State
of U.P. Vs. Roop Singh & Ors [1995] INSC
489 (12 September 1995)
Ahmadi
A.M. (Cj) Ahmadi A.M. (Cj) Bharucha S.P. (J) Paripoornan, K.S.(J) Ahmadi, Cji
CITATION:
1996 AIR 215 JT 1995 (6) 479 1995 SCALE (5)264
ACT:
HEAD NOTE:
This
appeal by the State of Uttar Pradesh is directed against the order of acquittal
passed by the High Court on 19th May, 1991 in reversal of the order of
conviction recorded by the Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Farukhabad by which
the respondents were convicted under Sections 302/149, IPC, and were sentenced
to suffer imprisonment for life.
They
were also convicted under Section 147, IPC, and were ordered to suffer rigorous
imprisonment for one year. Both the sentences were to run concurrently. Briefly
stated the facts are these:
On the
morning of 23rd April,
1977, PW.3 Beti Devi
had gone to ease herself when Bhanwarpal, since deceased, teased her which was
noticed by the girl's uncle Rambir Singh who reprimanded the former. This led
to a heated argument.
Bhanwarpal
left in a huff threatening to see him. On the same day at about 12.30 p.m. when
Rambir Singh was near Gulu's `Madhiya' (a shed with a roof but open on all
sides) along with Deopal Singh and Babu Singh, the respondents along with Bhanwarpal
came there armed with sticks and lathis and launched an assault on them. Deopal
Singh and Babu Singh had knives which they wielded in self defence.
But
both of them were killed and Rambir Singh tried to run away but he too was
chased and killed near a mango tree.
Ganga
Singh brother of Rambir singh went to the police station and lodged his FIR at
about 1.50 p.m. During investigation two knives
were recovered from the place where the deceased Deopal Singh and Babu Singh
were lying.
The defence
version is that there was an altercation between Rambir Singh and Bhanwarpal
around 10.00 a.m. at which the former was very angry.
At about 12.30 p.m. Roop Singh and Bhanwarpal had gone
to the village and feeling tired the latter sat in Gulu's `Madhiya' to rest.
While he was resting there he was surrounded by Rambir Singh, Kedar Singh, Gyan
Singh, Babu Singh and Deopal Singh and was stabbed to death. Because of the hue
and cry raised by Bhanwarpal, since deceased, and Roop Singh, members of the
public came there and attacked the assailants with lathis to rescue the victim.
In the course of this attack lathi blows were sustained by the assailants
resulting in loss of life.
Thus,
the respondents contend that the assault by the villagers was responsible for
the death of Rambir Singh, Deopal Singh and Babu Singh whereas Bhanwarpal was
killed by the last two. Find of knives from near the dead bodies of the said
two persons is projected as corroborating the defence version. Bhanwarpal Singh
had three incised and three penetrating stab wounds. Roop Singh lodged the FIR
at 1.40 p.m.
There
is no dispute that the incident happened in which in all four lives were lost.
The medical evidence shows that Rambir Singh, Deopal Singh and Babu Singh died
on account of lathi blows received by them whereas Bhanwarpal died of stab
wounds. The find of blood and knives establishes the place of the incident.
Both sides had lodged complaints with the police, the respondents' side at
about 1.50 p.m. There is, therefore, no dispute that all the four met with
homicidal deaths.
The
prosecution examined four witnesses, namely PW.1 Ganga Singh brother of
deceased Rambir Singh, PW.2 Usman Khan, PW.3 Beti Devi and PW.4 Gyan Singh as
eye witnesses to the occurrence whereas the defence relied on the dying
declaration of deceased Bhanwarpal Singh and the FIR lodged by Roop Singh
wherein the case set up is that the three of the prosecution side were killed
by the villagers and not the respondents. As stated earlier the trial court
convicted the respondents but the High Court acquitted them holding that the
respondents had caused the injuries in self- defence. Four defence-witnesses
were also examined.
The
time of the incident is not in dispute. As to the place of the incident there
are two versions. The prosecution case is that they were assaulted outside Gulu's
shed and it was in the course of the said attack that Deopal Singh and Babu
Singh used their knives in self-defence. The respondent contend that the
assault was launched by Deopal Singh and Babu Singh with knives when Bhanwarpal
was sitting inside the shed and this fact they say is corroborated by the find
of blood from that place. Unfortunately the blood soaked earth was not sent to
the chemical analyst and the serologist with the result that it is difficult to
say if it was of Bhanwarpal or as urged by the prosecution that it could be of Deopal
Singh and Babu Singh who may have staggered into the shed. The High Court has
accepted the defence version and disbelieved the prosecution story that the two
had pulled out their knives after they were attacked.
