BISRAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicants Bisram Singh, Bahadur Singh, Mahinder Singh, Gangadin and Sobaran Singh were convicted by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Mainpuri, two of them under Section 148 and the other three under Section 147 and all of them under Section 307 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. Bisram Singh and Bahadur Singh who were convicted under Section 148 have been sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment thereunder and the other three who have been convicted under Section 147 to one year's rigorous imprisonment and all of them have been sentenced to four years' rigorous imprisonment under Section 307 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. The applicants went up in appeal which was dismissed by the Sessions Judge and hence this application in revision by them.

(2.) THERE was an occurrence at about 8 a. m. on 23rd September, 1963. Saheb Singh's calf was let loose and had gone to the cattle trough of Bisram Singh and others to which objection was raised by them. Saheb Singh apologised for the same and was even prepared to compensate Bisram Singh, but he was not satisfied with it He held out a threat to Saheb Singh, called the other accused of the case and Bahadur Singh among them brought a kanta and a spear and while he handed over the kanta to Bisram Singh he retained the spear with him; the other accused were armed with lathis, and all the accused attacked Saheb Singh. Saheb Singh received injuries which were examined by Dr. K. M. L. Chaube the same evening at 5. 30 p. m. The injury report is Ex. Ka. 5. Next day Saheb Singh got a report written bv one Darshan Lal. This report is Ex. Ka. 1 and it was sent to the police station at Mainpuri wherefrom it was forwarded to the police station concerned.

(3.) IT appears that a counter-affidavit was also made against Saheb Singh. Badan Singh and Rakesh and two others. After the statements of the witnesses were recorded in this case in the court of the Committing Magistrate the parties appear to have come to terms and the counter case started at the instance of the present applicants was compounded. The case against the applicants, however, proceeded further and when it came to the stage of trial before the Sessions Court, the three witnesses in the case Badan Singh (P. W. 1 ). Rakesh (P. W. 2) and Saheb Singh (P. W. 4) so changed their statements that normally there could be no conviction on the basis thereof. The Assistant Sessions Judge, however, relied upon Section 288 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and treated the statements of these witnesses before the Committing Magistrate as evidence in the case and has relied upon the same for convicting the present applicants. 3-A. The Sessions Judge agreed with the trial court that the statements of the three witnesses before the Committing Magistrate could be treated as substantive evidence under Section 288 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and relied upon them for the conviction of the applicants. He found that their statements were materially corroborated by the circumstances of the case.