RAM PAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF UP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The seven appellants Ram Pal Singh, Driga Vijai Singh, Roshan Singh, Naib Singh, Man Singh, Berey Lal and Phool Singh were convicted under Section 302 read with Section 149 I.P.C. and Section 148 I.P.C. by Sri. H.C. Shukla, V Additional Sessions Judge, Hamirpur on 16/1/1981. On the first count, they were sentenced to imprisonment for life and on the second to two years Rigorous Imprisonment. Both these sentences were to run concurrently. Aggrieved by the judgment and order of the V. Additional Sessions Judge, the above seven persons have filed this appeal.

(2.) The first information report of the incident marked Ex. Ka. 3, lodged by Veer Singh, the younger brother of the deceased Prahlad Singh at 11.30 A.M. on 10/11/1979 in the police station Vivar, district Hamirpur shows the facts of the case to lie within a very small compass. It has been said that while Ram Lakhan, the brother of the three appellants Ram Pal Singh, Roshan Singh and Drig Vijai Singh, was playing cards in the Thakur Kuti on 14/11/1979 with Jai Karan Singh, the younger brother of Prahlad Singh deceased and Aabu Lal, Ram Lakhan abused Jai Karan. The latter could not bear the insult and there started a querrel wherein Babu Lal sided with Jai Karan. When Prahlad Singh who was a teacher in the Shishu. Mandir, Hamirpur, came to the village Ruripara on 17/11/1979, he made an effort to pacify the heat generated by the happening on 14/11/1979 and bring about a settlement but could not succeed. On 19/11/1979 as Prahlad Singh was returning to his house about 7 A.M. after attending to the call of nature in his Kachwara field wherein he had NewPagel Page2of7 sown Ute jwar crop, the appellants Ram Pal Singh, Roshan Singh and Drig Vijai Singh who were sons of Raja Singh, armed with kulhar is (axes), Phool Singh son of Hira Singh armed with ballam (spear), Naib Singh son of Kamta Singh and Barey Lal son of Dhani Ram armed willipharsa (spade) and Man Singh son of Shiv Ratan Singh armed with a gun surrounded him in his field itself and finished him by the assault with gun, spear and axes and made good their escape. The incident had been seen by Gulab Singh, P.W. 3, Rupan Singh, P.W.4 and Santosh Singh son of Maheshwari Din Singh who was not examined.

(3.) The investigation of the case was taken up by the Station House Officer Rajendra Singh, P.W. 6. From his deposition it follows that the first information report had been lodged in his presence. He proceeded to the scene of occurrence, where he reached at 12.30 P.M. His first act was to prepare the inquest report, Ex. Ka-6. He thereafter scribed documents relating to the post mortem examination including the diagram of the dead body, Ex. Ka-7 and its challan, Ex, Ka-8 and examined the informant Veer Singh and the witnesses Golab Singh and Roopan Singh after dispatching the body of the deceased for post mortem, examinations. He claimed to have prepared the site plan containing necessary details with the help of the above witnesses. He affirmed on oath that he had found the pant of the deceased, his pair to chappals and Iota which are the material Exs, I, II and III respectively and prepared the recovery memo, Ex. Ka- 10 in respect of them. He also stated to have collected blood stained and plain earth and prepared the recovery memo Ex. Ka-11. The appellants were pointed to have surrendered in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate on 23-11-1979 after interrogating him on 14-12-1979 he submitted the charge-sheet, Ex. Ka-12 on the same day. In his cross-examination he proved the contradictions between the statements of the prosecution witnesses Veer Singh, P.W, 1 Gulab Singh, P.W. 3 and Roopan Singh, P.W. 4 given before him under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and their statements before the trial court. He could not tell the length and breadth of the Kachwara filed of the deceased wherein the incident took place. He pointed out that Jwar crop therein at places was small and at places big and volunteered that the field had many footpaths. He had to concede that in the site pian he had not shown the directions correctly and where it was written north, he should have written east, where it was written south, he should have written west and where it was written west, he should have written north and that he came to know of the mistake committed by him only that very day. The accused, he clarified, had come from the northern side and not from the north western side as shown in the site plan. He was asked whether he made enquiry about Maya with whom the deceased was suggested in the cross-examination of the witnesses to be having illicit relationship. He denied to have found facts relating to the suggestions. He merely conceded so far as Man Singh was concerned that the name of his father was recorded over the land about which he was stated to be in illegal occupation. The site plan, Ex. Ka-9, shows that Dash rath had been assaulted not so close to the mounds as to the passage.