9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 1965X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of 1977/1983, for the offences punishable Under Section 302 read with Section 149 and Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. The Appellants were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life Under Section 302 read with Section 149, and a further period of three years Under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Seven Accused including the Appellants were tried. Among the seven Accused, two Accused have died. Five Accused are before us as Appellants in these two appeals. 4. The case of the prosecution in brief is that, on 14.10.1973 at 11:00 p.m., deceased-Gupteshwar Singh along with PW6-Shambhu Singh carried meals for his farm worker; the farm worker was staying in the pump house of the deceased which is situated at the west of Pusauli railway station. The first informant, viz., Srimati Surajbansi Kuer, PW11, who is none other than the step-mother of the deceased-Gupteshwar Singh, found that the deceased had omitted to take his torch light along with him. Since it was pitch dark and as the pump house was located at quite a distance from her house into the fields, she along with Muneshwar Singh, PW-14, the brother of the deceased, went to handover the torch to the deceased. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... off. 5. During the course of investigation, the police recovered the dead body of Gupteshwar Singh in two pieces. His head was found out in a gunny bag along with a big stone from the well, which was located at a deserted place and which belonged to one Rameshish Singh. The other portion of the body was also found tied in a gunny bag and was lying in a bogie of a goods train. PW11-informant identified not only the face of the dead body but also the wearing clothes and apparel of the deceased. 6. In sum and substance, the Accused were charge-sheeted, and tried, convicted and sentenced, as mentioned supra. However, in the meanwhile, two of the Accused died. The High Court, by its impugned judgment, has affirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence rendered by the trial Court, so far as the five Appellants are concerned. Hence, these two appeals are filed by the convicted Accused. 7. The prosecution, in all, examined 16 witnesses; out of them PW1-Muni Lal and PW5-Rameshwar Singh have turned hostile. PW6-Shambhu Singh, PW11-Surajbansi Kuer and PW14-Muneshwar Singh are the three eye witnesses. PW2-Kapildeo Singh gave evidence on the recovery of the head from the well and preparat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... officer. The supporting witnesses such as the officials of Railway Protection Force fully support the case of the prosecution to prove the recovery of the dead body in two pieces and to prove the motive for commission of the offence. 9. The evidence of three eye witnesses is consistent, cogent and reliable insofar it relates to the Accused-Kameshwar Singh. At the inception itself, PW11, the step-mother of the deceased (PW11 had fostered the deceased) had stated in her first information that when she went to the spot of the incident along with PW6 and PW14 during the night of 14.10.1973, she not only heard the moaning sound of the deceased but also saw Kameshwar Singh throttling the neck of the deceased. Other Accused were said to be holding the deceased. Among other Accused, one Accused, namely Shesh Badan Singh (since deceased) was holding a gun and the other Accused were holding lathis. Thereafter, all the Accused took the deceased, who fell down because of the throttling, towards the railway station. Such fact, which has come into existence at the initial stage in the form of first information lodged by PW11 is fully supported by the evidence of all the three eye witnesses. We ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aulted merely because they ran away. This Court in similar circumstances in the case of Rana Partap v. State of Haryana, (1983) 3 SCC 327, observed as follows: 6....Every person who witnesses a murder reacts in his own way. Some are stunned, become speechless and stand rooted to the spot. Some become hysteric and start wailing. Some start shouting for help. Others run away to keep themselves as far removed from the spot as possible. Yet others rush to the rescue of the victim, even going to the extent of counter-attacking the assailants. Every one reacts in his own special way. There is no set Rule of natural reaction. To discard the evidence of a witness on the ground that he did not react in any particular manner is to appreciate evidence in a wholly unrealistic and unimaginative way. The aforementioned observations aptly apply to the matter on hand. 12. We hasten to add here itself that the presence of the three eye witnesses cannot be doubted. PW6-Shambhu Singh went along with the deceased-Gupteshwar Singh to provide meals for the farm worker of the deceased. At that point of time, he was caught hold of by the Accused and others. Being frightened, PW6-Shambhu Singh started ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o points towards the Accused-Kameshwar Singh. PW9-Ravinder Nath Singh, who is the inspector of Railway Protection Force has deposed that the two cases were lodged against the Accused-Kameshwar Singh in the years 1972 and 1973 with regard to theft of railway property and in both these cases the deceased-Gupteshwar Singh was a witness. The evidence of this witness cannot be doubted, inasmuch as he has produced the statements of Gupteshwar Singh in both the criminal cases before the trial Court and the same are marked as Exhibits 4 and 4/1. PW9 has identified the Accused-Kameshwar Singh, who was present in the dock by saying that he was a man against whom cases under the Railway Protection (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 were lodged and were pending. PW11 has supported the evidence of PW9 by deposing that just prior to the incident, Kameshwar Singh had threatened the deceased-Gupteshwar Singh by telling him not to give evidence against him in the criminal cases. Accused Kameshwar Singh had said that the deceased would be done to death in case he deposes against him. 16. From the entire evidence, including the ocular testimony of PWs 6, 11 and 14, in our considered opinion, it can be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... idence is to be considered from the point of view of trustworthiness and once the same stands satisfied, it ought to inspire confidence in the mind of the Court to accept the evidence. 18. The evidence on record points towards the guilt of Kameshwar Singh. It is no doubt true that one man alone could not have committed such a ghastly crime by separating the dead body into two pieces. He must have taken the assistance of others. The prosecution has come out with seven names including Kameshwar Singh, but so far as the other Accused are concerned, particularly in respect of the other Appellants (except Kameshwar Singh), except the omnibus and vague evidence that they were also present and they also joined hands with the Accused-Kameshwar Singh, no other specific and reliable material has come on record. Common object is also not proved. As mentioned supra, any amount of suspicion will not take the place of proof and hence after removing the grain from the chaff, we are of the opinion that the judgment of conviction passed against the Accused Kameshwar Singh needs to be confirmed, and the same is hereby confirmed. Insofar as other Appellants are concerned, since there is no reliable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
