RAM SEWAK Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appellant Ram Sewak was tried on the charge of murdering Surendra Pal Singh a teacher in a school in Village Khera Bhajera. According to the prosecution case, on 13.2.1992 at about 5 p.m. the deceased was returning on a bicycle with his 15 years old daughter, P.W. 1 from the school and when they came near the fields of Liladhar, the accused Ram Sewak attacked the deceased with a lathi as a result of which the deceased fell down. P.W. 1 Vinita the daughter of the deceased then fled away from the scene, informed her maternal uncle Virendra Singh, P.W. 2 and when they came back to the scene of occurrence, they found the deceased in unconscious and badly injured condition. From there, the deceased was carried to his house wherefrom he was shifted to the hospital. Soon after reaching the hospital Surendra Pal Singh succumbed to the injuries. Virendra Singh, P.W. 2 filed a report in the Police Station Faridpur which seems to be almost opposite to Primary Health Centre Hospital at Faridpur. The F.I.R. was registered at 7.10 p.m., i.e., within two hours of the occurrence. The F.I.R. was forwarded through a constable to the Police Station Fatehgarh (East) which is the jurisdictional police station in respect of the village concerned. Then P.W. 3 Tejpal Singh, Sub-Inspector, in charge of Fatehgarh Police Station started investigation and recorded statements of P.W. 2 Virendra Singh and Vinita, P.W. 1 while they were at the hospital on the intervening night of 13/14.2.1992. Dr. Nursingh Bahadur, P.W. 5 conducted the autopsy on the dead body of Surendra Pal Singh on 14.2.1992. The post-mortem report reveals that there were as many as five lacerated wounds on or near the head ; the last being 10 cm. 1 cm. bone deep on the back side of the head which caused the fracture of occipital bone and congestion of brain membranes. P.W. 5 deposed that the deceased died out of shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem injuries.

(2.) The accused took the plea that he was implicated on account of enmity with P.W. 2 Virendra Singh and that he was not present in the village on the day of occurrence. He examined D.W. 1 Mohd. Mobin Khan who testified that sister-in-law of the accused had undergone the tubectomy operation at P.H.C. Faridpur on 13.2.1992 and that he was in the hospital in that connection. The accused also examined D.W. 2 Roop Prakash in order to establish that the presence of P.W. 1 Vinita at the time of occurrence was highly doubtful.

(3.) The eye-witness of the occurrence is P.W. 1 Vinita the daughter of the deceased. The trial court disbelieved her evidence on the ground of certain contradictions and discrepancies and acquitted the accused of the charge. The trial court also disbelieved the evidence of P.W. 2 Virendra Singh mainly on the ground that he was inimically deposed towards him on account of an incident of burglary committed three months earlier allegedly by the accused. The trial court also commented on the fact that the report was initially filed at Faridpur Police Station though it did not have the jurisdiction.