RAM JATTAN Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There are eight appellants. They along with four others were tried for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 302 read with 149, 307 read with 149, 324 read with 149, IPC by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Azamgarh. All of them were convicted for the said offences and the substantial sentence awarded was life imprisonment. They were also awarded various sentences of imprisonment on other counts. An appeal preferred by all of them was dismissed by the High Court. Only eight of them filed a special leave petition which was granted by this court. Hence this appeal.

(2.) The prosecution case is as follows: The accused Dal Singhar's maternal uncle left behind five bighas of land at Village Bhanpur. This land was inherited by the widow, of Ramjas Smt. Badaki. Accused Dal Singhar is said to have obtained a fictitious sale deed in his name and in the name of his three brothers from Smt. Badaki, who on coming to know of it, filed an objection in the mutation proceedings. A suit was also filed for the cancellation of the said sale deed which was pending at the time of the incident. A few days before the date of incident, the appellants along with certain other persons forcibly harvested the barley crop belonging to Smt. Badaki. This led to a riot and gunshots are said to have been fired by accused Dal Singhar and others in which the appellants and some others received injuries and a criminal case was registered. On the date of occurrence. i.e. 8-4-1974 deceased Kharpat, injured Patroo and Balli, P.W. 8. were going towards their village through Village Dubari. It is alleged that the accused including the eight appellants who belonged to one group were lying in wait when the above mentioned three persons reached the place which is about 150 paces from the house of P.W. 1. All these accused attacked the three persons. Among them some were armed with barchhas and pharsas and the rest with lathis. All of them are alleged to have inflicted injuries on the three persons. When the victims raised alarm, P.W.1 Ram Awadh Singh along with Surju Singh and Ram Kishan Singh came there and on seeing them the accused left the scene of occurrence. Coming to know of the occurrence some villagers from Village Bhanpur also came there. The injured persons were carried to the Madhuban Police Station. On the way Patroo got a report written by P.W. 7 and that was presented in the Police Station. The S.H.O., who was present in the Police Station, registered the crime and sent the injured persons to the Hospital. The medical aid was given to all the three injured persons. It is stated that Patroo who is said to have given the report was subsequently killed. The inquest was held on the dead body on the next day and the post-mortem was conducted. The Doctor, who conducted the post-mortem, opined that the death was due to shock and haemorrhage and after investigation the challan was filed. The case rested mainly on the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 8 who figured as eye-witnesses. Among them. P.W. 8 is the injured witness. Both the courts below have pointed out that page No. Ws.1 and 8 are highly interested witnesses. The learned Sessions Judge however, relying on their evidence convicted all the 12 accused. In an appeal before the High Court, it was contended that page No. Ws.1 and 8 are highly interested witnesses and the prosecution has failed to examine some independent witnesses and that at any rate the 12 accused could not have been convicted on omnibus allegation by applying Section 149, IPC. A further submission was that having regard to the nature of injuries found on the deceased, the common object of the members of the unlawful assembly. whoever they may be, was not to commit the murder The High Court observed that page No. Ws.1 and 7 were interested witnesses and the evidence of P.W. 8 supports the evidence of P.W. 7 because P.W. 8 was the only surviving injured witness. In that view of the matter. the High Court dismissed the appeal.

(3.) In this appeal. the learned counsel for the appellants submits that it is highly unsafe to place any reliance on the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 8. We have perused the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 8. t is difficult to reject their evidence on the sole ground that they are interested witnesses. No doubt, they made omnibus allegation that all the 12 accused who were armed with various weapons surrounded and attacked the three persons but on that ground alone particularly having regard to the number of injuries found on the three persons it cannot be said that such an allegation should be rejected.