ANGNOO Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The ten appellants in this appeal were convicted for offenses punishable under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, and each one of them was awarded concurrent sentences of two years rigorous imprisonment for the first offence and imprisonment for life for the second offence.. The conviction was recorded in respect of the murder of one Mahadeo on the 12th November, 1964.

(2.) The prosecution case was that Mahadeo had appeared as a witness in an enquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which was being held on a complaint filed by one Chotai for an offence under Section 500, I P. C., against Angnoo appellant. That complaint was filed by Chotai on the ground that Angnoo had earlier lodged a false report with the Police against Chotai and his brother Sumer for an offence under S. 454, I. P. C. After Mahadeo had been examined as a witness in the enquiry, the Court issued summonses against the accused. The service of the summons on Angnoo took place on 12th November. 1964. On that day, at about noon, Mahadeo had gone from his village Banyan Khera to another village Rampur, one mile away. It may be mentioned that eight of the appellants belonged to the same village Banyan Khera where Mahadeo resided, while two of them resided in neighbouring villages. When Mahadeo was returning about an hour before sunset and had reached a place, two furlongs away from his own village Banyan Khera, near the field of one Badal, the ten appellants are alleged to have come out of an ambush and attacked Mahadeo with spears and Kantas. Five of the appellants were armed with spears and other five with Kantas. Mahadeo raised a hue and cry and also tried to defend himself with the lathi which he was carrying. He was, however, badly injured and died as a result of those injuries on the spot. A number of witnesses had arrived near the place of occurrence and saw part of the attack on Mahadeo. When some of the witnesses wanted to come near, one of the appellants, Barjor fired a warning shot in the air with his pistol, so that none of the witnesses came very close. They all remained at a distance of about 50 paces from the place of incident. After having caused injuries to Mahadeo, the appellants escaped to the north through the fields and, thereafter, witnesses came near Mahadeo and found him dead. Mahadeo's brother Puttu Lal dictated a report of the incident which was written down by prosecution witness Raja Ram. It was then given to one Kallu to be taken to the police station Qasimpur. On the basis of that written report, the First Information Report was recorded at Qasimpur at 8.30 p. m. The offence was, however, committed at a place which fell within the circle of Police Station Auras, so that a copy of the report recorded at Police Station Qasimpur was sent to the Police Station Auras, where the information reached at 11.30 p. m. Thereafter, the case was investigated and the appellants were sent up for trial. The trial Court relied on the evidence of five eye-witnesses and the medical evidence to record the conviction of the appellants for the offences mentioned above. The High Court upheld the conviction and dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants. Consequently, the appellants have come up in this appeal by special leave.

(3.) The trial Court convicted the appellants on the basis of the evidence of five eye-witnesses P. W. l, Puttu Lal brother of Mahadeo deceased, P.W. 2 Maiku, P.W. 3 Shri Krishna P.W. 4 Raja Ram and P.W 5 Juddhi. The argument that has been advanced before us on behalf of the appellants is that the evidence of these witnesses should not have been accepted by the Courts because of five reasons. First there was delay in lodging the First Information Report; secondly, there was conflict between the medical evidence and the evidence of the eyewitnesses; thirdly, it was not probable that these witnesses could have arrived sufficiently close to the scene of occurrence in time to see the actual assault on Mahadeo; fourthly, it was not very probable that they would be able to recognise all the ten appellants as assailants of Mahadeo and fifthly. all the eye-witnesses are partisan witnesses and should not have been relied upon. All these arguments were advanced before the High Court also, and the High Court did not find any force in them. Having heard learned counsel, we are also unable to hold that any of these grounds would justify our interference with the concurrent decision of the trial Court and the High Court.