SURINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants were found guilty of offence punishable under S. 302 read with S. 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the IPC) by the Allahabad High Court, upsetting the judgment of acquittal passed by the Sessions Judge, Rampur.

(2.) Prosecution version as presented during trial is essentially as follows: On 23-1-1975 at about 2.00 p.m. Harnam Singh (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) was murdered in broad day light in the heart of Bilaspur town of district Rampur. An Information was lodged by Natha Singh (PW-1) to the effect that he and his brother (the deceased) were in inimical terms with family members of accused-Surinder Singh and Gurmez Singh. The dispute initially related to a way through the fields of the deceased, made by Gurmez Singh and his brother Gurumukh Singh (father of accused Surinder Singh). The strained relationship was so acute that the police had to take action twice under S. 107/117 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short the Code). There was however compromise later on. One Hardeo Singh was murdered. He was related to Doolah, the elder brother of accused-Surinder Singh. Report of that murder was lodged by Gurmukh Singh. Deceased, Natha Singh (PW-1) and others were arrayed as accused persons in the said case. The murder took place about two years prior to the incident and the matter was pending adjudication. Swarna Singh, father of accused Pinder Singh was witness for the prosecution in the said case. Accused Surinder Singh is a relative of other co-accused persons. Due to this strained relationship, there was enough bad blood flowing. When the deceased and PW-1 were going from their village Gadaiya towards the town of Bilaspur for making purchases and reached the main crossing near the culvert of the canal, Nirmal Singh (PW-4) sisters son of the deceased met them there. When PW-1 stopped to have a talk with Nirmal Singh, he asked the deceased to proceed further. The deceased had proceeded a few paces when suddenly the three accused persons who were standing nearby attacked and assaulted with their swords. This sudden attack attracted the attention of PW-1 and he raised an alarm which attracted notice of number of other persons including Shiv Prasad (PW-2), the police constable who was on duty at that time and Siya Ram (PW-3). Natha Singh (PW-1) and Shiv Prasad (PW-2) managed to capture two of the accused persons, namely, Surinder Singh and Pinder Singh along with blood stained swords. The other assailant succeeded in running away and could not be apprehended immediately. Harnam Singh breathed his last due to the injuries sustained by him. PW-1 and PW-2 and others went to the police station which is situated at a distance of two furlongs. Two blood stained swords which were the weapons of assaults were also taken. At the police station PW-1 dictated an oral report which was taken down by Mahavir Prasad, Clerk Constable (PW-8) in the register and FIR (Ex. Ka. 4) has been prepared at 2.15 p. m. Accused-Surinder Singh and two swords were handed over to the police. PW-8 took the swords into custody and sealed them. Sub-Inspector, Om Pal Singh (PW-11) was present at the police station. He took up the investigation and sent two constables to the place of occurrence to guard the dead body. He then interrogated PW-1 and captured accused persons. Then he reached the place of occurrence at about 4.00 p. p. to prepare inquest report and the dead body was sent for postmortem examination. The investigating officer also took shoes of the deceased which were lying at the spot of occurrence along with other articles. The Circle Officer, Balbir Singh reached at the spot around 7.00 p.m. The investigation was entrusted to Narpat Singh, Station Officer of Police Station, Milak Khanak (PW-12). Dr. A. N. Zutshi (PW-6) performed the post-mortem examination on 29-1-1975 at about 11.00 a.m. He noticed 9 injuries. On internal examination he found that the occipital bone under injury Nos. 1 and 3 was cut and broken to different pieces. The back position of parietal bone was also broken. The diameter of the brain was cut at two places and the brain was congested. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was placed and charges were framed under S. 302 read with S. 34 IPC. The accused persons pleaded innocence. In order to substantiate its plea, 12 witnesses were examined by prosecution. One witness was examined by the accused persons claiming that two of the accused persons were arrested from his Motor repair shop and they were not taken from the place of occurrence.

(3.) During trial, prosecution version primarily rested on the evidence of PWs 1, 2, 3 and 4 who were claimed to be eye-witnesses. The trial Court found that there were serious infirmities in the prosecution version and following were held to be the vulnerable factors :-