RAM CHANDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant before us in this appeal pursuant to the special leave granted, was tried along with three others for offences punishable under Sections 302/34, Penal Code. Chota Singh, father of the appellant and Rameshwar Singh - his brother and Sukhbir Singh - the nephew of Chota Singh and the appellant are alleged to have caused the death of the deceased -Sukhbir Singh by firing from their respective arms. The Occurrence is alleged to have taken place on 25-5-1977 at 4.45 p.m. This incident is said to have been witnessed by PWs. 1 and 2. The deceased died on the spot. The FIR was lodged and inquest was held and the postmortem was conducted by the doctor, who opined that the death was caused due to the injuries caused by fire-arms. The trial Court convicted Chota Singh who was alleged to have been armed with a gun, died during the trial. The other three accused, including the appellant were convicted by the trial Court under Sections 302/34, Penal Code and each of them was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.

(2.) The High Court acquitted Rameshwar Singh giving the benefit of doubt, viz., on the ground that there is no material to show that he used his rifle. The appellant, as well as the other accused Sukhbir Singh were convicted by the High Court thereby affirming the findings of the trial Court in respect of those two accused. Both of them preferred special leave petition to this Court and by order dated 20-12-90 special leave was granted only in respect of the present appellant-Ram Chander Singh and dismissed in so far as the other accused - Sukhbir Singh was concerned. It may not be necessary for us even to go into the details of the evidence. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel viz., that the very reason given by the High Court for acquitting Rameshwar Singh equally applies to the case of the appellant before us inasmuch as there is no evidence to show that Ram Chander caused any injury by his weapon.

(3.) According to the prosecution, Chota Singh, father of the appellant was armed with a gun, the appellant Ram Chander was armed with an English-made pistol, Rameshwar Singh was armed with a rifle and Sukhbir Singh was armed with a country-made gun (Addi). According to the eye-witnesses, all the four of them shot at the deceased. The doctor, who conducted the post-mortem found only six injuries. On a consideration of the evidence of the doctor, the High Court held that all those injuries could have been caused by a gun and country-made Addi. As a matter of fact, the High Court gave a categorical finding that those injuries could not have been caused by a rifle or an English made pistol. The High Court gave the benefit of doubt to Rameshwar Singh who was alleged to have been armed with a rifle and acquitted him thereby holding that the injuries caused was not due to use of a rifle. Now, coming to the appellant, the High Court however, relied on the evidence of the witnesses, who stated that the appellant fired his pistol but missed and the other circumstances relied upon by the High Court is that the empty used cartridge which could have been used in the pistol was found at the scene of occurrence. It is on these two circumstances the High Court confirmed the conviction of the appellant. It must be noted that all the witnesses categorically stated that Rameshwar Singh also fired at the deceased with his rifle. Likewise, they deposed that the appellant shot at the deceased with the English made pistol. Now, the categorical finding is that no injury was found on the deceased which could have been caused by a rifle or an English made pistol. The mere recovery of a cartridge by itself does not establish guilt of the appellant beyond all reasonable doubts. The reason given by the High Court for acquitting Rameshwar Singh equally apply to the case of the appellant Ram Chander. The High Court at one stage observed that "the result of all the features of the evidence and circumstances therefore seems to be that while the pistol might have been used in the commission of the offence which might have missed the target, the rifle was not used." This subtle distinction is too fine to convict the appellant while on the same reasoning the other accused Rameshwar Singh was acquitted by the High Court. The same doubt arises in respect of the appellant also. Accordingly, the conviction and sentences awarded by the Courts below against the appellant are set aside and he is accordingly acquitted. The appeal is, therefore, allowed. If the appellant is in jail and not wanted in any other case, he may be set at liberty forthwith.