TMI Blog1983 (9) TMI 320X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (Rajinder Kumar) and the respondents were closely related and there appears to have been some sort of a chronic dispute between them which culminated in the said occurrence on May 29, 1969. In the morning of May 29, 1969 Rajinder Kumar scolded the respondent Hari Ram and his brother Atma Ram for having misbehaved with his father and thereafter a short altercation took place in the course of which Hari Ram and Atma Ram threatened to kill him (Rajinder Kumar). According to the prosecution, on the same night at about 10.30 p.m. while the deceased was proceeding from his house to his Gher and was negotiating the road at a point very close the office of the Cane Society he was confronted by the four respondents, viz, Hari Ram, Satyapal, Naqli and Surendra. Naqli and Surendra were armed with knives with spears. On seeing the deceased, Hari Ram exhorted and incited his companions to kill the deceased as a result of which all the four respondents assaulted the deceased with their respective weapons. According to the prosecution, Naqli and Surendra struck the deceased with their knives while Hari Ram and Satyapal assaulted him with the Lathi portion of the spears. Thereafter, the respondent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r here. The case of the defence was that the deceased was murdered by some unknown persons and the respondents were falsely implicated because of the previous enmity. The trial court after a very careful consideration and meticulous discussion of the evidence on record found that the prosecution case was proved beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly convicted the respondents under s. 302 read with s, 34, I.P.C. and sentenced them to imprisonment for life, as stated above. The respondents then preferred an appeal to the High Court which acquitted them and hence this appeal by the State of U. P. in this Court. As the matter lies within a very narrow compass and small spectrum it is not necessary for us to delve into further details of the case. The central evidence against the respondents consists of the statements of PWs 1, 2 and 3 who proved the occurrence and their evidence was accepted by the trial court but the High Court refused to rely on them. It may be mentioned that out of the eye-witnesses, PW 1 was not only an independent witness but as would appear from his evidence he was also a class fellow of one of the respondents, Surendra. In this connection he stated thus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eased, the deceased had sustained one stab wound and one incised wound besides two lacerated wounds and two abrasions. The fundamental reasons given by the High Court was that as all the respondents, according to the prosecution, were armed with sharp cutting weapons like spears, the lacerated wounds or the abrasions could not have been caused by the said weapons and therefore there was a serious inconsistency between the medical and the ocular evidence which by itself amounted to a manifest defect in the prosecution case, resulting in its rejection. It is true that according to the evidence of the eye-witnesses the respondents Naqli and Surendra were armed with knives while Hari Ram and Satyapal were armed with ballams (spears). The witnesses had clearly explained in their statements that the accused, who were armed with ballams, plied or struck the deceased by the lathi portion of the spears on the front side. This is fully corroborated by the medical evidence which shows that the two lacerated wounds were on the right side of the front portion of the head. Thus, far from being inconsistent, the ocular evidence fully corroborates the medical evidence. The High Court, however, see ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er statements before the police, their attention must have been drawn to the said material omission when they appeared as witnesses in court and to the Investigating officer (PW 13) when he was examined in court. In the absence of this important circumstance the High Court was wholly unjustified in making a capital out of the alleged ommission which was not there at all. This non-existent omission seems to be the very fabric and foundation for the reasoning of the High Court in rejecting the prosecution case. In view of these circumstances, the High Court was not at all justified in jumping to the conclusion that the statements of the eye-witnesses regarding the deceased having been assaulted by the lathi portion of the spears was an afterthought. The following observations of the High Court, with due respect, amount to an imputation against the witnesses and inflicting an 'unkind cut indeed' on the testimony of Satyapal and Hari Ram: His evidence is in conflict with the medical evidence, as it is clear from the post-mortem report that two lacerated wounds were found on the body of the deceased, which goes to show that the deceased was also assaulted by a blunt weap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... important error into which the High Court seems to have fallen is to reject the evidence of the only important independent witness, Suresh (PW 2), without examining his evidence on intrinsic merits and giving good reasons for doing so. All that the High Court had to say regarding PW 2 may be extracted thus:- He also corroborated the statement of Harish Chand (PW 3) regarding the incident. His evidence is also in conflict with the medical evidence. He stated that after the incident, he became afraid and went to the house of his uncle and was called from there by the Investigating officer at 2 a m. The explanation furnished by him for going to the house of his uncle after the incident cannot be accepted as it appears to be highly unnatural. If he was present at his fodder shop at the time of the incident he should have been there when the Investigating officer to the place of occurrence. The fact that he was called from the house of his uncle by the Investigating officer at 2 a. m. On 30.5.69 indicates that he was not present at his fodder shop at the time of the incident. It was admitted by him that Chhajja of Phul Singh, the uncle of Surender, appellant, was broken by the col ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vidence of such a witness. It may be mentioned that the evidence of an interested witness is not like the evidence of an approver which would need corroboration and the rule of caution cannot be confined in a straitjacket. Summing up, therefore, these are the only reasons given by the High Court for reversing the well-reasoned judgment of the trial court which convicted the respondents under s. 302 read with s. 34, I.P.C. Mr. Garg, appearing for the respondents vehemently contended that in an appeal against acquittal this Court would not interfere unless there are substantial or compelling reasons for the same or where the view taken by the High Court appears to be absolutely perverse. This was not a case, argued the counsel, in which it could be said that a different view was reasonably possible and hence the acquittal should be upheld. We are, however, unable to agree with this argument because after carefully scrutinising the reasons given by the High Court in reversing the judgment of the trial court, we are clearly of the opinion that the judgment of the High Court perilously borders on perversity and this is certainly not a case where two views are possible. Mr Garg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