PW.3 Beti
Devi is the young girl who was teased by Bhanwarpal in the morning and her
uncle Rambir Singh had reprimanded the former which led to a heated exchange.
That was the immediate cause for the subsequent incident in the afternoon. PW.1
Ganga Singh lodged the FIR wherein reference was made to the morning incident.
The prosecution case is that in the afternoon when the three deceased persons
and PW.1 were returning after purchasing medicine from Gursahaiganj they were
attacked by the respondents near Gulu's shed in Ismailpur. There is no dispute
that the police station being one and a half miles from the place of
occurrence, there was no delay in the lodging of the complaint, the respondents
side lodged it ten minutes before the prosecution side. Therefore, if any
weight is to be given to the prompt lodging of the FIR we do not think that
either side can claim to score over the other.
The
immediate cause for the incident is not in doubt.
PW.3 Beti
Devi has proved it and is corroborated by the FIR lodged by PW.1 Ganga Singh.
In a village such an incident in which a young lady of 20 or 22 is involved is
taken seriously. Therefore, it is quite possible that her uncle Rambir Singh
had not taken the behavior of Bhanwarpal kindly. He must have lost his temper.
While he may be justifiably annoyed with Bhanwarpal, if he had crossed his
limits it is quite possible that the latter may have felt insulted. This much
for the morning incident.
The
learned Additional Sessions Judge accepted the prosecution version regarding
the incident and rejected the defence as improbable. According to him, the plea
of self- defence is not borne out from evidence, direct as well as
circumstantial. The morning incident may have annoyed Rambir Singh, but so far
as he is concerned, it had come to an end because if he wanted to do any harm
to Bhanwarpal Singh, he had the opportunity to do so in the morning itself when
the latter was alone. The greater possibility was that Bhanwarpal Singh felt
insulted and annoyed and carried a desire for revenge. It is, therefore,
possible that he and his companions, having come to know that Rambir Singh and
others had gone to purchase medicine and would pass by that way on return,
waited for them and when they passed by, the assault was launched. The story
that after Bhanwarpal Singh was fatally injured, third persons, namely,
villagers who had nothing to do with the dispute intervened causing the death
of all the three persons is difficult to accept. Even if villagers were to
intervene, they would intervene for the limited purpose of separating the
feuding sides, not to kill members of one side; they would not show such
animosity as to chase Rambir Singh and kill him. In any case, according to the
learned Judge, there was absolutely no justification for chasing and killing Rambir
Singh even if one were to assume that villagers had attacked Deopal Singh and Babu
Singh. Lastly, he noticed that if there was any ring of truth in the defence
version, it is difficult to appreciate why PW.1 Ganga Singh would allow the
real culprits of his close relatives to escape while naming the assailants.
The
High Court on the other hand refused to place reliance on the prosecution
witnesses and found a ring of truth in the defence version for the two reasons,
(i) blood was found in Gulu's `Madhiya' and (ii) two knives were lying near
about the dead bodies of Deopal Singh and Babu Singh.
The
High Court doubted the prosecution version that the assault was launched by the
defence side and Deopal Singh and Babu Singh had used the knives which they
were carrying in self-defence. In taking this view, it noted that if the
prosecution version was correct, the two deceased would have had no opportunity
to take out their knives from their waist as even that fraction of a movement
would have been sufficient for the assailants to finish them. That is why it
was inclined to think that the two deceased persons who happened to be the
sons-in-law of the complainant must have launched the assault. It is only then
that they would have been able to cause as many injuries as they did on the
person of Bhanwarpal Singh. It also thought that the defence version that he
was attacked by as many as 4 persons with knives was probable having regard to
the number of stab injuries sustained by him. In this connection, reference has
been made to the evidence of the defence witness Dr. S. C. Dubey. The other
facet highlighted by the High Court is that if the prosecution version was
correct, it is difficult to understand why only one person received knife
injuries when the two sons-in-law of PW.1 were being attacked by as many as 7
persons with lathis and sticks. It is difficult to believe that only one person
would receive the knife injuries and all others would go scot-free. On this
line of reasoning the High Court came to the conclusion that the defence
version was more probable and accepted the theory of self-defence propounded by
the accused. The High Court, therefore, reversed the conviction and acquitted
the accused.
