ROHTAS & ANR. vs. STATE OF U.P.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4 PETITIONER: ROHTAS & ANR. Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF U.P. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 02/05/1997 BENCH: M.K. MUKHERJEE,S.P. KURDUKAR ACT: HEADNOTE: JUDGMENT: JU D G ME N T M.K. Mukherjee.J. Rohtas and his father Ram Mehar, the two appellants before us, andthree others were placed on trial before the 3rd AdditionalSessions Judge, Meerut to answer common chargesunder Sections 148, 302/149 and307/149IPC. Against Ram Mehar an alternative charge under Section 302 IPC was also framed. The trial ended in conviction ofRohtas under Section302 and307/34 IPC and acquittal of theother three. As theappeal filed them against their convictions was dismissed by the HighCourt the appellants have preferred this appeal after obtaining special leave. 2. Briefly stated theprosecution case is as under: (a) Inthe year 1981 Mangat Singh (P.W.2) wasthe agent of Northern Railways for Fakharpur (Halt) Railway Station and he wasauthorised to sell railway tickets to passengers alighting there and collect station and check passengers alighting thereand collect their tickets. On April 22,1981 at or about 1.45 P.M when apassenger train camefrom Shahdara and stopped at the station Rohtas, who is a Sepoy in Railway Protection Force, detrained in mufti. Shiv Charan (the deceased)a brother of Mangat Singh, demanded ticket from Rohtas heabusedhis saying hawcould he dare to ask for ticket fromhim. Tothis Mangat retorted and then Rohtas left the placein a huff. A few minutes later Rohtassame back with Ram Mehar and three others (since acquitted). While both theappellants were armed with ballams (spears) the others had lathis with them. Rohtasstruck a blow on the right arm of Mangat andRam Mehar on the right of stomach of Shiv Charan with their respective ballams as a consequence whereofthe latter fell down.The other accused assaulted them with their lathis. The two brothers thenraised alarm and some villagers reached the spot.In the meantime, the accusedpersonsfled away. (b) Sita Ram (P.W.1),another brother of Mangat andShiv Charan,then took the two injured to the hospital but on the way Shiv Charan succumbed to his injuries. Sita Ramthen went to KhekraPolice Station and lodged a report about the incident. On that information acase was registered andSub- Inspector Yogender PalSingh (P.W.8) took up investigation. http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4 He first went to the Governmenthospital and held inquest on the dead body of Shiv Charan. He then recorded the statement of Mangat Singh and thereafter left for Fakharpur Railway Station. Therehe prepared a site plan and took possession of a dhoti andkurta of Mangatwhich were blood stained. He also collectedsome blood stained earth fromthe spot. On completion of investigation the police submitted charge- sheet and, in due course, the case was committed to the Court of Session. 3. The appellants pleaded not guilty tothe charges Levelled against them and contended that they hadbeen falselyimplicated outof enmity. In his examination under Section313 Cr.P.C. Ram Mehar stated that on April 22,1981 at or about 10 A.M. while hewas working in his field, Rajinder, a nephew of SitaRam. trespassed there and released his cattle. He (RamMehar)abusedand slapped Rajinder and removed him and his cattle from his field. In the afternoon when he was on his way back to the field after railwaygate Sita Ram, Mangat, Shiv Charan and Rajinder attacked him with it. Ram Mehar also gave a written statement to the above effect. Theplea of the other appellant, namely, Rohtas wasthat at the time of the incident he was at Safdar jung Hospital, New Delhi for gettingmedicaltreatment. 4. Insupport of its case the prosecution examinednine witnesses of whom Sita (P.W.1), Mangat Singh(P.W.2) and Balbir Singh (P.W.6) figured as eye witnesses. The other witnesses were Dr.TilakRaj Sharma (P.W.3), whoheld autopsy on thedead body of Shiv Charan. Dr. Arun Kumar Saxena (P.W.9), who examined Mangat and appellant Ram Mehar; Yogendra Pal Sharma (P.W.8) andShahbuddin Chaudhary (P.W.9) and Hari Singh(P.W.5)two formal witnesses. The defence in its turn examined two witnesses, namely, namely, Horam Singh (D.W.1)and Mahinder Narain Sharma (D.W.2) to prove the alibisof Rohtas and Pratap Singh (since acquitted) respectively. Besides, the defence exhibited the first information report lodged at its instance. After the witnesses and the accused were examined thetrial Judge inspected the site ofincident and prepared an inspection note which is on record. 