STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Vs. HARI PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As criminal cases go, this is an interesting case in the sense that it offers for solution a riddle of many facets. And since many answers reasonably come to mind, the accused would appear to be entitled to the benefit of that perplexity. The monsoon night of August 27, 1968 was dark, so dark indeed that the Sessions Court which sentenced five of the accused to death and the remaining five to life imprisonment made a finding that "it is an admitted case that without light it was not possible to identify the assailants". Witnesses usually place torches in the hands of dacoits and though the motive of the crime in this case was burglary, a faint attempt was made by some of the witness to show that, on occasions, a few of the accused had flashed their torches at the strategic stages. But that part of the case is clearly unworthy of belief. And so, the main question in this appeal is whether a lantern was burning at the scene of offence, a lantern hanging by a pole four or five feet high. Witnesses claim that they identified the accused in the light of that lantern.

(2.) The case is riddled with these mysteries:Why did the accused murder Vishwanath Panda, their traditional family priest with whom they were on friendly terms and who, with his mother Birja, had come on the 28th evening to stay with the complainant Kanahaiya Bux Singh as a guest The answer made by the prosecution is that it is a sorry case of mistaken identity; the accused wanted to murder the complainant but mistook Vishwanath for him, both being of the same colour size and age. Why did the accused assault Birja whose husband first and after his death her son was their priest The explanation offered is that the accused wanted to terrorise her lest she raised an alarm. If the common intention of the accused was to commit the murder of Kanahaiya Bux Singh why did they allow him to escape under their very noses They were ten strong. It is suggested that on seeing the assault on Vishwanath, Kanahaiya Bux Singh escaped into the nearby Chhappar, along with his brother Kishan Pal Singh and his sister Chandrawali. They covered themselves with old clothes lying in the Chhappaer, but kept an opening for the eyes so as to be able to see the incident from the beginning to the fall of the curtain. Why was the complainant's servant Ram Gopal murdered No explanation is forthcoming. And if the complainant and his family were the real target how could the complainant's brother Bhagwan Bux Singh his mother Ram Dulari and her sister Raja Munni escape with no more than simple, superficial injuries This is not to say that even if the witnesses are truthful, the prosecution must fail for the reason that the motive of the crime is difficult to find. For the matter of that, it is never incumbent on the prosecution to prove the motive for the crime. And often times, a motive is indicated to heighten the probability that the offence was committed by the person who was impelled by that motive. But, if the crime is alleged to have been committed for a particular motive, it is relevant to inquire whether the pattern of the crime fits in with the alleged motive. If the motive, here, was directed against Kanahaiya Bux Singh and his family, how strange it is that Kanahaiya Bux Singh, his sister Chandrawali and his brother Kishan Pal Singh should have been allowed to escape unscathed when they were within the easy reach of the accused; and how strange again that Bhagwan Bux, Ram Dulari and Raja Munni should escape as if through a passing household scramble. The accused, according to the prosecution, pooled their strength to murder a foe - Kanahaiya Bux Singh - but murdered through mistake a friend - Vishwanath Panda and for no apparent reason, an innocent servant, Ram Gopal.

(3.) The incident leading to the appeal took place at about 11-30 p.m. on August 27, 1968 in the village of Kunwarpur, district Lucknow. Kunwarpur is a tiny village consisting of but ten houses. The complainant, Thakur Kanahaiya Bux Singh, lived with his family in one house, while three houses were in the occupation of five out of the ten accused; Badlu, Manohar, Chhotey Lal, Jagannath and Dhaniram. The remaining five belonged to neighbouring villages.