Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 6
CASE NO.:
Appeal (crl.) 660 of 1999
PETITIONER:
State of U.P.
RESPONDENT:
Ganga Ram & Ors.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 25/10/2005
BENCH:
H.K. SEMA & P.P. NAOLEKAR
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
H.K.SEMA,J
Four accused, A-1 Ganga Ram, A-2 Raghubir, A-3 Lal Singh and A-4
Rajendra Singh were put to trial before the Trial Court for the murder of
deceased-Tula Ram under Section 302/34 IPC. The Trial Court convicted
all of them under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced them
to rigorous imprisonment for life. On appeal, the High Court acquitted all of
them. Hence, this appeal by special leave by the State of U.P.
During the pendency of the appeal, A.2- Raghubir and A.3-Lal Singh
expired. The appeal against them already stands abated. This appeal,
therefore, is survived qua A.1-Ganga Ram and A.4-Rajendra Singh. It may
be noted that A.1-Ganga Ram and A.2-Raghubir are real brothers and A.3-
Lal Singh and A.4-Rajendra Singh are real brothers.
Facts may be noted briefly:-
P.W.3-Rajendra Singh filed a complaint case against the accused
persons Rajendra Singh and Lal Singh in the Court of Special Judicial
Magistrate, Bareilly, in which the deceased-Tula Ram was cited as one of
the witnesses. On 27.7.1978, the deceased-Tula Ram had gone to depose in
the said complaint case against the accused Rajendra Singh and Lal Singh.
It is alleged that the accused persons had threatened on several occasions not
to appear as a witness but deceased-Tula Ram was determined to give
statement. On 27.7.1978 at about 5.15 p.m. when the informant PW-1
Dhakan Lal (father of the deceased), P.W.2-Hemraj, the deceased-Tula Ram
were coming back to their village from the bus-adda, Meerganj, the
informant and others stopped at the Meerganj Sindhauli road in the jungle of
Kalyanpur to smoke bidi. The deceased-Tula Ram went about fifty-sixty
steps ahead of them. Accused Raghubir armed with single barrel gun
(SBBL gun), accused-Lal Singh armed with double barrel gun (DBBL gun),
accused - Ganga Ram and accused-Rajendra Singh armed with Tamancha
(country made pistol) emerged from behind the stones heaped at the road.
Accused Lal Singh told the deceased-Tula Ram that he had been warned not
to appear as a witness but he was adamant and therefore he should not be left
and should be killed. Thereupon Raghubir and Lal Singh made one fire each
at Tula Ram with their respective weapons. Tula Ram fell down on the
road. When the informant and others raised an alarm, the accused persons
ran away towards west. P.W.1-Dhakan Lal left behind P.W.2-Hemraj near
the dead body and he got the FIR written by P.W.3-Rajendra Singh and
lodged the FIR at police station, Meerganj. A case was registered under the
aforesaid Sections of Law and after the completion of the trial; the Trial
Court recorded the conviction as above.
P.W.4 \026 Dr. I.S. Tomar, conducted the autopsy on the dead body and
prepared the postmortem report (Ex.Ka-3). He found the following
antimortem injuries on the dead body of the deceased:.
"1. 9 gunshot wounds on the right side of chest in an area of
14 cm x 8 cm. 2 cm below the right nipple and were extarded
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 6
upto the lower part of the central bone of the chest. Each
wound was 0.8 cm x 0.8 cm x chest deep in size and the
edges of the wounds were parted and turned inverted. There
was no blackening and burning around the wounds. The
direction of the wounds was from right to left and to backside.
2. Scratch 2 cm x .5 cm on the left side of chest below the
collar bone.
3. Internal examination.
1. The fourth, fifth and sixth step bone on the right side was
fractured due to injury
2. Both lungs and the membranes above them were
punctured in the middle.
3. The membrane above the heart was punctured through
and through in the right side of heart.
4. There was about 1 litre blood on each side in the chest.
5. There was about 600 cc blood in the perlineal cavity and
it was punctured at one place on the upper side.
6. Liver was punctured from one to the other and 15 ounce
of half digested food was there.
7. Liver left part was punctured through and through.
4. In my opinion the death occurred due to shock and
hemorrhage due to injuries.
5 Large bullets were extracted from the body of the
deceased which were as under:-
One from the right lung, two from the left lung, one from
heart and one from abdominal cavity. These bullets were
sealed at the time of examination. The clothes of the above
deceased, which were 4 in number, were also sealed at the
same time and were sent to S.O.Meerganj.
5. This report was prepared at the time of the examination of
the dead body, which is written and signed by me is and is
marked Ex.Ka-3.
6. The injuries of the deceased were ordinarily enough to
cause death. His death could have been caused at about 5,
5.15 in the evening on 27.7.1978.
To bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution amongst
others examined two eyewitnesses, P.W.1- Dhakan Lal and P.W.2- Hemraj.
