ANIRUDDHA SINGH` Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by special leave arises out of the following facts.

(2.) On 1 st August, 1991 at about 6.00 p.m. Dharmendra Singh PW 2 and Rajendra-Singh, Bhawar Singh, Ram Chandra Singh, Mandatar Singh, Mahendra Singh and Krishna Kunwar Bai and her husband Dhyanpal Singh deceased having taken their buffaloes for grazing were returning to the village. As they reached near the field known as Goyrawali Beed, the accused armed with Dhariyas, Farsis, Swords, and lathies surrounded them. Anirudha Singh Patwari exhorted the other accused to kill Dhyanpal Singh and on his exhortation, Pradyumna Singh inflicted an injury with his sword on Dhyanpal Singh and Narendra Singh (since acquitted) caused a Dharia blow on his person whereas Anand Singh caused an injury with a Farsi whereas all the other accused Surendra Singh, Balram Singh, Manohar Singh, Pratap Singh, Krishna Singh caused injuries with lathies. Dhyanpal Singh fell on the ground bleed ing profusely. At that moment his son, PW 2 Dharmendra Singh, and one PW 14 Poona Balai also reached the spot and on account of the noise raised by them PW 5 Mandatar Singh and Gopal Singh also rushed that side. Dhyanpal Singh was taken in a tractor belonging to PW 11 Mahendra Singh towards the hospital but he suc cumbed on the way. PW 1 Krishna Kunwar Bai, the wife of the deceased, thereupon went on to the Police Station along with her son Dharmendra Singh and lodged the First Information Report at 8.45 p.m. The police then reached the place of occur rence and made the necessary inquiries. The Trial Court found that Anand Singh, one of the accused was a Juvenile and his case was accordingly transferred to the Juvenile Court whereas the other accused were brought to trial. The Trial Court examined the evidence in extenso and observed that both the parties i.e. accused as well as the victims were very close relations of each other, Dhyanpal Singh de ceased being the real brother of accused Aniruddha Singh. The Trial Court then assessed the prosecution evidence and observed that there was no reason to disbe lieve the four eye witnesses who had Supplorted the prosecution version and that their evidence was also corroborated by the medical evidence inasmuch as the inju ries found on the dead body could have been caused with the weapons allegedly used by the accused. The Trial Court further observed that as the enmity between the parties appeared to have been long festering as the dispute with regard to the two bighas of land which Dhyanpal Singh claimed as his own but was disputed by his brother and nephew, it was appropriate that an assessment be made with regard to the involvement of each of the accused. The Trial Court, thereafter, on a minute examination, held that as the four eye witnesses were not unanimous with respect to the exact role of the some of the accused, they were entitled to the benefit of doubt and having so observed acquitted accused Balram Singh, Krishna Singh, Narendra Singh and Surindra Singh but convicted the present appellants for offences under Sections 302/149, IPC and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.5000/- each and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. The High Court in appeal confirmed the judgment of the trial court. It is in these circumstances that the present appeal has been filed.

(3.) Mr. S. K. Gambhir, the learned senior counsel for the accused-appellant has argued that the presence of PW 3 Bhagwan Singh and PW 4 Parkash Kunwar had to be ruled out as the prosecution case itself revealed that they had been at a distance of about 220 meters when the incident had happened and as such they could not have seen the actual assault. He has in this case referred to the statement of PW9 the Patwari and PW17 the Investigating Officer. He has also submitted that PW3 had been identified as Bhagwan Singh but the person mentioned in the FIR was one Gopal and as such the presence of PW3 was also doubtful for this additional reason as well. He has also emphasized that a minute examination of the eye witnesses account revealed that Aniruddha Singh had been attributed only a Lalkara and had caused no injury and that the eye witnesses were discrepant with regard to the indi vidual rolls of the other accused as well. He has also pointed out that the fatal injury with a Dharia on the head had been attributed to Narendra Singh and as he had been acquitted by the Trial Court, it was apparent that the vicarious liability under Sec tions 302/149 of the I.P.C was. not made out as the accused had intended causing only hurt to the deceased. He has in Supplort of the last argument cited Ishwar Singh vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1976 SC 2423, Nadodi Jayaraman and Ors. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu (1992) 3 Suppl. SCC 161, Tara Devi vs. State of U.P. (1990) 4 SCC 144, Jaspal Singh vs. State of Haryana (1976) 4 SCC 303.