5. On considerationof the evidence thetrial Judge accepted theprosecution version of theincident in preference to that of the defence and also the plea of alibi raisedby Rohtas. Accordingly heconvicted the two appellants in the manner mentioned earlier but giving the other three accused the benefit of doubt acquitted them. In appeal,the High Court concurred with all the findings recorded by the trialCourt and affirmed the conviction of the twoappellants. 6. Mr. Lalit, appearing for theappellants, firstly submitted that the testimonies of the eye witnesses that the incident took place on the railway platform stood completely belied as no blood was foundthere; and, on the contrary, the presenceof blood outside the platform fully corroborated the defence version.In repellingthis contention theHigh Court discussed the evidence of the eye witnesses in the light of the siteplan (Ext. KA 13) prepared by the InvestigatingOfficer(P.W.8) wherein the place where blood was found wasshown and observed thatwhen Mangat was sorting the tickets attack was made on him and Shiv Charan onthe platform itself andthe latter Downat a distance of 35feet from the platform while proceeding towardswest, writhing in pain.We havefor ourselves looked into the evidence on record on this aspect of the matter and find no justifiable reason to interfere with theview http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4 expressed by the High Court. 7. Mr. Lalitthen submittedthat having regard to the testimony of Dr. Arun Kumar Saxena (P.W.9) whoexamined Ram Mehar on the morning of April 23, 1981and found as many as seven injuries on his person and the fact that no satisfactory explanation was forthcoming from the prosecution ashow those injuries were caused, the defence versionthat Ram mehar was first attacked by complainant party and thathe assaulted Shiv Charan in exercise of his right of private defence stood established. From the judgment of the High Court we find that this contention was also raised before theHigh Court and it negatived thesame with the following observations: "According to the Doctor, there were 7 injuries on the body of Ram Mehar. His medical examination was done on 23.4.1981 at 7 A.M. In this way, wesee that this medical examination has been got done with sufficientdelay,Moreover, if we see the medical examination , all those injuries were simple. So far the question of explanation is concerned. Sita Ramin his statementstatedthat they also defended themselves. In his cross examination this witness has stated that they also defended themselves. In his cross examination this witness has stated that Mangat taking out the Ballam which has struck inhis arm used the same against the accused persons in his defence. MangatSingh has also stated inhis statement that in my defence Isnatched the Ballam of Rohtash and in may defence I used the same in all the four sides. P.W.6 Balbir Singh has also given almost the same statement. The statementof these 3 witnesses given on his point, can not be discarded only onthis ground that nothing has been mentioned in this regard inthe F.I.R. Aswe have seen that the injuries of Ram Mehar were so simple that it may be that noone could have noticed them. Therefore, in our opinion, the explanation given by the prosecution in respectof the injuriesof Ram Mehar is believable." Since the above finding ofthe High Court is also based on proper appreciationof evidence we do not find any substance in the contention of Mr. Lalit. 8. Mr. Lalitlastly contended that in any view of the matter the conviction of the appellants under Section 302 & 302/34 IPC forcausing the death of Shiv Charan, could, under on circumstances, be justified for onlyone blow was inflicted uponhim and no further attempt was made to assaulthim. This apart, Mr.Lalit submitted thatwhen considered inthe light ofthe surrounding facts and circumstances it couldnot be said that the appellants intended to kill ShivCharan.We do not find any substance http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4 in this contention also. Once the evidence of the three eye witnesses is accepted as true -as has been rightly accepted by thelearned Courts belowon a detailed and proper discussion of their evidence - there is no escape from the conclusion that the two appellants came fully preparedwith spears to attack Mangat as he had dared to ask for ticket from Rohtas and attacked the two brothers with spears. The blow that was inflicted on thechest of Shiv Charan pierced his Lungs and heart andresulted in profuse bleeding, Mangat Singh also sustained two incised woundsone on the right arm and the other on the right side of the chest. Considering all these facts and circumstances we have no hesitation in concluding that the appellants intended to commit the murders of both the brothers but fortunately Mangat survived. 9. Onthe conclusionsas above we do not findany merit in this appeal and it is accordingly dismissed. The appellant, who are on bail, will now surrender totheir bonds to serve out their sentences.