and marks of dragging, reached Bhajra Nala and found the dead body submerged in water held by two heavy stones.
Secondly he companyld number appreciate why it was necessary for appellant No.
When these persons were near the house of Laxmi, the appellants and Tulsi Das appeared from the numberthern side.
