STATE OF U P Vs. SHIVNATH SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE State of U. P. has come up in appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 30.11.1981 recorded by Sri Gaya Prasad, the then Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Mainpuri in Sessions Trial No. 245 of 1981. He acquitted the three accused respondents Shiv Nath Singh, Badshah Singh and Brajraj Singh of the charges under Sections 148 and 302, I.P.C. read with Section 149, I.P.C.

(2.) THE relevant facts may be noted. THE deceased was one Rati Bhan Singh and the incident occurred on 15.11.1980 at about 4 p.m. near the culvert of village Sovanpur, Police Station Bevar, district Mainpuri. THE F.I.R. was lodged by P.W. 1 Arvind Singh, an eye-witness, the same day at 6.15 p.m. THE distance of the Police Station from the place of occurrence was about five miles. THE case of the prosecution as per the F.I.R. and the evidence adduced in the Court was that the deceased Rati Bhan Singh was resident of village Todarpur and had informed the police of Police Station Bevar about the involvement of the accused respondents in the murder of a barber in that village. Consequently, the accused respondent Shiv Nath Singh was called by the police and interrogated. Rati Bhan Singh was doing pairvi in that case. For this reason, the accused respondents started harbouring grudge against the deceased Rati Bhan Singh. On the fateful day and time the deceased Rati Bhan Singh, P.W. 1 Arvind Singh and P.W. 2 Samer Jeet Singh were going from Bevar to the village Todarpur on cycles. Two unknown cyclists were also going ahead of them, when they reached near a heap of earth in the neighbourhood of the bridge of Sovanpur, Rati Bhan Singh lagged behind a little on his cycle. P.W. 1 Arvind Singh and P.W. 2 Samer Jeet Singh and two known persons went a bit ahead of him. When they reached near the Sheesam tree beyond the bridge of village Sovanpur, they saw the three accused respondents with two unknown persons sitting beneath the Sheesam tree. P.W. 1 Arvind Singh and P.W. 2 Samer Jeet Singh passed the Sheesam tree and then heard the sound of firing from behind them. Turning to the backside, they saw that the three accused respondents opened 3-4 shots on Rati Bhan Singh with their country made pistols due to which he fell down by the side of the pavement along with cycle. Shiv Nath Singh and others pointed their pistols towards Arvind Singh and Samar Jeet Singh on spotting them standing and held out that they would meet the same fate if they dared to proceed further. THEreafter, the accused persons ran away. THEn Arvind Singh and Samar Jeet Singh went near Rati Bhan Singh and found him dead. THE incident was also witnessed by the persons working in nearby fields and passersby. Arvind Singh sent Samar Jeet Singh to village Todarpur to pass on information of the incident at the house of the deceased and himself tarried near the dead body. THE family members of Rati Bhan Singh came to the spot. Arvind Singh then went to the Police Station Bevar and made over written report of the incident on the basis of which a case was registered and investigation started at the hands of P.W. 6, S.I. Mohammad Khan who proceeded to the spot instantaneously, but could not prepare the inquest report owing to darkness of the night. THE inquest report was prepared the following morning and the dead body was ultimately sent for post-mortem which was conducted on 16.11.1980 at 4 p.m. by P.W. 4 Dr. J. P. Gupta. 4 gunshot wounds of entry and 3 of exit were found on the person of the deceased besides an abrasion over right side of back. Gunshot wounds of entry were on right lateral surface in chest, left side of back and left side of abdomen, posteriorily lateral side.

(3.) WE have heard Sri R. S. Maurya, learned A.G.A. from the side of State in support of the appeal and Sri Ravindra Singh, learned counsel for the accused respondents in opposition thereof. According to the learned A.G.A., the learned trial Judge committed grave error in ignoring the trustworthy evidence of as many as 3 eye-witnesses which was in conformity with medical evidence. On the other hand, the submission of the learned counsel for accused respondents is that the presence of so-called eye-witnesses at the spot was wholly doubtful. They were not only interested witnesses, but were partisan too and their testimonial assertions were not in agreement with the medical evidence as contained in the autopsy report.