Admittedly, P.W.1- is the father of the deceased and therefore his evidence
has to be weighed with caution. He stated that in a complaint case filed by
P.W.-3 against accused Lal Singh and Rajendra Singh, his deceased son
Tula Ram was cited as a witness. He further stated that the accused persons
used to ask his son not to give evidence to which his son used to reply that
he would give evidence and stated the evidence truthfully.
PW1-Dhakan Lal was examined on 23.8.1979 for the incident
happened on 27.7.1978, he deposed as under:-
"About 1. = year ago my son Tula Ram had come to
Bareilly to give evidence in the said complaint case. I
had also later on come to Bareilly on the said day to fetch
medicine for my younger son Chotey Lal. After getting
medicines I reached bus stand to go home, at about 3 in
the afternoon. There I met my son Tula Ram, Sardar
Singh and Khem Raj. We all four sat together in the bus
to go home. We alighted on the Meerganj bus stand. It
would have been about 4, 4.15 p.m. We started on foot
towards our village, while enroute Gaindan lal who is our
brother also met us. He also accompanied us to our
village. When we reached near the boundary of village
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 6
Nagaliya Kalyanpur on Meerganj Sindholi Road we
halted there to smoke bidi and tobacco. My son Tula
Ram does not smoke bidi or tobacco. He went ahead of
us by about 50-60 steps. I saw that all the four accused
persons present in the court came out from the trenches
on the western side of the road among whom Lal Singh
was holding a double barrel gun, Raghunath was holding
a single barrel gun and Ganga Ram and Rajender had
country made pistols in their hands. Accused Lal Singh
said to my son that you did not stop from giving evidence
and we kill you today. Then our son started running
towards us. Just then accused persons Raghubir and Lal
Singh fired at our son with the guns. On being hit he fell
down there on the road on the western side. On our
shouting all the accused persons present in the court ran
away through the sugarcane fields on western side.
When we reached near Tula Ram by that time he
had died. After leaving all my three above companions
near the dead body I reached P.S. Meerganj on foot
which is about 1.1/2 mile from there, wrong when I
reached Meerganj town there Rajender Singh of Hurharri
near the Dharamsala I dictated him all the incident on a
paper, whatever I dictated he wrote and made me affix
my thumb impression. The written report was read over
to the witness and he said that it is correct and bears my
signatures. It was marked Ex.Ka.1 I submitted this
report in P.S. Meerganj on the basis of which my report
was recorded and copy was given to me."
This witness was subjected to lengthy cross-examination running into
twenty pages. We have been taken through the entire deposition of the
witness in-chief as well as in cross-examination. We are surprised to notice
that not even a suggestion was put to witness denying the presence of the
accused at the place of occurrence and weapons carried by each accused as
described by P.W.1, therefore, the substance of acquisition against the
accused made in-chief of P.W.1 remains unimpeached.
P.W.2 - Hemraj, is another eyewitness, who is the resident of the same
village. He stated that he had also gone to Bareilly to give evidence along
with the deceased-Tula Ram and was coming back from there. He stated as
under:-
"We started on foot from Meerganj bus stand to our
village at about 4, 4.30 in the evening. We were going
on the metalled road leading from Meerganj to Sindholi.
We all the five were going together and halted near the
kilu to smoke biri. Tula Ram did not stop but kept on
going ahead and went about 50-60 steps ahead of us. We
also immediately started going ahead after lighting our
biries and then saw that accused persons present in the
court Rajender Singh, Lal Singh, Raghubir Singh and
Ganga Ram among whom Raghubir Singh holding a
single barrel gun, Lal Singh holding a double barrel gun
and the remaining two accused persons holding country
made pistols came on the road side from behind the
stones and trenches on the western side of the road and
Lal Singh challenged Tula Ram and said that you were
asked not to give evidence but you did not agree, we will
kill you. Saying this accused persons Lal Singh and
Raghubir Singh fired with their guns being hit with
which Tula Ram fell down there. We shouted and then
the accused persons aimed the barrels of their guns at us
and ran towards the western side. Then we went near
Tula Ram who was dead. At the time of occurrence none
other than we four witnesses and the deceased had come
there. Dhankan Lal went to the police station to register
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 6
the report and we three remained guarding the dead body.
Gaindan Lal was sent to home to inform."
This witness also was subjected to lengthy cross-examination but
nothing could be elicited from his mouth to discredit his testimony in-chief.
In fact, no question or not even a suggestion, was put to this witness to
demolish the substance of the testimony about the factum of the incident,
lucidly narrated by him, which inspires confidence.
The testimony of P.W.1 and P.W.2 as quoted above is well
corroborated by the medical evidence and the post mortem report conducted
by P.W.4 Dr.I.S. Tomar, in material particulars.
