Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3
PETITIONER:
NAMWAR DUBEY & ORS.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
DATE OF JUDGMENT21/08/1995
BENCH:
MUKHERJEE M.K. (J)
BENCH:
MUKHERJEE M.K. (J)
NANAVATI G.T. (J)
CITATION:
JT 1995 (6) 222 1995 SCALE (4)774
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
JUDGMENT
M.K.MUKHERJEE.J.
The four appellants herein and two others were tried by
the Additional Session Judge. Gyanpur for offences
punishable under Sections 148. 302/149 and 307/149 of the
Indian Penal Code (IPCD for short). The trial ended with an
order of conviction and sentence recorded against all of
them. Aggrieved thereby they preferred an appeal in the High
Court which, as regards the appellants was allowed only in
part in that their conviction under Section 148 IPC was set
aside but the other convictions were only altered to section
302/34 and 307/34 IPC. The remaining two convicts were
however, acquitted of all the charges.
Briefly stated. The prosecution case as narrated in the
trial was that on September 8.1977, at or about 8.00 A.M.
Kamla Shankar Dubey (PW 1) accompanied by his brother Ram
Surat Dubey (PW 2) and uncle Loghar Dubey (the decoased)
left their house for going to Bhadoni. When they reached the
Mirzapur Bhadhi Road near the local market all the six
accused persons.who were armed with various weapons
including pistols accosted them and. on the exportation of
Jadunath (since acouitted). Siya Ram Rahhiya and Namwar
(three of the appellants herein) started firing from their
respective fire-arms causing injuries to PW 2. All three of
them then started running away in different directions only
to be chased by the miscreants. While PW 1 succeeded in his
attempt other two could not as PW 2 fell down nit by Ranvir
(the other appellant with a candasa and loonar. Who had
taken refuge in the shop of one lalta. met with his death at
the hands of the other miscreants. Thereafter PW 1 went to
the police station and looced an information about the
incident. SHO Surender Bahadur Singh (PW 5) took up
investigator of the case and first went to the Government
Hospital Bhadohi where he recorded the statement of PW 2. As
PW 2’s condition was grave he was referred to the District
Hospital Varanasi and there a Magistrate recorded his dying
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3
declaration.
PW 5 went to the scene of occurrence and after
completing the inquest proceeding forwarded the dead body of
Lagnar to the Government Hospital. Gyanour for post-mortem
examination. After examining the witnesses and completing
other formalities of investigation he submitted charge-sheet
and in due course the case was committed to the Court of
Session.
The accused persons pleaded not puilty to the charges
levelled against them and contended that they had been
falsely implicated due to enmity.
To bring home the charges levelling against the accused
the prosecution examined Kamla Shankar Dubey (PW 1) and
injured Ram Surat (PW 2) as the two eye witnesses. The trial
Court found that notwithstanding the fact that they were
closely related to the deceased their evidence could be
safely relied upon as it stood corroborated by other
evidence on record. In appeal, the High Court held that the
claim of Kamla Shanker Dubey that he had seen the incident
could not be entertained as his house was at a distance of
2.1/2 furlongs away from the scene of occurrence and in all
probabilities he had reached the place of incident only
after it had taken place. The High Court, however, found the
evidence of PW 2 reliable and sufficient to sustain the
prosecution case but nonetheless felt inclined to dive the
benefit of reasonable doubt to the other two accused as
there was no evidence of their participation in the actual
assault either of PW 2 or the deceased.
Having regard to the fact that the High Court has, for
justifiable reasons. found the presence of PW 1 at the time
of the incident doubtful we are left with the only question
as to whether the evidence of PW 2 is of such a sterling
quality that it could be made the sole basis for upholding
the conviction of the appellants by the High Court. To
answer this question we have carefully considered his
evidence in the light of other evidence on record and
particularly his statement. which was recorded by the
Magistrate as his dying declaration (Ext. Kha.1) and can now
be treated as his earlier statement recorded under Section
164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and keeping in mind
that while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 136 of
the Constitution this Court does not reappraise evidence to
disturb a concurrent finding of fact unless brave and
palpable injustice has been occasioned thereby. Such
exercise of ours persuades us to unnesitatingly hold that PW
2 is unworthy of credit as his evidence materially debarts
from and contradicts his earlier statement made before the
Magistrate.
The most qlaring discrepancy which goes to the root of
the matter and shatters the cases version of PW2 is as
reparce the site where the murderous attack on Lognar took
place. According to his sworn testimony the entire assault
on the deceased took place in the shop of Lalta which as the
evidence on record shows. was at a distance of about 40/50
feet to the east of Varanasi-Bhaoohi Road. In his earlier
statement he however stated that his uncle was shot at and
died on the road. Indeed, in his earlier statement he did
not even mention about the shod of Lalta. The reason for
such shifting of the place of occurrence is not far to seek.
The investigation Officer stated in his evidence that he
found blood only in the shop of lalta and nowhere else.
Obviously to fit in with the presence of blood only in the
shop of Lalta, PW 2 mace the above concocted statement in
Court. As regards the sequence of events also there is a
marked discrepancy in the evidence of PW 2. At the trial he
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3
stated that as soon as they reached the road the miscreants
bounced upon them. But his earlier statement was that after
coming out of their house they went to a petal shop and
there while they were waiting for the betels ordered by them
to be served the miscreants came there and attacked them. PW
2 next stated in his deposition that after being assaulted
he rushed to the courtyard of Ramdular which was on the
western side of the Varanasi, Bhadohi Road and from there he
saw the assault on his uncle in the shop of Lalta. but
earlier he had stated that after being assaulted when he
went running to the house of Ramdular he did not allow him
to enter apprehending that he (Ramdular) might be fired at
also and that he fell down in front of his gate. There is
also material discrepancy as regards the nature of weapons
carried by the appellants and used for assault or him and
his uncle.
In appears that when PW 2 was confronted with different
portions of his earlier statement in accordance with Section
145 of the Evidence Act. he claimed that he was unconscious
and denied to have made the statements attributed to him.
That such claim of PW2 was false - and was obviously made to
ripple out of the earlier statement - would be patently
clear from the unimoachable evidence of Dr. B.P. Singh
(D.W.I who was the Medical Officer of Varanasi Hospital at
the material time. He testified that in his presence Shri
S.M. Maurya. Deputy Collector, Varanasi recorded the dying
declaration of Ram Surat in his presence and that Ram Surat
was in his senses. In support of his testimony he not only
proved the dying declaration but also his endorsement and
that of the Magistrate thereon. In cross examination he
denied the suggestion that Ram Surat was senseless and was
not able to give the statement.
For the foreading discussion we are unable to
conclusively infer solely relying upon the evidence of PW 2
that the four appellants committed the murder of his uncle
or attempted to commit his murder. The appeal is therefore,
allowed. The impugned order of conviction and sentence is
hereby set aside and the appellants are acouitted of all the
charges. The appellants who are in jail be released
forthwith.