KRIPAL Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals are against a judgment of the High Court of Allahabad dated 8th May, 1953, and arise out of a trial before the Sessions Judge of Muzaffarnagar of the three appellants herein along with ten others in respect of charges under section 148, and section 302, as well as 323 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code. The Sessions Judge acquitted these ten persons of all the charges. But so far as the three appellants are concerned, though acquitted in respect of the charge under section 302, I.P.C., they were convicted under section 304 (1) as well as under section 323, I.P.C. read with section 34, I.P.C. The appellants in Cr. A. 37 of 1953, Kripal and Bhopal, were sentenced to five years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100 and the appellant in Cr. A. 77 of 1953, Sheoraj, was sentenced to four years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100. The three appellants files appeals to the High Court in respect of their convictions and sentences, while the State filed an appeal as against these three appellants alone in respect of their acquittal under section 302, I.P.C. In the High Court, the appeal filed by the three appellants was dismissed but on the appeal filed by the State, the acquittal of these three appellants under section 302, I.P.C. was set aside and they were convicted of the said offence. The two appellants in Cr. A 37 of 1953 were sentenced to death while the appellant in Cr. A 77 of 1953 was sentenced to transportation for life. So far as the appellants in Cr. A 37 of 1953 are concerned, the appeal to this Court is under Art. 134(1)(a) of the Constitution which provides for a right of appeal from a judgment of a High Court in criminal proceedings where, on appeal, the High Court reverses an order of acquittal and sentences an accused to death. So far as the appellant in Cr. A 77 of 1953 is concerned, his appeal which arises out of the same judgment is before us on special leave granted under Article 136 of the Constitution.

(2.) The prosecution case which has given rise to these appeals is as follows. In the village of Kakrala, police station Khatauli, District Muzzaffarnagar, there were two incidents at about the same time, viz., 7 o'clock in the morning of the 16th May, 1949, one at a spot called Milakwala well and the other at a place called Dhakolas. At the Milakwala well incident one Jiraj was murdered and at the Dhakolas incident one Indraj was murdered. These two murdered persons were brothers and the sons of Chandan, who gave the First Information Report. It would appear that the two murdered persons as well as the three appellants are all related to each other as decendants from a common ancestor through different branches and that there were serious disputes between them relating to partition of certain properties. The specific case of the prosecution with reference to the incidents which brought about the death of the two persons, Jiraj and Indraj, was that on the morning of the 16th May, 1949, at about 7 A.M. the three appellants of whom Bhopal and Sheoraj were brothers and Kripal their cousin, were working in a field in which was situated a well called Milakwala well. The deceased Jiraj had a field somewhat lower down the Milakwala well where sugarcane was grown. For that morning's work of digging canes from the field, he had fixed up two labourers by name Man Singh and Sher Singh. All the three of them were proceeding towards Jiraj's field, the two labourers being somewhat ahead of Jiraj. On their way the two labourers had to pass by the side of the Milakwala well where the three appellants were working. They were accosted by the accused and on getting to know that they were going to work for Jiraj in his field lower down, they abused them and told them not to go there but to work for themselves. The two labourers proceeded forward without heeding them. When they had gone about 30 or 40 paces, the three appellants rushed at them and began to beat them with the with the handles of spears which were in the hands of Bhopal and Kripal and with a lathi which was in the hand of Sheoraj. Meanwhile Jiraj arrived at the spot and asked the appellants why they were beating his labourers and stopped them from beating them. Thereupon the three appellants attacked Jiraj, as a result of which he fell down and died on the spot. The labourers, Man Singh and Sher Singh ran to the help of Jiraj and they were further assaulted by the appellants who resisted the assault on themselves with lathis. Meanwhile one Ram Chandra, brother-in-law of the two labourers, who was also coming somewhat behind to join in the labour, came near the Milakwala well and saw the occurrence and becoming afraid ran back to the village. He was chased by two of the appellants, viz., Bhopal and Sheoraj. On the way Ram Chandra met Indraj, brother of Jiraj, coming out of the village and told him that Jiraj had been killed and the labourers have been beaten by the appellants. Another, Bhanwar Singh, who was also going to the field of Jiraj, saw Jiraj being attacked by the three appellants and ran back to the village and informed certain persons in the village about the occurrence. Meanwhile, the two accused Bhopal and Sheoraj in the course of their chase of Ram Chandra encountered Indraj in the place known as Dhakolas on the way from the Milakwala well to the village, about a furlong and a half away from the Milakwala well. At that place all the three appellants as also ten other persons who were there, armed with lathies and spears attacked Indraj and some other persons on his side, who by that time had come running up to the place from the village on receiving information. At that encounter Indraj and four others received injuries. Injuries on Indraj were serious and within the course of a short time he died. Thus according to the prosecution case there were two incidents, one at Milakwala well and another at Dhakolas. In the first incident, only the three appellants participated, while in the second there three along with ten others participated. At the first occurrence Jiraj died, while the two labourers Man Singh and Sher Singh received some injuries. At the second Indraj received mortal injuries and four others viz. Tulsi, Munshi, Bhanwar Singh and Lal Singh, received minor injuries. The prosecution treated both these incidents as forming one transaction and placed all the 13 accused, together, on join trial in respect of the two charges, the first being a charge under section 148, I.P.C. and the second a charge under sections 302 and 323 taken with 149, I.P.C. both the charges being against all the 13 persons. As regards the incident at the Dhakolas, the learned Sessions Judge considered that the evidence bearing on the same was not satisfactory. He accordingly acquitted the ten persons who concerned solely with that incident. He accepted the prosecution evidence in so far as it relates to the incident at Milakwala well and convicted all three present appellants as being concerned there in. As already stated he considered all of them guilty only under section 304, I.P.C. read with section 34, I.P.C. and not under section 302, I.P.C. and sentenced them as already above stated.

(3.) The prosecution case in so far as Milakwala well is concerned is supported not only by the evidence of the two witnesses Man Singh and Sher Singh who were going to the field of Jiraj for working their and were beaten but also by the evidence of five other persons who were in the fields nearby and happened to see the occurrence. The defence of the appellant Kripal was that he was not at the scene of occurrence but at a different village to which he had gone. He examined two witnesses in support of that defence. Appellants Bhopal and Sheoraj admitted their presence at the occurrence but their case was that there were no two different incidents at two places as put forward by the prosecution, but there was only one incident. According to them they were both working at the Milakwala well in the company of a Tilak Brahmin, when, the two deceased persons along with 8 others, (i.e. ten out of the 13 original accused in this case) came to the spot armed with lathis and spears and challenged them for a fight. They were themselves merely acting in self-defence as against the aggressive attack of the prosecution party and in course of this scuffle both Jiraj and Indraj received fatal injuries from the members of their own party. Both the Courts below accepted the prosecution evidence so far as this incident is concerned and rejected the defence as not having been made out and indeed as being false.