One of the grounds, on which the High Court, recorded acquittal of
the accused was that the occurrence is stated to have taken place on a pucca
road on which bullock-carts, buses and other vehicles also go. The time is
also of 5.15 p.m. but no outsider or pedestrian or resident of the vicinity has
been named in the FIR or in the statement of the witnesses but only P.W.2-
Hemraj has been examined as an independent witness. This ground, taken
by the High Court, is far-fetched and contrary to the testimony of
eyewitnesses. This can be hardly a ground to disbelieve the otherwise
creditworthy testimony, which inspired confidence. It is now well-settled
principle of law that whom to cite as a witness and whom not is within the
domain of the prosecution. It is also well settled principle that the
prosecution evidence has to be weighed and not to be counted. It is just
because any other pedestrian or resident of the vicinity has not been cited as
witnesses will be no ground to throw away the otherwise reliable testimony
of the eyewitnesses which is natural and inspires confidence. There is no
evidence on record to show that there were other pedestrian or resident of
the vicinity present at the relevant time, besides the prosecution witnesses.
In our view, the aforesaid reason by the High Court is based on conjectures
and surmises and is perverse.
The second ground, on which the High Court, recorded acquittal is
that P.W.1-Dhakan Lal has stated in cross-examination that at about 9.00
A.M. he himself had gone to Bareilly to purchase medicine for his younger
son Chhotey Lal as there was ulcer in the ear of Chhotey Lal. What was the
age of Chhotey Lal was not clear. The High Court has ultimately held as
under:-
"What prohibited Tula Ram to purchase medicine for his
younger brother and if Tula Ram was going to Bareilly a
bit earlier what was the necessity of the complainant to
have gone to Bareilly to purchase the medicine for his
younger son. This is not the case of prosecution that
Tula Ram had refused to bring any medicine or if asked,
he would not have brought the medicine. Therefore, the
natural conduct shall be, if actually, the younger son of
the complainant was ill and Tula Ram was actually going
to Bareilly, he would have brought the medicine. There
was no necessity for Dhakan Lal to have gone to
Bareilly."
It will be noticed that P.W.1 had stated in cross-examination that he
does not know that at what time on that day his deceased son Tula Ram had
gone to Bareilly from home to give evidence because he had gone to the
field in the morning. When he returned from the field he came to know
from the children that at about 8.00 in the morning Tula Ram had gone to
Bareilly to give evidence. He further stated that Tula Ram did not tell him
earlier that he had to go to Bareilly to give evidence.
We notice with dismay the findings recorded by the High Court,
which are contrary to the evidence on record, based on surmises and
conjectures. The way the High Court appreciated the prosecution evidence
is in the form of cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses. The
evidence must be read and appreciated as it is. Nothing can be read to the
evidence. The High Court has also recorded as under:-
"All the two witnesses examined in the case are chance
witnesses. They are inimical and interested witnesses.
Their presence on the spot is highly doubtful. It is
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 6
apparent that they did not see the occurrence and had
named the accused persons out of animosity."
We are unable to discern the reasoning of the High Court. Both the
eyewitnesses had stated that they travelled together with the deceased and
were coming back together with the deceased from Bareilly where the
incident had taken place and narrated the entire story as aforesaid. The High
Court has recorded their presence on the spot doubtful without assigning any
reason. The High Court was also of the view that they did not see the
occurrence and had named the accused persons out of animosity without
assigning any reason.
Learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that in any event the
two accused namely Raghubir and Lal Singh, who have been described as
actual assailants, have expired and no active part has been attributed to the
appellants namely Ganga Ram and Rajendra Singh, they are entitled to be
acquitted. In this connection, learned counsel has relied upon the decision of
this Court rendered in Mithu Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (2001) 4 SCC
193, where this Court has held that to substantiate a charge under Section
302 with the aid of Section 34 it must be shown that the criminal act
complained against was done by one of the accused persons in furtherance
of the common intention of both. An inference as to the intention shall have
to be drawn from the acts or conduct of the accused or other relevant
circumstances, as available. No quarrel over the proposition of Law.
Reliance has also been placed on the decision of this Court rendered
in State of Rajasthan vs. Kishan Singh & Ors., (2002) 10 SCC 160,
where this Court has held that two of the accused were also tried for
substantive offence under Section 302 and the Trial Court acquitted the two
accused who were tried for substantive offence under Section 302 and
convicted the remaining three under Section 302 with the aid of Section 34.
It was held that since the charge on substantive offence under Section 302
has not been established, the conviction of the other accused under Section
302 read with 34 was not maintainable. In our view, the aforesaid decisions
cited by the learned counsel are of no help to the accused. This submission,
in our view, is totally misconceived. In the present case, the conviction
recorded by the Trial Court was under Section 302 with the aid of Section
34. The two accused armed with country made pistols accompanied the
other accused armed with SBBL gun and DBBL gun respectively went to
the place of occurrence, way laid the deceased and party and attacked the
deceased. It cannot be said that they accompanied the other accused as an
idle curiosity. The aforesaid circumstances, would clearly infer the intention
of the present two accused for committing an offence in furtherance of
common intention. Their conviction under Section 302 with the aid of
Section 34 cannot be said to be unjustified.
In the premises aforestated this appeal is allowed. The order of
acquittal recorded by the High Court is set-aside. The order of conviction
recorded by the Trial Court is restored. The respondents namely Ganga Ram
and Rajendra Singh are directed to be taken back into custody forthwith to
serve out the remaining part of sentence. Compliance report should be sent
to this Court within one month.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 6