GOVIND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The occurrence, which is the subject matter of this case, manifests how savage and barbarous human beings can be and to what extent they can be cruel with utter disregard to human life. Kestara is a small village in Durg District with a population of about 300 people. A gruesome massacre took place on the evening of 24-1-82. 14 persons, men, women, children and even infants belonging to a Satnami family (scheduled caste) of one Gangaprasad were killed. Their house was set on fire. The inmates who were trying to flee, were caught, killed and thrown into the raging flames. The next morning when the police party arrived, six charred bodies were recovered from the burnt house. The police also found seven partly burnt and brutally cut bodies lying scattered near the house. Later charred skull and bones of one more body were recovered from the house. In respect of this occurrence 44 persons mostly belonging to Rawat caste and some others were prosecuted and two of them were found absconding. One Sadru died during the pendency of the trial. Ultimately 41 accused stood the trial before the learned Sessions Judge, Durg. The case mainly rested on the evidence of P.W. 7 Bhawanibai and P.W. 8 Bhagabai, the two ladies eye-witnesses who were also members of that unfortunate family. The trial Court was not prepared to place reliance on their evidence and accordingly acquitted all the accused. The State filed an appeal against the order of acquittal. The High Court, however, refused to grant leave as against 10 accused. During the pendency of the State appeal, two accused namely Jhulu and Ghanaram. expired and the appeal stood abated as against them. As against the remaining accused, the High Court examined the appeal filed by the State and ultimately convicted 21 of them under Section 148 and sentenced each of them to undergo two years' R. I. They were also convicted under Sections 302/149 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each and they were further convicted u/Ss. 436/ 149 I.P.C. and sentenced to 10 years' R. I. The sentences were directed to run concurrently. The acquittal of remaining accused was confirmed by the High Court. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal under Section 2 of the Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act has been filed by the 21 convicted accused.

(2.) There was a longstanding faction between the family of the deceased and the Rawats and Brahmins of village Kestara. There were criminal as well as other cases filed against the family of the deceased Gangaprasad as well as against Rawats and Brahmins. Proceedings u/Ss. 107/116, Cr. P.C. also were initiated against the adult male members of the deceased family and the Rawats. The fact about enmity between these two rival groups is not in dispute. Because of this enmity between family of the deceased Gangaprasad and the Rawats, there had been a fight between GangaPrasad and his brother on one hand and Ramdayal, Shivprasad and Bijeram on the other hand. As soon as Rawats and Brahmins of the Village learnt about this fight, they surrounded the house of deceased Gangaprasad. A hay-stack was kept outside the house and the house was set on fire by sprinkling kerosene and then throwing burning hay thereon. The inmates who tried to run away, were attacked one by one by sharp weapons. Some children and women were trapped inside the house and some were killed and then thrown into the flames. P.W. 2. Kotwar Bisahuram who had gone to the neighbouring village Mutpuri to hear Ramayan was informed about the fight and he rushed to Kestara. On the way he also saw the accused Ramdayal, Bijeram and Shivprasad being taken away in bullock carts. When he reached the village, he found that the house of Gangaprasad was in flames and he also saw the dead bodies. Immediately he set out for reporting the matter to the police station and reached the same at about 10.45 P.M. and lodged the report. At about 11 P.M. the three injured accused Ramdayal, Bijeram and Shivprasad also reached the police station and lodged a report. P.W. 15, R.P. Gupta, S.H.O. came to the police station and despatched Constable Kamlaprasad, P.W. 27 for keeping guard over the dead bodies and he himself left for village Kestara at about 4 A.M. He visited the scene of occurrence and held tile inquest over the dead bodies. Meanwhile the Circle Inspector, P.W.44 took over the investigation. The dead bodies were sent for post-mortem examinations and the Doctors who conducted the post-mortem had no difficulty in opining that some of the deceased persons were killed and thrown into tile fire and the others were got burnt in the fire. Tile accused pleaded that they were falsely implicated.

(3.) As already mentioned, the prosecution case rested mainly on the evidence of P. Ws. 7 and 8 , the two eye-witnesses. P. W. 7, a woman aged about 21 years is the widow of deceased Mathuraprasad who was killed in the occurrence. She was married about three years before the date of incident and had a small child aged about 1-1/2 years. She deposed that at about noon on the day of the occurrence, she and her sister-in-law (Jethani) P.W. 8 had gone to the field for cutting the crop. The other members of the family were in the house. Before sunset she and P.W. 8 returned towards their house. When they reached the neighbouring badi of Nandlal, they saw a big crowd surrounding their house. She and P.W. 8 hid themselves behind the boundary wall of the badi and saw the entire incident from there. She identified as many as 20 accused and gave their names. She also identified some more accused in the Court and we will refer to these details at, a later stage. Regarding the details of the occurrence, P.W. 7 stated that accused Dindayal was throwing down (Piara) dry stalks of paddy from the heap kept in the courtyard. Accused Nandlal, Motiram, Makhan Pandit and Khilawan Pandit were putting this Paira into their house. Accused Govind and Ambika were pouring kerosene from a container on the Paira. Accused Janak and Thulu were also sprinkling kerosene. Accused Ramachandra and some other persons were setting fire to the kerosene sprinkled. When the house started burning her Jeth (elder brother of the husband) Hemprasad jumped out from the house but accused Kanhaiya, Milan and another attacked him with Farsi and killed him. Soon after her husband Mathuraprasad also jumped from the burning house and accused Feku, Sadru, who died during the pendency of the trial, and Sarwan, the absconding accused attacked him with Farsis and killed him. She also saw deceased Rukhmaj son of deceased Gangaprasad running and accused Mantram, Janak, Tanwar and Ramchandra chased him and killed him. When Rukhmaj was pleading for mercy, accused Tanwar inflicted a powerful blow with the Farsi and killed him. Likewise some of the other deceased also were killed. Accused Govind snatched a little child from her mother and gave it to accused Shivprasad who threw her into the burning fire. She also heard Lutu and Jhulu brahmins shouting that Kedar's family has been finished but his daughter Bhagabai is alive and she too must be finished. Saying this they went towards Bhagabai's house. Then P.Ws. 7 and 8 ran towards village Mutpuri to the house of the mother-in-law and stayed there for the night as it was raining and thereafter they went to Bhilai. P.W,7 went to the house of Pilau, her Mama Sasur i.e. brother of her mother-in-law and told him about the massacre. Thereafter she and P.W. 8 were taken by the police for examination. This witness was subjected to a gruelling cross-examination. Most of the cross-examination was with reference to some of the omissions in her earlier statements recorded by the police. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants attacked the evidence of P.Ws. 7 and 8 in general by contending that it they were anywhere near the place of occurrence, the assailants in the mob would not have spared them and it is more probable that they were in the fields and they came only after the occurrence and therefore their identification of any of the assailants cannot be accepted. We are unable to agree. We have gone through their evidence. If P.Ws. 7 and 8 were not Present, they would not have been in a position to give details of the occurrence. Both of them also have stated that hearing the cries, they rushed from the fields which is more natural and they also deposed that they were hiding themselves behind the boundary wall of the badi, about three feet high and from there they witnessed the occurrence. It must also be noticed that the occurrence must have taken place for quite some time and therefore there would not have been any difficulty for these witnesses to identify the assailants.