Mohan
Singh Vs. State of U.P [1997] INSC 838 (20 November 1997)
G.T.
NANAVATI, G.B. PATTANAIK
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
THE
20TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 1997 Present:
Hon'ble
Mr. Justice G.T. Nanavati Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.B. Pattanaik R.C. Kaushik, Sat
pal Singh and D.K. Garg, Advs., for the appellant A.S. Pundit, Alkhil Kaushik
and R.K. Singh, Advs. for the Respondent
The
following Judgment of the Court was delivered:
NANAVATI,
J.
This
appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the Allahabad High
Court in Criminal Appeal No. 754 of 1978. The High Court confirmed the
conviction of the appellant under section 302 IPC.
The
appellant was tried with four other accused for the murder of Vijay Singh, son
of Jang Bahadur Sing of village Burchuni. All the five accused, because of
previous enmity, were alleged to have gone to the house of Vijay Singh on
7.7.1976 at about 3.30
p.m. They then climbed
over the Varandah of his house where Vijay Singh was lying on a cot.
They
first abused him. Thereafter some of them exhorted Mohan Singh, the appellant
to kill him as he was the root of all the litigation. Thereupon, the appellant
fired a shot from his gun which hit Vijay Singh who was sitting in the kitchen
about 10 feet away from the cot of the deceased raised an alarm as a result of
which Man Singh, PW2 and Pratap Singh, PW4 came there running. They saw the
accused running a way from the roof.
In the
Trial Court, the prosecution had examined these three witnesses. The Trial
Court found the evidence of PW3, Chandrakali fully reliable. The Trial Court
also found that her evidence received support from the evidence of the other
two witnesses who had been the accused running away soon after the commission
of crime and stood corroborated by the medical evidence. However, it gave
benefit of doubt to the other four accused on the ground that the possibility
of their being falsely implicated could not be ruled out in view of the enmity
between the parties.
The
High Court or re-appreciation of the evidence agreed with the finding recorded
by the Trial Court. The High Court found that no material contradiction was
found in the evidence of Chandrakali and the other witnesses. We have also
carefully considered the evidence of Chandrakali.
We
find that at the time of commission of the offence she was in the kitchen which
was in the Varandah itself where her son was lying on a cot. The evidence
further discloses that before firing the shot the accused had abused Vijay
Singh and there was exhortation to the effect that he should be killed as he
was the cause of all the litigation between them. The abuses and the
exhortation were bound to attract the attention of Chandrakali who was sitting
at the distance of only 10 feet. therefore, her evidence that she had seen the
accused standing near the cot of her son and that out of the five accused the
appellant had fired the shot and injured her son deserved to be accepted. It
was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the complainant to
whom she had narrated the incident soon after it was committed, has not
specifically stated in his evidence that her aunt had told him that appellant
Mohan Singh had fired the shot. In the FIR it was specifically stated by him
that the shot was fired by Mohan Singh, i.e. the appellant. His only source of
information was his aunt who had disclosed to him how the incident had
occurred.
Therefore,
this omission cannot create any doubt regarding the evidence of Chandrakali
PW3.
It was
next urged the learned counsel for the appellant that according to the medical
evidence the death of Vijay Singh could have taken at about 6.00 a.m. and that
appears to be more probable because Doctor who performed the post- mortem
examination has stated that the large intestine was found full of faecal
matter. The High Court has considered this aspect and pointed out that the
medical evidence does not necessarily lead to that conclusion. Vijay Singh was
ill and all the while lying in a bed. Moreover, there was no evidence to show
when he had taken his last meal. The High Court has rightly observed that if
really Vijay Singh had died at 6.00 a.m. then
his dead body would not have been kept in the house till 4.00 p.m.
No
other point was urged by the learned counsel for the appellant. We find no
infirmity either in the appreciation of the evidence or in the reasoning of the
High Court. We, therefore, see no reason to interfere with the judgment and
order passed by the High Court. This appeal is, therefore, dismissed. The
appellant shall surrender to custody to serve out the remaining part of the
sentence.
Back