DHARAM DAS Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal by special leave, Dharam Das and Ram Das sons of Ram Adhar, and Raja Ram s/o Chunnua have challenged their conviction by the Allahabad High Court after allowing the State appeal against the acquittal of four persons by the II Temporary Sessions Judge, Hamirpur.

(2.) The three appellants along with Narayan son of Ram Adhar were tried in the court of the II Temporary Sessions Judge, Hamirpur for offences under Sections 302/34 and Sections 323/ 34. I. P. C. The four accused persons were charged with the murder of Sukhdeo and voluntarily causing hurt to Bhogi Lal at about 12.00 noon on April, 29, 1965 in village Bidokhar Police Station Sumerpur, in furtherance of their common intention to commit the said offences. The prosecution story as unfolded in the report Ext. Ka-1 may now be stated. Sukhdeo deceased, according to the rumour prevailing in the village, had intimacy with the wife of Narayan accused. Sukhdeo was once seen by the inhabitants of the Mohalla coming out of the house of Narayan accused but the Panchayat after considering the matter felt that es the incident involved the honour and respect of the lady and the family it should be suppressed and not given publicity. Narayan. however, was not pleased with this decision and was on the look-out far an opportunity of giving a beating to Sukhdeo. About 15 or 16 days before the murder of Sukhdeo. Narayan is stated to have abused the deceased and for this incident also a Panchayat was held in which sympathy was expressed with Narayan. However Narayan still entertained feelings of hostility against Sukhdeo. On April 29, 1965 at about 12.00 noon. Sukhdeo his wife Smt. Gangiya P. W. 3. Bhogi Lal P. W. 1. Sadho. P. W. 2. Babu Lal. Baij Nath and Punna were busy working in their Khaliyan about two furlongs towards north-west from village Bidokhar when Narayan armed with a Karauli, Raja Ram Dharam Das and Ram Das each armed with a lathi arrived at the said Khaliyan and started beating Sukhdeo with their respective weapons. The persons present at the spot raised alarm remonstrating with the assailants to spare Sukhdeo and also attempted to rescue him. Dharam Das gave a blow to Bhogi Lal which struck him on his left hand. After inflicting injuries to Sukhdeo and Bhogi Lal, the assailants made good their escape. Sukhdeo while being removed on a bullock cart to the police station expired on the way near the house of Shyam Lal Ahir in village Bidokhar. The dead body of Sukhdeo was left at the door of Shyam Lal Ahir and Bhogi Lal proceeded to lodge the report which was scribed by Swami Din P. W. 4 at Bhogi Lal's dictation This report was lodged at the police station. Sumerpur at 3.40 P. M.

(3.) The first information report was taken down by Munwar Khan. Head Constable. P. W. 6. Baleshwar Prasad, P. W. 7 the Station Officer was also present. The distance between the place of the occurrence and the police station is said to be about 6 miles. Baleshwar Prasad immediately took up the investigation of the case and reached village Bidokhar at about 6.30 P. M. The trial Court felt that the testimony of Bhogi Lal. P. W. 1. was not in conformity with his statement in Ext. Ka-l. there being discrepancies with respect to the exact spot where the occurrence had taken place leaving an impression that page No. W. 1 had not witnessed any part of the occurrence and had drawn up on his imagination in giving the prosecution version. The motive as stated by Bhogi Lal, P. W. 1 was also not considered to be reliable. With respect to the statement of Sadhu. P. W. 2, as well, the trial Court felt that he had not seen that pert of the occurrence which had taken place before Smt. Gangiya wife of the deceased raised alarm. Sadhu, P. W. 2 had not witnessed the Karauli blow given by Narayan to the deceased because it was after this injury that all the four accused persons started beating the deceased. Indeed the trial Court went to the length of observing that page No. W. 2. Sadhu, had very likely not seen any part of the occurrence and was to quote the trial Court. a "planted witness". Smt. Gangiya P W. 3 the third eye witness was also considered to have made a statement "full of infirmities and divergences". The Court felt difficulty in holding that she had witnessed any part of the occurrence there being no stains of blood on her Dhoti though, according to her own version after her husband had been injured she clung to him. The trial Court therefore felt that the prosecution had failed to bring the charge home to any of the accused persons and acquitted them all.