GANGA RAM Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A quadruple of appellants namely Ganga Ram, Chandra Pal, Jeewan and Ram Bahadur, have approached this Court through the instant appeal being aggrieved by their conviction and sentence recorded by VIIth Additional Session's Judge, Bareilly in two connected cases S.T. No. 231 of 1979 (State Vs. Ram Bahadur) and S.T. No. 169 of 1979 (State Vs. Chandra Pal and others) dated 2.2.1981. Three of the appellants Ganga Ram, Chandra Pal and Jeewan were convicted under section 395 I.P.C. and were sentenced to three years RI whereas appellant Ram Bahadur was convicted only for the charge under section 412 I.P.C. and was imposed sentence of nine months RI, which convictions and sentences are under challenge in the instant appeal.

(2.) PENDENT elite this appeal, two of the appellants Jeewan and Ram Bahadur expired and, therefore, their appeals abated. This now has left this Court to consider appeals of rest of the two surviving appellants Ganga Ram and Chandra Pal, who are maternal uncle (mausa) and nephew (bhatija) as Ganga Ram is brother-in-law (Sadhu) of Ved Ram, father of appellant Chandra Pal. Prosecution story stated briefly were that on the intervening night between 25/26.10.1978, houses of informant Manohar Singh P.W. 1, Dwarka Prasad P.W. 2, Ram Swaroop P.W. 3 and Tula Ram were subjected to dacoity by 10 or 13 dacoits, who were armed with blunt objects, country made pistols and gun. Ornaments etc. were looted. Incident was witnessed by Jag Mohan Singh, Nandan Singh, Lal Singh, Mahipal Singh, Lakhan and Chhote. During the course of dacoity, inmates male and female of these houses were belabored by the dacoits, resulting in causing of injuries to three persons Smt. Dai (Ext. Ka-22), Ram Swaroop (Ext. Ka-23) and Smt. Kalawati (Ext. Ka-24). Investigation into the crime ultimately resulted in laying down a charge sheet against the accused persons. During course of the incident, site plan Ext. Ka-21 was prepared by I.O., who had also made recoveries which were proved during trial.

(3.) ON the aforesaid facts, this appeal came up for hearing before this Court after passing of decades. None appeared for the appellants and, therefore, Dr. Abida Syed, Advocate was appointed as Amicus Curiae to assist the Court and argue the appeal. Castigating the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence, learned amicus curiae submitted that so far as two surviving appellants are concerned, they are close relatives. Appellant no. 2 Chandra Pal along with his father were a co-villagers and, therefore, because of enmity between the informant and the said appellant Chandra Pal that he has been falsely implicated in the incident. In this respect, reliance was placed on the testimony of informant Mahohar Singh P.W. 1 at paragraph 11 and statement of Dwarka Prasad P.W. 2 vide paragraph 3 of his depositions. It is submitted that Manohar Singh P.W. 1 is a liar as he intentionally concealed the truth of earlier litigation pending between appellant and them which fact had been admitted by Dwarka Prasad P.W. 2 in paragraph 3 of his deposition. It was further contended that in the earlier dacoity, Ved Ram father of appellant Chandra Pal was implicated. Prosecution did not bring on record any material as to what happened in the said incident but that happening indicates that there was no love labour lost between the two sides and there were litigations pending in between them. It is, therefore, contended that it is preposterous to cogitate that appellant Chandra Pal and his maternal uncle (mausa) will go and commit dacoity in the present incident. Castigating further, it is submitted that no specific role, weapon, attire etc. was spelt out by any of the fact witness so far as these appellants are concerned, and, therefore, their participation in the crime has not been established beyond any reasonable doubt. It is next argued that mere ipse dixit of fact witnesses, when enmity is admitted between the rival sides should not be taken to be sufficient enough, credible and cogent to convict the appellants. It was contended that in absence of reliable, confidence inspiring materials, parrot like statements of prosecution witnesses should not be taken to be sufficient to affirm guilt of the appellants and, therefore, they are entitled to acquittal. It is further submitted that nothing was recovered from the possession of these two appellants and, therefore, their participation in the incident is extremely doubtful. Learned amicus curiae went on to contend that a co-villager will not dare to commit dacoity in his own village specially in the house of his enemy to be roped in additional charge. Primarily on these submissions, it was contended that the appeal of both the appellants be allowed and their conviction be set aside.