MEWA LAL, ETC. Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals are brought from the judgment of the Allahabad High Court dated Jan. 19, 1967 in Criminal Appeals Nos. 1197, 1198 t and 1229 of 1966. By this judgment the High Court affirmed the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Lucknow-Kanpur dated May 26, 1966 in Sessions Trial No. 6 of 1966 sentencing the appellants to death under Sec. 302, Indian Penal Code read with Sec. 149, Indian Penal Code and to two years rigorous imprisonment under Sec. 148, Indian Penal Code.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that on Sept. 1, 1965 at about 6 p.m. Nanney Singh and Dularey were sitting on a cot on the foot-path of the road under a tree near the flour mill owned by Nanney Singh in the Labour Colony, Nawabganj, in the city of Kanpur and Rakesh arrived and sat on the cot and began to talk to Nanney Singh. Shortly afterwards the present appellants arrived armed with pistols and knives. Ravindra alias Lalla, Mewa Lal and Surendra Singh were carrying pistols while Su-resh Chandra was armed with a knife. Rakesh also had a knife with him. On arrival the appellants shouted that Nanney Singh should be killed. Nanney Singh tried to run away but Rakesh caught hold of him and Suresh Chandra assaulted him with a knife and Mewa Lal fired a shot from his pistol in the air. Rakesh also struck Nanney Singh with his knife. Dularey tried to save Nanney Singh but Ravindra alias Lalla fired a shot at Dularey which hit him on the right eye. Dularey fell down and died on the spot. Nanney Singh also fell down unconscious. Mewa Lal fired a shot at Nanney Singh. Surendra Singh fired a shot in the air and all the appellants left the spot. Dadu Singh, P. W. 5 lodged the First Information Report at 6.45 p.m. on the same date. The Sub-Inspector, P.W. 10 immediately left for the spot and held an inquest on the dead bodies of Dularey and Nanney Singh. The inquest reports are Exs. Ka-9 and Ka-10. The Sub-Inspector thereafter took other steps in connection with the investigation of the crime. The postmortem examination of the dead bodies of Dularey and Nanney Singh was conducted by Dr. A. S. Gupta, P.W. 2. As many as 28 incised or punctured wounds were found on the dead body of Nanney Singh. The doctor also found three- gun-shot wounds of entrance, each x i". The first gun-shot wound was on the right side and front of the chest. 2k" medial to the right nipple, the second 3" below the above injury and the third on the right side and upper part of the abdomen. The first two injuries had entered the chest cavity and the third had entered the abdomen. On the dead-body of Dularey two incised wounds and a gun shot wound of entrance on the right eye were found. The whole of the right eye ball had been lacerated and as a result of the grazing of the gun shots two abrasions were also found near the B right eye. The death of Dularey was the result of this gun-shot injury. The appellants pleaded not guilty and alleged that they had been falsely implicated on account of enmity. Both the trial court and the High Court, however, accepted the prosecution case as true and held that the charges under Sections 148 and 302, Indian Penal Code were established against all the appellants. The B High Court also accepted the reference made by the Sessions Judge with regard to the sentence of death inflicted upon I the three appellants.

(3.) In Criminal Appeals 199 and 200 1 of 1967 Mr. K.K. Luthra contended that the two inquest reports contain suspicious alterations and the time of the First Information Report has been wrongly noted in the Inquest Reports. It was suggested that the First Information Report was recorded by the Sub- Inspector after the inquest was made but the time of recording the First Information Report has been falsely noted as 6.45 p.m. The matter has been considered by the High Court which took the view that the alterations were made bona fide and by mistake the time of the report was noted as 6.30 p.m. in the in quest report even though the report was recorded at the police station at 6.45 p.m. It was then contended by Mr. Luthra that the names of the eye-witnesses are not specified in the inquest report. But there is nothing in the language of Sec. 174, Code Criminal Procedure to suggest that there is any duty cast upon the Police Officer to mention the names of the alleged eye witnesses in the Inquest Report. Mr. Luthra then submitted that there was a discrepancy between the testimony of the eye witnesses and Dr. A. S. Gupta as to the gun injuries found on the dead body of Nanney Singh. Dr. Gupta said that the three gun-shot wounds were not caused by the firing of one gun-shot but resulted from the firing of different shots. The question has been examined by the High Court which took the view that the doctor was under the wrong impression that the shots fired from the pistol were bullets and not cartridges and that the three gun-shot wounds found on the body of Nanney Singh made it clear that the assailants had used a country-made pistol in which ordinary 12 bore cartridges are used. The High Court observed that all the gun-shot injuries could be the result of the firing of one 12 bore cartridge. The High Court accordingly relied upon the evidence of the eye witnesses that only one shot was fired at Nanney Singh. On behalf of the prosecution four eye witnesses, Durga Prasad P.W. 1, Shanker P.W. 3, Dadu Singh P.W. 5 and Beni Singh P.W. 8 were examined. After examining their evidence in detail the High Court expressed the view that Durga Prasad and Dadu Singh were truthful witnesses and had made frank and straight-forward statements. As regards Beni Singh P.W. 8 and Shanker P.W. 3, the High Court held that they were guilty of some concealment and that their testimony should &be accepted with caution. But the High Court felt no doubt that these two persons were employed at the flour mills of Nanney Singh and could be eye witnesses to the murder.