TMI Blog1981 (4) TMI 283X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce had taken place. The occurrence as a result of which four persons died was undoubtedly a very unfortunate and ghastly one which arose out of a petty land dispute as a consequence of which the tempers of the parties ran so high that members of the prosecution party as also those constituting the party of the accused received injuries. Unfortunately, however, the prosecution party was the worst sufferer because on their side four persons died and one, namely, Sheo Narain (P.W. 2) was seriously injured. 3. It appears that there was some litigation between Brijraj Singh of the prosecution party and Shyam Behari of the accused party for the last eight or ten years before the occurrence. One of the deceased persons, Maheshwar, had lodged a report under Section 452 of the Indian Penal Code against Shyam Behari about six years before the occurrence. It was further alleged by the prosecution that P.W. 1, Chhotey Munna and Sarnara Singh (deceased) used to look after the field which belonged to their aunts, viz., Vidya Devi and Vimla Devi. The respondents alleged that a portion of the fields belonging to the ladies was encroached upon by Chhotey Munna and others who were looking after t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the field but he soon got up and in order to protect himself moved forward but ultimately fell down in a sugarcane field. Sahai then proceeded ahead towards the four deceased persons and Chhotey Munna (P.W. 1). Shyam Behari, Ambika and Parag exhorted Sahai to kill the persons and not to spare any one of them. Chhotey Munna and the four deceased persons started moving towards south-east. At this juncture, Sahai started firing from his gun as a result of which Maheshwar received a gunshot injury and fell down in Mahabir's field. Another shot was fired by Sahai which hit Kamla who fell down near the mend of Mahabir's field. Sahai then fired yet another shot at Chhotku Singh who fell down in the field of Puttu. Not content with killing as many as three' persons, Sahai fired for the last time and the shot hit Sarnam Singh who fell in the field of Hari Pasi. It was further alleged that Sahai fired two shots at Chhutkau Singh. On alarm being raised by P.W. 1, Chhotey Munna, several persons including P.Ws. 6 and 9 arrived at the spot and the accused left the place of the occurrence. Further details are not necessary for the purpose of deciding this case. 4. The first informa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ur deceased persons, was assaulted by the respondents and that the occurrence took place because the accused had succeeded in trespassing and encroaching on the land of the widows and were trying to make a new mend which was resisted by the witnesses and the deceased. 7. Another important fact which may be noticed here is that according to the evidence the altercation was spread out over a particularly long area extending up to 50 to 60 steps covering the field of the widows and perhaps a part of the field of other persons also where the deceased fell down on being shot by the respondents. These facts would be extremely pertinent in order to judge the truth or falsehood of the defence put forward by the respondents. 8. Coming now to the origin of the occurrence, the High Court has not doubted the facts proved by the unimpeachable evidence led by the prosecution consisting of the Investigating Officer and other witnesses that at the place of occurrence, namely, the field of the widows, bullets, pellets, empty cartridges, blood stains on the earth and other articles were found. The High Court also seems to have overlooked the actual state of affairs found by the Investigating O ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... exercise of the right of private defence. It is true that the trial court had not believed the evidence of P.W. 9 and had relied only on the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2. The High Court, however, disbelieved P.Ws. 1 and 2 on the basis of disjointed statements made by them in the court, completely torn from the context. In disbelieving P.W. 1, the High Court was influenced by two facts. In the first place, the High Court found that as P.W. 1 had not received any injuries, the probabilities were that he was not present at the time of the occurrence. This reasoning of the High Court is based purely on speculation. A very serious altercation had taken place and the target of the accused were the deceased persons who had tried to resist the construction of the mend and the encroachment and two of them had even tried to wield lathis in self-defence. In these circumstances, therefore, if P.W. 1 was lucky enough to escape any injury he could not be disbelieved for that purpose. In fact, it seems to us that it was extremely uncharitable and unkind, illogical and indecorous on the part of the High Court in disbelieving P.W. 1 on the ground that he was not injured and thus the High Court seems ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that P.W. 1 came to him to enquire about the injuries he referred to the point of time after the incident was over when after crossing the distance of 50-60 steps or more P.W. 1 came to him and enquired details about the in juries received by him (P.W. 2). This is fully corroborated by the evidence of P.W. 1, Chhotey Munna, who stated thus: Mulziman Ke Chale Janeke Bad Leshoon Ke Pass Laut Aaya Aur Dekha Ki Shiv Narayan Chothil The Aur Baki Chaar Seray Fare The Un Logon Ke Sabke Khoon Bah Rahe The Aur Kap-roon Par Bhi Khoon Laga Tha. Ghar Ki Aurten Bhi