PRABHUNATH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant Prabhu Nath was a Police Constable. In March "1954, he was stationed at Shamshabad police station in the district of Farrukhabad. On the 14th of March, 1954, he had been out on patrol duty along with two other Constables by name Ramdeo and Rati Ram. Rati Ram acted as the Naik of that patrol party. The patrol party had been equipped with two muskets and certain rounds of cartridges. One of these muskets was with Prabhu Nath and the other was with Ramdeo. It was alleged on behalf of the prosecution that some time before midday on that date the three Constables took liquor in a village known as Asgharpur and became intoxicated. Prabhu Nath proceeded in the direction of village Suthenri. The other two constables went in another direction. It is said that whilst under the influence of drink Prabhu Nath threatened to shoot some persons who were sitting in a wayside field. Those men naturally got scared and ran away. Prabhu Nath went ahead and met certain other persons who were coming from a neighbouring village. He had conversation with them. He shot at one of them, namely. Ajudhi who died on the sp9t. He also shot at another man Ram Lal and inflicted injuries on him. He later on proceeded towards an arhar field where he shot at a scarecrow. He took shelter in that field and was finally arrested by some villagers who had been attracted to the spot on hearing the alarm. Ram Chandar the Pradhan of village Suthenri. who was one of the men whom the appellant had threatened in the field, proceeded to the police station on his cycle and lodged a report at 4.30 p.m. on the same day. The Sub-Inspector arrived shortly after the occurrence and took the accused into custody along with his musket and cartridges which had been seized by the village people. After dispatching the dead body of Ajudhi to Fatehgarh for post-mortem examination and forwarding Ram LAL to the hospital for treatment, the Sub-Inspector conducted investigation and as a result of investigation that followed the appellant was charged with offences punishable under Sections 302 and 307, I. P. C. and he has been sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 302 and to seven years' rigorous imprisonment under Section 307, I. P. C. the sentences to run concurrently. He had appealed against his conviction and sentence.

(2.) The fact that the appellant shot at Ajudhi and Ram Lal killing the former at the spot and causing gunshot injuries to the latter is not at all disputed before us. These factors were clearly and cogently proved by the eye-witnesses and also by the medical evidence on the record. That evidence has not at all been challenged before us and we do not therefore propose dealing with it in detail except for the limited purpose of seeing whether that evidence justified the attraction of Sections 85 and 86 of the I. P. C. to the aid of the appellant in assessing his guilt or innocence. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that the act done by him was not an offence because the appellant at the time of doing it was, by reason of intoxication, incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that he was doing either what was wrong or contrary to law, inasmuch as the liquor was administered to him without his knowledge or against his. will. Prabhu Nath's contention was that he had been forced by Rati Ram and Ramdeo to take wine; that he refused in the beginning and told them that as a Brahmin wine had been tabooed for him; that upon his refusal they said that instead of wine 'sharbat' should be given to him; that he tested the liquid and found it bitter; that he drank the same and felt giddy and that when he asked them what it was that they had given him for drink, they left him there and they went away and he followed them and he lost senses and he does not know what happened later on. The evidence on behalf of the prosecution on the question of the taking of liquor consisted of the testimony of Madan Lal P. W. 16 who while passing by the side of the house of Ram Din in village Asgharpur. where he also resides, saw the three Constables drinking liquor. Madan Lal was called to the place by Prabhu Nath and he stayed there for a short while. According to Madan Lal, Prabhu Nath was telling Rati Ram Constable that he will not take more wine, but Rati Ram was forcing him to take more by forcing; he explained that he meant that Rati Ram was repeatedly asking Prabhu Nath to take more. Faqirey P. W. 10 was produced in support of Madan Lal. Faqirey stated that, Rati Ram Constable offered liquor to Prabhu Nath; that both of them partook of the same; that Prabhu Nath at first refused to take the liquor, but Rati Ram insisted that he will have to take it as he was in his company and that thereupon Prabhu Nath agreed to his request; Faqirey was treated as a hostile witness for the prosecution. Even if the evidence of Paqirey is accepted as a whole, we are of opinion that the action of the appellant will not protect him under Sections 85 and 86 of the Indian Penal Code. We might in this connection refer also to the evidence of Soney Lal P. W. 9. According to him, he saw all the three Constables dead drunk and he found Prabhu Nath behaving like a mad man after midday, and he further found him almost in a state of stupor abusing the other two Constables and the other two Constables abusing him. Soney Lal stated that the Constables did not agree to this suggestion that they may rest a while. He further stated that Prabhu Nath asked him to count up the cartridges that were with him to see if their number was complete and, upon counting, he found that nothing was missing. Soney Lal saw the three Constables off up to the door of the Chowkidar.

(3.) The subsequent events were testified to by the other witnesses for the prosecution. Ram Chandra P. W. 1 was working on his field at about 2.30 or 3 p. m along with his father Gappu Lal P. W. 2 and Rajjab alias Rajju P. W. 3; and Khem Karan P. W. 15 was working on his neighbouring field. The appellant went over the field of Ram Chandra. He was smelling of wine and was talking incoherently and he asked Rani Chandar to accompany him. Ram Chandar refused to go as he had to look after his own work. The appellant went two or three fields ahead, walked back and levelled his gun towards Ram Chandar. Ram Chandar and others bolted away and took cover in the adjoining arhar field. At that moment Ram Lal P. W. 6, his aunt Smt. Salrita P. W. 7 along with his daughter Balro had been returning from village Bachlaiya where they had gone to procure some medicine. Another batch of persons consisting of Ram Swarup P. W. 8, Het Ram, Ajudhi deceased and Mool Chand P. W. 25 were also returning from village Bachlaiya. When they were between village Sutehnri and Kaluapur the appellant accosted Mool Chand and Ram Swamp and asked them where they resided. Ram swamp told the appellant that he was a resident of Hasanpur. After that these persons had hardly gone a few steps when the appellant fired one shot killing Ajudhi at the spot and another shot hitting Ram Lal P. W. 6. The appellant then proceeded to an arhar field near-by and fired a third shot at a scarecrow. Alarm was raised and people in the neighbourhood got alerted. After a short while the appellant came out of the arhar field into the open and fell down almost senseless. He was caught hold of by Noor Mohammad P. W. 5, and Pearey P. W. 4. seized the gun from his hand. The appellant was then brought to the place where Ram Lal was lying injured. When being apprehended, he made no struggle to get himself freed. As has been stated by Noor Mohammad, the appellant was very much under the influence or drink at that time, so much so that he was not in a position to recognise men and when he was asked why he had shot at two persons, he denied that he did so.