Ram Kishan & Ors Vs. State
of Uttar Pradesh  Insc 530 (10
K.G. Balakrishnan & Dr. Ar.
Lakshmanan K.G. Balakrishnan, J.
These five appellants were found guilty of murder by the District and
Sessions Judge, Varanasi, for having caused the death of one Shiv Shankar
Singh. They preferred an appeal before the High Court of Allahabad. The appeal
was dismissed and the conviction of the appellants under Section 302 read with
Section 149 and under Section 323 read with Section 149 IPC was confirmed. The
findings of the High Court are challenged before us.
Deceased Shiv Shankar Singh was a resident of Phoolpur village in the Varanasi
district. On 11.10.1979, there was a Bharat Milap 'mela' at Mangari Bazar.
Deceased Shiv Shankar Singh had gone to witness the said 'mela'.
There, he met PW-1 Moti Chand. Moti Chand and Shiv Shankar Singh spent some
time at the venue of the 'mela' and during night they came to the house of the
father-in-law of deceased Shiv Shankar Singh, which was very close to Mangari
Bazar. On the next day, i.e. 12.10.1979, at about 8.00 A.M., both Moti Chand
and Shiv Shankar Singh left the house on a motorcycle. Moti Chand was driving
the motorcycle while deceased Shiv Shankar Singh pillion-riding the same. When
they reached near the pumping house of one Bhaggan Singh @ Vibhuti Narain
Singh, the appellant Bansh Narain Singh came all of a sudden and intercepted
the motorcycle. Bansh Narain Singh shouted that Shiv Shankar Singh shall not be
spared. The other appellants, who were hiding in the nearby 'Arhar' field armed
with 'Lathis' fitted with iron rings, came out and assaulted Moti Chand who
fell on the ground. Then they started assaulting Shiv Shankar Singh with
'Lathis'. Shiv Shankar Singh sustained various injuries and died on the spot.
Hearing the alarm raised by the injured, the other witnesses came there and the
appellants fled the place immediately.
Injured Moti Chand proceeded to the nearby Phoolpur Police Station and gave
the F.I. statement at about 9.45 A.M. on 12.10.1979. Moti Chand was sent for
medical examination by the S.H.O., who then immediately proceeded to the scene
of occurrence. He recorded the statements of Moti Chand and other witnesses,
namely, Jagdish, Satya Narain, Rama Shankar Singh and Matter @ Raj Narain and
Ram Murat. He held an inquest over the dead body and also prepared a scene
'mahzar' and took custody of the motorcycle. Later, the dead body was sent for
post mortem. On 15.10.1979, the Investigating Officer arrested the appellants
and filed the final report.
The learned Sessions Judge as well as the High Court relied on the evidence
of PW-1 Moti Chand and PW-2 Rama Shankar Singh and PW-6 Satya Narain Singh and
convicted the appellants.
Learned counsel for the appellants challenged the findings of the Sessions
Judge as well as the High Court on various grounds. It was submitted that the
three eye witnesses on whom the courts placed reliance were all interested
witnesses as they were close friends of deceased Shiv Shankar Singh. The
learned counsel pointed out the various facts to indicate that these witnesses
were very strong supporters of deceased Shiv Shankar Singh. It was argued that
Moti Chand must have been a very close friend of the deceased as both of them
had spent a lot of time together at the 'mela' and later the deceased took Moti
Chand to his father-in-law's house and both of them stayed in that house for
the night. These facts, according to the counsel for the appellants, proved
that Moti Chand was not an independent witness. It may be noticed that Moti
Chand was an injured witness. According to the prosecution, deceased and Moti
Chand travelled on a motorcycle and the same was recovered from the place of
the incident by the Investgating Officer, who prepared a 'mahzar' immediately
after the incident. Moreover, Moti Chand gave the F.I. statement within hours
after the incident. Therefore, the presence of Moti Chand at the place of
incident cannot be doubted. Mere acquaintance or friendship of Moti Chand with
the deceased by itself cannot be treated as a reason to discard the evidence of
the eye witness if it is proved by other satisfactory evidence that the witness
was very much present at the time of incident.
The counsel for the appellants strongly urged before us that the evidence of
the other two witnesses, namely, PW-2 and PW-6, cannot be accepted as they were
also not independent witnesses. It was pointed out that these witnesses were so
close to deceased Shiv Shankar Singh that they even filed an affidavit before
the court in support of the plea for the cancellation of the bail of these
appellants. The incident allegedly happened at 8' o clock in the morning. These
witnesses are persons residing in the locality. PW-1 also deposed that these
witnesses were present at the time of the incident. The courts below have
relied on the evidence of these two witnesses. We do not find any strong reason
to discard their evidence.
The counsel for the appellants further contended that the medical evidence
adduced in this case disproved the prosecution case. PW-8, Dr. B.B. Subramaniya
conducted the post-mortem on the dead body of the deceased Shiv Shankar Singh.
He deposed that the injuries found on the body of Shiv Shankar Singh may have
been caused by a sharp, heavy cutting weapon.
Injury Nos. 3, 4 and 6 are injuries which must have been caused by such a
weapon. Injury No. 3 is a chop wound on the left forehead 18 cm. x 4 cm.
brain deep; injury no. 4 is a chop wound 10 cm. x 3.5 cm. and injury no. 6
is a chop wound 6.5 cm. and 5 cms. All these three injuries are on the head and
the brain was exposed. Counsel for the appellants contended that according to
the prosecution, the appellants were armed with 'Lathis' fitted with iron rings
and there was no case that any one of the appellants was having any sharp
cutting weapon. It is important to note that the 'Lathis' were fitted with iron
rings and a heavy blow with such a weapon on the head would have caused the
skull to break. The doctor was of opinion that there were multiple fractures of
the skull. Except the witnesses saying that 'Lathis' were fitted with iron
rings, there is no evidence as to the nature of the weapons. During the course
of the investigation, these weapons were not examined. What was the width of
the ring with covered the 'Lathis' is not known. Under the circumstances, the
Sessions Court and the High Court were justified in accepting the medical
Another contention urged by the appellants' counsel is that the post- mortem
showed that the stomach of the deceased was empty. According to the learned
counsel, PW-1 and the deceased had left the house in the morning and they must
have taken food and that the prosecution story must be false, for the reason
that the incident must have taken place somewhere during the night and that is why
the post-mortem evidence is to the effect that the stomach of the deceased was
empty. There is no direct evidence as to whether the deceased had taken any
food in the morning. The counsel for the appellants pointed to the statement
given by the Investigating Officer during the cross-examination in which he had
admitted that the father-in-law had stated to him that the deceased had taken
breakfast in the morning and thereafter left the house. The father-in- law of
the deceased was not examined as a witness. Therefore, the statement given by
the Investigating Officer must have been based on the statement of the
father-in-law of the deceased recorded under Section 161 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure. The statement given by the Investigating Officer regarding
this fact is not directly admissible in law. In the absence of any evidence to
the effect as to whether the deceased had taken food or not before leaving the
house on 12.10.1979, the findings of the doctor to the effect that the stomach
of the deceased was empty are of no consequence.
Counsel for the appellants lastly submitted that in view of the various
incongruities in the prosecution's evidence, the appellants should have been
acquitted in this case. We are not inclined to accept this argument. The
Sessions Court as well as the High Court have taken a reasonable view of the
evidence and found the appellants guilty. We are not inclined to interfere with
the impugned judgment. The appeal is without any merit and is dismissed