Aa Gayen Thin. 13. Reading, therefore, the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 together the conclusion is inescapable that what had happened was that P.W. 1 was at a fair distance from the place where P.W. 2 was working in the field and while he may have seen from a distance P.W. 2 being assaulted, he could not have noticed the injuries in the melee that followed but as P.W. 1 was in the thick of the fight which resulted in the killing of the four persons (deceased) before his eyes he was competent to depose about the details of the assault and the manner in which the deceased persons were killed by the respondents. After the accused ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ase and believing the defence case was that there were several injuries on the persons of the accused also which had not been properly explained by the prosecution which went to show that the prosecution had suppressed the origin or the genesis of the murderous assault. Here also, the High Court has gone wrong on facts. Before proceeding further we would like to extract the injuries received by the accused persons, viz. Parag, Debi Sahai, Shyam Behari and Ambika: PARAG: 1. Lacerated wound 6 cms. in length on right parietal bone area of skull, Wound is lacerated and margin are lacerated and contused. Wound base is irregular. Fresh bleeding present. Depth of wound is 5 cm. cutting all layers of scalp. Wound is situated 8 cms. above the superior margin of eye-ball. 2. Abrasion on back in an area of right shoulder joint 2 cms. away to auxiliary border. Abrasion is of 2 cms. x 1 cm. size colour of abrasion is red. 3. Abrasion of 3 cms. x 1.5 cms., size is sacral region. Abrasion of red colour and scab covered. 4. Abrasion with scab covering of an terror aspect and beneath right knee joint at fibual prominence. Abrasion is of 5 cms. x 2 cms. size, shape of abrasion is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Abrasion is of red colour. 5. Person examined complained of pain in: (a) left shoulder. (b) right elbow joint. (c) both thighs lower aspect (no external sign of injury). In the opinion of the doctor, injuries of all the four appellants were simple, were caused by blunt weapon like lathi and at the time of medical examination their duration was less than half day. Dr. Sharma prepared injury reports Exts. Ka 35 to Ka 38. 16. It may also be conceded for the purpose of this case that these injuries were received by the accused persons during the course of the occurrence. To begin with, except a lacerated wound 6 cms. in length on the right parietal bone area of the skull received by Parag, the other injuries were extremely superficial being only abrasions. Similarly, so far as Debi Sahai is concerned he had only one lacerated wound on the right parietal bone and another on the left hand. Shyam Behari had two lacerated wounds, others being abrasions and superficial injuries. Ambika had lacerated and contused wound on the back of his skull and all other injuries were superficial. The prosecution has given a very clear and cogent explanation for the injuries r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ind ourselves in complete agreement with the view taken by the trial court. In a judgment of reversal, the High Court ought not to have rejected the evidence of important eye-witness such as P.Ws.1 and 2 on general grounds or broad probabilities in such a serious case which resulted in four murders and serious injuries to one. P.W. 2 is not an interested witness but an independent witness and he fully corroborates the evidence of P.W. 1. Even if P.W. 1 is an interested witness that by itself is no ground to distrust his evidence. Moreover, having regard to the circumstances in which the occurrence took place, both P.Ws. 1 and 2 are very natural witnesses whose presence on the scene of occurrence was extremely probable. Even assuming that P.Ws. l and 2 are interested witnesses, applying the rule of caution we are satisfied that their evidence is creditworthy. Shorn of a few discrepancies or contradictions which are not of a vital nature, their evidence is by and large consistent and congruent, straightforward and poignant. A careful perusal of their evidence reveals to us that their evidence has a ring of truth from start to finish. We, therefore, fully endorse the finding of the tr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tant to interfere with an order of acquittal and that too when passed by the High Court. But this case appears to us to be rarest of the rare cases where the High Court has on an absolutely wrong process of reasoning and a legally erroneous and perverse approach to the facts of the case and ignoring some of the most vital facts, has acquitted the respondents who had been proved to be guilty of committing as many as four murders. We are, therefore, clearly of the opinion that in view of the illegal, speculative and erroneous approach made by the High Court to the evidence and circumstances of this case, the order of acquittal passed by the High Court has resulted in a grave and substantial miscarriage of justice so as to invoke our extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. In these circumstances we are satisfied that there are substantial and compelling reasons for us to interfere with the order of acquittal of the respondents. 24. The next question that remains is as to the sentences to be imposed on the respondents. Although the Sessions Judge had given all the respondents, excepting Sahai, sentences of life imprisonment under Section 302 read w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
