YASHPAL Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ACCUSED appellant Yashpal has been held guilty of the offence of murder under Section 302, I.P.C. and sentenced to life imprisonment by two different orders of 13 -10 -1977 recorded by Sri P.K. Agarwal then Additional Sessions Judge, Dehradun in S.T. No. 46 of 1977. It appears that according to the prosecution story one Ranjit Singh uncle of Yashpal was caused some injuries at about 11.30 p.m. on 10 -5 -1977 in village Ratanpura P.S. Kotwali, District Dehradun and he died. The F.I.R. of the incident is said to have been lodged at the police station at 7.30 a.m. on 11 -5 -1977 by one Sohan Singh. It narrated amongst other facts that there was some malice between. Yashpal and Ranjit Singh on account of behaviour of the former with his wife and on the date of occurrence Soban Singh was sitting near the Tractor when Ranjit Singh went out to answer a call of nature and when he was returning back he was hit by some iron rod. It will not serve any better purpose, in view of what we are going to show below to give more details about the story of the injuries etc.

(2.) (P.W. 1) Soban Singh, (P.W. 2) Ganga Singh, (P.W. 3) Kirat Singh, (P.W. 4) Dhyan Singh, (P.W. 5) Om Prakash, (P.W. 6) Bhim Singh and (P.W. 7) Babu Ram were examined by the prosecution as witnesses of the occurrence and none of them supported the prosecution theory. (P.W. 1) Soban Singh stated that Yashpal was not having any talk with 'his wife at the time of occurrence which was against the prosecution contention. He also stated that he had not seen the accused giving any blow to the deceased. In respect of the F.I.R. he stated that it bore his signature but he had neither scribed it, nor understood it. He also stated that Om Prakash the scribe had not read over the same to him. The other witnesses, namely, (P.W. 2) Ganga Singh, (P.W. 3) Kirat Singh, and (P.W. 4) Dhyan Singh all of them denied to have seen Yashpal giving a serious blow to Ranjit Singh. They were all declared hostile, a term unknown to the law of evidence and were cross -examined by reference to statements under Section 161, Cr.P.C. They all denied to have ever given such a statement to the investigating officer. (P.W. 5). Om Prakash the scribe of the F.I.R., stated that he had prepared the F.I.R. on the dictation of the investigating officer, Babu Ram, S. I. He was also declared hostile and cross -examined. (P.W. 6) Bhim Singh was possibly expected to put some thing about the motive but he also denied to have ever known any such thing. (P.W. 7) Babu Ram Sub -Inspector of police had conducted the inquest and (P.W. 9) Sukhvir Singh was a constable who had prepared the chik etc. (P.W. 8) Dr. B. Kumar had conducted the post -mortem examination. (P.W. 10) Babu Singh, Sub -Inspector of Police had investigated the case. It also appears that he had filed copies of the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and these are Exts. Ka -10 to Ka -15.

(3.) A perusal of the judgment of the trial court shows that the prosecution witnesses had not stated anything to establish the case of murder against the accused. We are afraid, we have to observe even that motive part taken by the Sessions Judge to be amply proved was not proved according to law. In any event, a proof of motive is not a proof of guilt. The learned "Sessions Judge has relied upon the statement of witnesses recorded during the investigation under Section 161 Cr.P.C. as evidence against the accused person and his conviction is totally based upon them. This approach to a case is rather unknown to the law courts. This appears to have been an unfortunate case of a most unfortunate accused.