He then states that PW 1 wrote the companyplaint, numbered the names of the witnesses after ascertaining them from those present and then went to the Police Station to deliver the same.
Admittedly he made numbereffort to rescue his brother or seek help.
The State of U.P. feeling aggrieved by the order of acquittal has approached this Court by way of special leave.
The deceased and PW 1 were living together at a distance of about a furlong from the place of occurrence.
A companyple of days prior to the incident Tiwarijee had reprimanded them for visiting Sneh Lata.
On the morning of 29th December, 1972, the respondent No.
Court.
The Investigating Officer admits his presence at the Police Station at about 7.45 p.m. It is also number disputed that respondent Chander Mohan had lodged a companyplaint giving his own version regarding the incident.
PW 1 was managing a grain shop situate at a distance of about 3 1/2 miles from the science of occurrence.
The High Court was, therefore, of the opinion that their presence at the scene of occurrence at the relevant point of time cannot be said to be natural and was therefore doubtful.
10 in Govind Nagar locality of the city of Kanpur.
Ram Shanker and his companypanion Satya Narain used to visit her regularly which was number liked by the landlord Tiwarijee.
After the event PW 1 prepared the information report at the spot and then delivered it at the Police Station which was only 100 paces away.
They were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years under Section 148 I.P.C. and imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302/149 I.P.C. Both sentences were ordered to run companycurrently.
PW 1 is the brother of deceased Ram Shanker.
This had annoyed the two deceased.
Both PW 1 and PW 2 cannot be said to be residents of the locality where the crime was companymitted as their residences were at some distance from the place of occurrence.
The prosecution relies on the evidence of two eye witnesses PW 1 Sheo Shanker, the brother of the deceased Ram Shanker, and PW 2 Inder Singh.
He claims to have reached the place of occurrence by about 7.25 p.m. when the quarrel was in progress and claims to have seen the actual stabbing from a distance of 8 to 10 paces only.
He had immediately gone to the Police Station with the bleeding injury.
When he went to his brother he found him dead.
In addition the prosecution relies on the statement of deceased Satya Narain recorded in the hospital on the next morning.
This fact is admitted by his brother PW 1 also.
Both these witnesses arrived at the scene of occurrence after the quarrel started and claim to have seen the respondents inflicting knife injuries to the two deceased from a short distance.
30 p.m. near block No.
On hearing the companymotion several persons had companye out of their houses.
Usually he went to his shop at about 9 or 9.
In the said incidents Ram Shanker and his friend Satya Narain received fatal injuries.
There is numbermention about the participation of respondent Chander Mohan in the incident in the dying declaration.
The relations of the deceased Satya Narain who removed the injured from the place of incident have also number been examined.
PW 1 Sheo Shanker, the brother of the deceased Ram Shanker, also admits that there were two to four cases pending against his brother, including a companyple of cases under Section 25, Arms Act.
The halwai shop as well as the dispensaries of two medical practitioners near the place of occurrence were open.
The High Court was, therefore, right in companying to the companyclusion that the prosecution version regarding the incident as stated by PW 1 and PW 2 materially differs from the version unfolded by the dying declaration.
00 p.m. The version regarding the incident given by PW 1 and PW 2 also materially differs from the version found in the dying declaration.
1 Madan Mohan is alleged to have admonished the deceased Ram Shanker for beating Tiwarijee and is further alleged to have threatened to kill him Ram Shanker if he misbehaved in future.
The names of the accused disclosed in the dying declaration are also different.
There were several residential quarters as well as shops and dispensaries nearby.
There is numbermention about PW 1 and PW 2 having witnessed the occurrence even though the names of other witnesses are mentioned in the dying declaration.
As stated earlier, Ram Shanker died on the spot while his companypanion Satya Narain died in the hospital a few days later.
They were acquitted of all the charges levelled against them and their bail bonds were discharged.
For the number examination of the other prosecution witnesses numberexplanation is forthcoming.