As pointed
out earlier, there is no dispute in regard to the morning incident. Bhanwarpal
Singh had made certain indecent and suggestive gestures when PW.3 Beti Devi had
gone out to ease herself. Being a young lady of 20 or 22 years, Rambir Singh
justifiably lost his tamper when he noticed the misdemeanour of Bhanwarpal
Singh. He reprimanded the delinquent whereupon he left in a huff. As rightly
pointed out by the trial court if Rambir Singh wanted to physically assault Bhanwarpal
Singh, he had the reason and opportunity to do so at that very point of time
and would not have allowed Bhanwarpal Singh to leave the place unharmed.
Therefore, so far as Rambir Singh is concerned, he took the morning incident as
closed. But as rightly pointed out by the trial court the possibility of Bhanwarpal
Singh smarting under the morning insult could not be ruled out.
Secondly,
the High Court does not deal with the probability of the defence version from
the point as to why villagers who had no axe to grind launched a fatal attack
on all the three persons and should show such venom as to chase Rambir Singh
who was running away from the scene of occurrence and kill him under a mango
tree. The High Court is totally silent on this aspect of the case. The theory
that all the four persons on the prosecution side were armed with knives is
also not corroborated since only two knives were found lying near the dead
bodies of Deopal Singh and Babu Singh.
No
other knife was found from or near the scene of occurrence or on the person of Rambir
Singh. PW.1 Ganga Singh was not named as one of the assailants in the cross
complaint lodged by Roop Singh. This aspect of the case has also been
over-ruled by the High Court. The situation which then emerges is that after
the morning incident Bhanwarpal Singh felt insulted and smarting under that
insult he was perhaps keen to take revenge. He must have learnt that the
members of the prosecution party had gone to purchase medicine and would be
returning via Gulu's shed. It is, therefore, quite probable that he and the
other respondents were waiting for them to return. It is an established fact
that both Deopal Singh and Babu Singh were carrying knives.
The
find of blood from Gulu's shed is one feature which must be kept in mind. But
at the same time, it must be remembered that the Investigating Officer had not
bothered to send the blood stained earth which he claims to have recovered therefrom
to the Chemical Analyser and Serologist for report. Even the blood groups of Deopal
Singh and Babu Singh was not secured by scientific analysis. The clothes of Bhanwarpal
Singh must also have been drenched with blood, but no attempt was made to
ascertain his blood group and match it with the blood group of the blood found
in blood stained earth. The Investigating Officer was, therefore, rather casual
in his approach though this was a case of triple murder and fatal serious
injuries were caused to Bhanwarpal Singh who died a few days later in the
hospital.
The
High Court placed reliance on the dying declaration of Bhanwarpal Singh
recorded by the Medical Officer but did not deal with the reasons which weighed
with the trial court in rejecting that piece of evidence. We are afraid that
even the approach of the High Court leaves much to be desired. If we consider
it probable that it was Bhanwarpal Singh who felt insulted and had reason to
take revenge, it is difficult to proceed on the premise that the attack was
launched by the prosecution side. At the same time it is intriguing how only Bhanwarpal
Singh received all the stab wounds from Deopal Singh and Babu Singh. As we have
pointed out earlier, the deceased Bhanwarpal Singh had three incised wounds,
first on the back of the left fore-arm, second on the right side of the epigastric
region and third on the outer side of the second injury, while he had three
penetrating wounds on the abdominal side. When he was admitted to the hospital
at about 1.30 p.m. his condition was poor and his
pulse rate was low. This is clear from the evidence of DW.4 Dr. S. C. Dubey.
DW.1 Dr. K. K. Aggarwal had conducted the post-mortem on the dead body of Bhanwarpal
Singh after he passed away on 29th April, 1977
i.e. 6 days after the incident. His evidence shows that he had noticed certain
stitched wounds at the places noticed by Dr.
S.C.
Dubey.
No other member of the defence side sustained any stab injuries. This would go
to reveal that the initial attack or fight was between Bhanwarpal Singh on the
one hand and Deopal Singh and Babu Singh on the other hand. It would be seen
that while the attack was launched by Bhanwarpal Singh, the other two got the
better of him and inflicted knife injuries on him. Immediately thereafter the
other members of Bhanwarpal's party launched the attack with lathis and sticks
on Deopal Singh and Babu Singh. The evidence of Dr. Bansal shows that Deopal
Singh had four lacerated wounds, first, on the back of the head over the left
side which was scalp deep; second, on the left elbow, third, on the left side
of the thigh and the fourth, over the left front of the left leg. He also had a
contusion over the left side of the neck, possibly a continuation of the first
mentioned lacerated wound. There was an abrasion also on the left side of the
fore-head and an abraded contusion over the right fore-arm. This would show
that lathi blows were showered on him and the most serious blow fell on the
left side at the back of the head. So far as Babu Singh is concerned, he had
three laceration, the first over back of the head which was scalp deep, the
second over the right of the head and the third over the left side of the head.
