SHIVNATH SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these three appeals arises out of the same judgment of Allahabad High Court. Before the trial Court 10 accused were tried for offences punishable under Sections 148, 302, 451, 323/149, 302/149 and 201/149, I.P.C., for committing the murder of one Mohan Lal with guns, axes and iron rod and for severing his head and taking it away with intention to screen themselves from legal punishment and for breaking open the house of the deceased and taking away his rifle. The trial Court convicted all of them and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life and also various other terms of imprisonment for other offences. The convicted accused preferred Criminal Appeals Nos. 13, 14 and 15 of 1982 and the High Court dismissed all of them. Questioning the same, these three appeals are filed by the 10 convicted accused.

(2.) The prosecution case is as follows : The appellants are all inter-related and belong to one family. There was a faction between the party of the accused and that of the deceased. On 13-9-80 at about 4 p.m. while the deceased was sitting at the door of Garikhana, all the accused came there armed with guns, axes and iron rod, Shivnath Singh, A-5 exhorted others to catch hold of the deceased and kill him. On this some of the accused caught hold of Mohan Lal and Ram Nath, A-10, Jagdev Singh, A-1 and Roop Singh, A-3 entered into the house of the deceased and took away his rifle after breaking open the door. Mata Prasad, A-9 and Ram Nath, A-10 fired gun shots on the head of the deceased. Jagdev Singh, A-1, Sahdev Singh, A-2 and Kalloo, A-4 gave axe blows and Surendra Pal Singh, A-7 beat the deceased with iron rod. Smt. Siyawati, P.W. 4, niece of the deceased and his brothers wife tried to intervene and they also received injuries. On hearing the alarm, Vishwanath Singh, P.W. 3, son of the deceased and several other persons came there and challenged the accused-appellant but they did not care. They tied the feet of Mohan Lal and dragged him up to the house of one Durga Singh. There Mata Prasad, A-9 and Ram Nath, A-10 fired gun shots on the head of the deceased and Ram Babu, A-8 and Roop Singh, A-3 severed the head of the deceased and pierced it to an iron rod and lifted it up and thereafter the accused persons carried the trunk and the severed head of the deceased up to the Khaliyan of one Jag Ram Singh. There the trunk was left and the head was taken away. P.W. 3, son of the deceased, went and lodged a report in the Police Station, Churkhi, six miles away, on the same day at about 6.45 p.m. The case was registered and the investigation was taken up. The trunk of the deceased was sent for post-mortem after inquest. On 15-9-80 the severed head of the deceased was recovered from the water in a river on pointing out by Inder Singh, A-6 and the same was sent for post-mortem. The Doctor, who conducted the post-mortem on the trunk and the head of the deceased, found pellet injuries and opined that the trunk and the head belong to the same person. Another Doctor, P.W. 6 examined Smt. Siyawati, P.W. 4 and on her, he found two contusions. After completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was laid. The accused however denied the occurrence and further stated that the deceased had association with dacoits and that he was also quarrelsome and was involved in a number of cases. They also took the defence that the head belonged to some young person and the trunk also was not of Mohan Lal and after recovery of these two parts of body belonging to the two different persons the police have foisted the case against them. The learned trial Judge relying on the evidence of the eye-witnesses P.Ws. 3 and 4 and also on the evidence of P.W. 2, medical evidence and other circumstances convicted all the 10 accused. The High Court once again considered the evidence of the material witnesses in great detail and agreed with the findings of the trial Court and confirmed the convictions and sentences passed against the appellants.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted before us that all the material witnesses are interested witnesses and their version on some of the aspects is artificial. The presence of P.W. 3 is doubtful inasmuch as he was not injured though he was also a co-accused in the earlier case along with the deceased and if really as stated by this witness the accused carried the head in that manner, many supporters of the deceased would not have kept quite and the medical evidence does not conclusively establish that the head recovered was that of the deceased and there are indications to show that the F.I.R. was brought into existence at a belated stage. It is also lastly submitted that the details of attack are not mentioned and there is no possibility of sifting grain from chaff in the evidence of each of the witnesses and on such omnibus allegations all the appellants cannot be convicted. We will first briefly deal with the evidence of the eye-witnesses and then go to the other submissions.