9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (9) TMI 1249X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Jaswant Singh was the son of Badan Singh and Ujagar Singh was the son of Gaya Prasad. (b) On 21.12.1978, at about 9.00 a.m. one Nathu Ram-the Complainant and his father Pahunchi Lal were ploughing their field situated at Har Balapur P.S. Bharthana. At that time, the Complainant's uncle -Gaya Prasad along with his son Ujagar Singh were sowing their field which was nearer to the field of the Complainant. At some distance, his uncle -Prayag Singh along with his son Ratan Singh were also ploughing their field. (c) There was a water channel passing towards north of their fields and Mahipal Singh-the accused was irrigating his field through that channel. Since water was overflowing in the channel and entering into the sowed field of the Complainant's uncle-Gaya Prasad, he asked Mahipal Singh to repair the same. On this issue, an altercation took place between Mahipal Singh and Gaya Prasad. The accused Mahipal Singh left the place saying that he would see him. (d) In the meanwhile, Lalta Prasad, first cousin of Gaya Prasad and his nephew Jaswant Singh also reached there. At about 11.00 a.m., Nathu Ram and his father Pahunchi Lal resumed ploughing their field. At that time, a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3.01.2006, the High Court allowed the appeal filed by the State and convicted the remaining 3 accused persons, viz., Shyam Babu, Babu Ram and Tej Ram under Sections 148, 307 and 302 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment under various heads mentioned above including life sentence and all the sentences were to run concurrently. (i) Being aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court, the remaining 3 accused persons preferred an appeal before this Court under Section 379 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'the Code'). During the pendency of the appeal, 2 accused persons, viz., Tej Ram and Babu Ram died and appeal against them stood abated and only one accused, Shyam Babu is before this Court facing conviction and sentence. 3. Heard Mr. V.K. Shukla, Learned Counsel for the Appellant-accused and Mr. Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad, Learned Counsel for the Respondent-State. Discussion 4. The incident relates to death of 5 persons and causing injury to 1 person. According to the prosecution, all the 5 persons were shot dead and one person sustained injuries due to firing by the accused persons. It is revealed fr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... annot be denied that the appellate Court while entertaining an appeal against the judgment of acquittal by the trial Court is entitled to re-appreciate the evidence and come to an independent conclusion. We are conscious of the fact that in doing so, the appellate Court should consider every material on record and the reasons given by the trial Court in support of its order of acquittal and should interfere only on being satisfied that the view taken by the trial Court is perverse and unreasonable resulting in miscarriage of justice. We also reiterate that if two views are possible on a set of evidence, then the appellate Court need not substitute its own view in preference to the view of the trial Court which has recorded an order of acquittal. Reasoning on merits 10. Keeping the above principles in mind, let us consider the evidence led by the prosecution and the ultimate decision of the High Court. We have already mentioned that Nathu Ram (PW-1), Prayag Singh (PW-3) and Mukut Singh (PW-6) have appeared as eye-witnesses to the occurrence. PW-1, son of deceased Pahunchi Lal, has categorically narrated all the facts of the occurrence. According to him, at about 9 or 9.30 a.m., on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by the High Court were Prayag Singh (PW-3) -injured person and Mukut Singh (PW-6), who corroborated the entire statement of Nathu Ram (PW-1) in all material aspects. 12. A perusal of the cross-examination of these three eye-witnesses clearly shows that all of them were subjected to lengthy cross-examination but as rightly observed by the High Court, nothing tangible could be brought on record to impair their credibility. We were also taken through their evidence. We fully concur with the conclusion arrived at by the High Court and hold that the trial Judge committed an error in discarding the testimony of all the three eye-witnesses doubting their presence at the scene of occurrence. Evidentiary value of related witnesses: 13. Mr. V.K. Shukla, Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that since most of the prosecution witnesses are related to the deceased persons, the same cannot be relied on. We are unable to accept the said contention. 14. This Court has repeatedly held that the version of an eye-witness cannot be discarded by the Court merely on the ground that such eye-witness happened to be a relative or friend of the deceased. It is also stated that where the presen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inching evidence led by the prosecution, we are unable to accept his submission. We should not forget that due to gruesome incident, 5 persons lost their lives and one person sustained injuries. It is also brought in evidence that Shyam Babu, Appellant herein and Tej Ram used guns and the third one Babu Ram used country made pistol for the said diabolical act of shooting. It is undisputed fact that 5 persons died and 1 person sustained injuries by use of such weapons. Even otherwise, the present Appellant along with others was convicted by the High Court under Sections 148, 307 & 302 read with Section 149 Indian Penal Code, hence he cannot be exonerated. Taking note of all these aspects and considering the gruesome murders, there is no reason to exonerate the present sole Appellant-accused merely because the other co-accused died due to natural death. Delay in disposal of appeal 17. It was argued by the Learned Counsel for the Appellant that considering the fact that though the appeal was filed before the High Court at Allahabad in the year 1981, the same was disposed of by the High Court only on 13.01.2006, i.e., after a gap of 25 years and, the sole Appellant be discharged from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