He had multiple abrasion over the right shoulder and deltoid region, an abraded
contusion on the back of the right fore- arm, an abrasion on the right leg,
swelling over the neck and multiple contusions all over the back. This would go
to show that lathi blows were showered on him and he was ultimately
strangulated to death. This would give an indication of the nature of assault
on these two persons. In the course of such an assault by several lathi
wielding assailants, the High Court is right in suspecting why only Bhanwarpal
Singh received knife injuries. It would, therefore, seem that the more probable
version is that although Bhanwarpal Singh may have initiated the assault, the
other two got the better of him, stabbed him and only thereafter the others
assaulted him to free him from their clutches. To that extent it can be said
that they acted in self-defence. But when Rambir Singh saw his two companions
being killed in this ruthless manner he got scared and tried to run away from
the scene of occurrence. There is no evidence worth the name to show that he
was armed with a knife or any other weapon. No one has tried to question the
correctness of the prosecution evidence that his body was found almost a
furlong away from the place of occurrence under a mango tree. If that is so,
the evidence of the prosecution witnesses that after he ran away from the scene
of occurrence, the respondents chased him, overtook him and thereafter killed
him appears credible. The find of the body from under the mango tree is strong
corroborative evidence in favour of the prosecution version as regards the
killing of Rambir Singh. There was no question of any self-defence because Rambir
Singh was running away and the defence party had nothing to fear from him. In
fact it was their venom which led them to chase him and kill him. He was a
helpless unarmed person. This aspect of the prosecution case is difficult to
doubt even though there may be some lurking doubt in regard to the correctness
of the genesis of the incident near Gulu's shed. There is also considerable
force in the trial court's reasoning that while it may be understandable that
the complainant may involve false persons, it is not possible to believe that
he would allow the real culprits to escape. Therefore, the theory that the
villagers had launched an attack on both Deopal Singh and Babu Singh and later
on Rambir Singh, is difficult to believe. It is, therefore, difficult to
believe the defence version that the assault was launched by villagers. It is
here that the defence version collapses. Therefore, even if we were to give the
benefit of doubt in regard to the killing of Deopal Singh and Babu Singh
because the prosecution version is suspect, there is no question of any doubt
or any right of self-defence so far as the killing of Rambir Singh is
concerned. It must also be realised that besides, PW.1 we have the evidence of
an independent witness PW.2 Usman Khan who largely supports and corroborates
the evidence of PW.1 Ganga Singh. The evidence of this witness was sought to be
brushed aside on the ground that he was a chance witness and that he belonged
to another village and had no particular reason to be present at the scene of
occurrence. In the first place it is necessary to notice the fact that his name
finds mention in the first information report promptly lodged by PW.1 Ganga
Singh. Secondly, it is difficult to imagine how the name of this witness would
come to the mind of the complainant and how he would be assured that the
witness would support him when he had no time to manipulate. PW.2 Usman Khan
has given a cogent reason for his presence near the scene of occurrence. He had
gone to see the operator of the tubewell at Ismailpur and was near the public
road when he saw the occurrence at some distance therefrom. There is no reason
why PW.2 Usman Khan would stick his neck out if he had not seen the incident.
Nothing has been brought on record to show that he was in any manner close to
the prosecution side or inimical to the defence.
The defence
tried to lead evidence to negative his presence through the evidence of DW.2 Sukhwashi
Lal and DW.3 Kailash Singh. But the trial court rightly pointed out in
paragraphs 24 and 25 of the judgment that their evidence did not negative the
presence of Usman Khan on the public road, a little away from the place of
occurrence. If that be so, the evidence of Usman Khan, a wholly independent
witness, lends sufficient corroboration to the prosecution version that after Rambir
Singh fled away from the scene of occurrence, he was chased, overtaken and
killed by respondents. As pointed out earlier so far as the killing of Rambir
Singh is concerned his assailants can have no right of self-defence.
For
the above reasons we are of the opinion that the High Court was wrong in
reversing the order of conviction and sentence recorded by the Additional
Sessions Judge, Farukhabad. We, therefore, set aside the order of acquittal
recorded by the High Court and restore the order of the learned trial Judge. The
respondents will surrender and serve out their sentence. Warrants for their
arrest to issue by the trial court. Appeal is allowed accordingly.
Back