LAWS(SC)-1996-3-3

STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Vs. NOORIE ALIAS NOORJAHAN

Decided On March 26, 1996
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Appellant
V/S
NOORIE ALIAS NOORJAHAN Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by grant of special leave is directed against the order of acquittal passed by the High Court of Allahabad, Lucknow Bench in Criminal Appeal No. 55 of 1978.

(2.) The four respondents were tried for offences under Sections 147, 148, 302/149 and 201/511, I. P. C. on the allegation that they along with some unknown person mercilessly assaulted deceased Bachan Shah with knives and lathis and thereafter carried a cycle of the deceased and dragged the dead body of the deceased to the nearby grove and left it in a pit and escaped from the place of occurrence. The learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted 4 respondents under Section 147 and 302 read with Section 149, I. P. C. and further convicted respondents Inder Dutt, Raghu Raj Bikram under Sections 148, 302 and 201/511 of the Indian Penal Code. Respondent Noori, however, was acquitted of the charge under Section 201/511 against her. All of them were sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 302/149 and respondent Noori was further sentenced to undergo for one year under Section 147 and the rest 3 respondents were sentenced under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code and R. I. for one year under Section 201/511 of the Indian Penal Code. Sentences have been directed to run concurrently. The respondents then filed appeal and the High Court acquitted all of them for the charges levelled against them and hence this present appeal.

(3.) Prosecution case in nutshell is that deceased Ram Bharosey alias Bachan Shah had gone to his tubewell at 10.30 a. m. on 25-2-1975 for getting the same repaired through the mechanic, Latta Mallah P. W. 2. As he did not come home to take his lunch till 2.30 p. m. his nephew Iqbal Narain P. W. I went to call his uncle for food. When both of them were returning respondent Noori stopped the deceased on the way and started talking to him. In the meantime the three other respondents along with two unknown persons came armed with knives and lathis and started assaulting the deceased. While the deceased was being assaulted, respondent Noori was standing. P. W. 2 who followed the deceased and P. W. 1 soon reached the spot and saw the occurrence. Noori then left the place of occurrence. Rest of the three respondents after mercilessly assaulting the deceased dragged the dead body towards the grove and threw it into a pit, and left the place. The informant Iqbal Narian P. W. 1 prepared a written report and lodged the same at Lion Katra Police Station at 4.30 p. m. On receipt of the said report which was treated as F. I. R. P. W. 7 registered the case and started investigation. On reaching the place of occurrence, he held the inquest and then sent another officer to search for the accused persons but the accused persons were not found. A dog squad was then sent to trace out the two unknown persons and the said dog went up to the door of the accused Raghu Raj which was found locked. The dead body was sent for post-mortem examination. The investigating officer seized incriminating articles and sent for Chemical Examination. Witnesses were examined under Section 161, Cr. P. C. Finally on completion of investigation charge sheet was filed. On being committed the respondents stood their trial. The defence plea is one of denial. The prosecution examined 9 witnesses in all of whom PWs. 1, 2 and 3 are eye-witnesses to the occurrence. P. W. 6 is the doctor who had conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased. P. W. 4 is a witness to the inquest as well as witness to certain seizure made in the course of investigation P. W. 5 is the constable who carried the dead body to the morgue for post-mortem examination P. W. 7 is the police officer who had recorded the FIR and investigated into the offence. P. W. 8 is a constable and formal witness. P. W. 9 is the Head Constable who had made some entries at the Police Station on receipt of the written report. Prosecution also proved several documentary evidence of which Ext. 26 is the FIR, Ext. 9 is the post-mortem report of the deceased, Ext. 40 is the Report of Chemical Examiner and Ext. 39 is the Serologist Report. The defence also examined one witness as DW. 1. The learned Additional Sessions Judge on a scrutiny the entire materials on record came to the conclusion, mostly relying upon the evidence of 3 witnesses PWs. 1, 2, and 3, that the prosecution has been able to establish the charges beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly convicted and sentenced the accused persons as already stated. On appeal by the accused respondents the High Court though accepted the prosecution story that the deceased was murdered in the Galiayar and his body wad shifted to the pit where it was dumped but held it was not established that the said murder had been witnessed by the alleged witness namely PWs. 1, 2, and 3 therefore the possibility that the deceased was murdered by others and the appellants were implicated on mere suspicion or out of vengeance cannot be ruled out. With this conclusion the High Court set aside the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and acquitted the accused respondents.