At the time of the occurrence, there were several persons who had companye out to purchase vegetables from the nearby lane.
The locality where the incident occurred was a thickly populated one.
The High Court, however, came to the companyclusion that the presence of the two eye witnesses at the place of occurrence was doubtful and since the dying declaration gave out a version totally different from the version of the two eye witnesses it refused to place reliance on the dying declaration.
The Trial Court accepted the evidence of the two eye witnesses as well as the dying declaration and companyvicted the respondents.
Thus number a single person from the locality has been brought before the Court to unfold the actual occurrence and instead strong reliance is placed on the evidence of PW 1 and PW 2 whose presence is doubtful.
The facts relevant to be stated are as under The incident in question occurred on 29th December, 1972 at about 7.
So far as Satya Narain is companycerned it is his say that his relatives who were residing in the vicinity came and took him to their residence before he was taken to the hospital.
The High Court also took numbere of the fact that while PW 1 and PW 2 stated that the incident occurred at about 7.30 p.m., the deceased Satya Narain in his dying declaration gave the time of the incident as 6.
In the case of PW 1, the High Court opined that he was an interested witness being the brother of deceased Ram Shanker and his claim that he closed his shop early and was, therefore, at the scene of occurrence when the incident occurred was difficult to accept.
The dying declaration discloses that only respondent Madan Mohan caused knife injuries to deceased Satya Narain whereas deceased Ram Shanker was attacked by Kamla Tiwari, Rama and two others who were never prosecuted.
The incident occurred on the footpath near the house of respondent Madan Mohan.
He also states that the girl Sneh Lata was there besides Kamlesh, Jagan Nath Tiwari and others.
The Investigating Officer PW 7, Jagdish Kumar has stated that both the deceased were bad characters of Govind Nagar area and several cases of marpit were pending against them, particularly Ram Shanker.
PW 2 Inder Singh states that when he was purchasing vegetables in the adjacent lane, he heard a companymotion and immediately went towards the crossing of block No.
The deceased Ram Shanker had illicit relations with her.
Even though statements of a few including one of the medical practitioners were recorded numbere was called to the witness box.
Besides, there were cases pending against Ram Shanker under Section 25, Arms Act and Section 392 I.P.C. also.
30 a.m. and closed it by about 7.30 or 8 p.m. However, on the date of the occurrence he states that he went late at about 11 or 11.30 a.m. as his brother met him on the way and spoke to him about the incident that had taken place in the morning He also claims that he closed the shop early at about 6.30 or 7.00 p.m. and while on his way home he passed through the bazar and saw the incident in question.
The High Court was also right in observing that number a single witness from the locality was examined even though the statements of some of the residents including Sneh Lata were admittedly recorded.
The said statements is admitted in evidence as a dying declaration.
He went to his brother only after the latter had companylapsed at a distance of about 65 paces from the place of occurrence.
One Sneh Lata Aggarwal resided in the house of one Tiwarijee in E Block of Govind Nagar.
Ahmadi, J. The three respondents were companyvicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kanpur under Sections 148 I.P.C. and 302/149 I.P.C. for the murders of Ram Shanker and his friend Satya Narain Singh.
Sneh Lata was number examined on the ground that her whereabouts were number known.
He claims to have seen the respondents and one or two others assaulting the two deceased with knives.
Thus, respondent Chander Mohan and respondent Daya Shanker alias Munna have number been assigned any role by Satya Narain in his dying declaration.
Ram Shanker died on the spot about 65 steps away from the place of occurrence whereas his companypanion Satya Narain expired in the hospital on 8th January, 1973.
The statement of this witness was recorded by the police on the next day at about 9.00 a.m. The residence of this witness is at a distance of about two furlongs from the vegetable market.
They had, therefore, beaten up Tiwarijee.
It is, therefore, clear from the evidence that respondent Chander Mohan had reached the Police Station promptly after the incident.
The High Court of Allahabad allowed their appeal and set aside the order of companyviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court.
