IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 66 OF 2002 Chagat Singh alias Kunwar Singh ………….Appellant. Versus State of Uttaranchal (Uttarakhand) …..Respondent. Present:- Sri Deepak Bisht, Advocate (Amicus Curiae) for the appellant. Sri Amit Bhatt, AGA present for the State. Coram: Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. Prafulla C. Pant, J. (Oral) 1. This appeal, preferred under Section 374 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short CrPC) is directed against judgment order dated 16.2.2002 passed by Sessions Judge, Pauri Garhwal in Sessions Trial No. 42 of 1997, whereby said court has convicted accused appellant Chagat Singh alias Kunwar Singh under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short IPC) and sentenced him to imprisonment for life. 2. Prosecution story, in brief, is that Bhagat Singh (deceased), son of Motha Singh, was resident of Village Banjkote, who used to graze goats. He had purchased a goat from accused appellant Chagat Singh, regarding which there was a dispute of payment of price between the two. On 24.1.1997, Bhagat Singh (son of Motha Singh), as usual, left with goats to get them grazed. He did not come back to his house in the evening. His wife PW2 Sharadi Devi waited for him. When she saw that goats have come back and still her husband has not come, she started making search for her husband with the villagers of Banjkote in the light of Petromax. At about 10 P.M. in the night, dead body of her husband Bhagat Singh was found lying below the path-way leading to Village Markhola. PW1 Shankar Singh Village Pradhan of Banjkote sent oral information to Naib 2 Tehsildar, Thailisain, fromwhere he got a message that report be got lodged with the Supervisory Kanoongo of the area (In Uttarakhand hills in certain areas, revenue officials are given police powers). Next day (25.1.1997), PW1 Shankar Singh the Village Pradhan gave first information report (Exhibit A-1) to Kanoongo of the area mentioning that widow of the deceased has expressed suspicion on Chagat Singh as the person, who could have killed her husband. PW8 Vinti Lal Supervisory Kanoongo of Patti Kandarsyun registered Crime No. 1 of 1997 on the basis of First Information Report (Exhibit A- 1) and got prepared Check Report (Exhibit A-7). He made necessary entry in the General Diary and started investigation. PW8 Vinti Lal went to the spot on 26.1.1997, took dead body of Bhagat Singh (son of Motha Singh) in his possession and prepared Inquest Report (Exhibit A-4). He also got prepared other necessary papers, namely, Police Form No. 13 (Exhibit A-9), sketch of the dead body (Exhibit A-10), letter of Chief Medical Officer (Exhibit A-11) requesting for post-mortem examination and sample seal (Exhibit A-12). Dead body was sent in a sealed condition for post mortem examination. PW3 Dr. Kailash Chandra Jangpangi of District Hospital Pauri conducted the post mortem examination on 26.1.1997 at about 3 P.M. on the dead body of Bhagat Singh (son of Motha Singh). He recorded as many as five ante mortem injuries, including a lacerated wound on the head of the deceased. He found the underneath bones of the face fractured. He further observed that tongue, trachea and oesophagus were filled with blood clotts. He prepared autopsy report (Exhibit A- 2) and opined that deceased had died of asphyxia due to ante mortem injuries. The Investigating Officer interrogated the witnesses, arrested the accused and 3 inspected the spot. He recovered blood stained soil and simple soil from the place of incident. He also recovered pieces of blood stained cotton mattresses from the house of the accused, and prepared recovery memos. On completion of investigation, a charge sheet (Exhibit A-16) was filed by Investigating Officer against accused Chagat Singh alias Kunwar Singh for his trial in respect of offence punishable under Sections 302 and 201 IPC. 3. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pauri Garhwal, on receipt of the charge-sheet, after giving necessary copies to the accused, appears to have committed the case to the court of sessions for trial. On 17.7.1997, the then Sessions Judge, Pauri Garhwal, after hearing the parties, framed charge of offence punishable under Section 302 IPC against accused Chagat Singh, who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. On this, prosecution got examined PW1 Shankar Singh, Village Pradhan (informant), PW2 Sharadi Devi (widow of the deceased), PW3 Dr. Kailash Chandra Jangpangi, who conducted post mortem examination, PW4 Rajendra Singh, who saw accused throwing the dead body of deceased, PW5 Mohd. Yameen a shopkeeper, from whose shop stainless mattresses were purchased by the accused, PW6 Darban Singh, who saw deceased grazing the goats and thereafter accused going towards that way with bundle of mattresses, PW7 Maan Singh, in whose presence piece of blood stained mattress was recovered from the house of the accused and PW8 Vinti Lal, Supervisory Kannongo, who investigated the crime. Oral and documentary evidence was put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in reply to which, he alleged the evidence adduced by the prosecution as false and pleaded that due to the enmity evidence has been adduced against 4 him. In defence, he got examined DW1 Bhagat Singh son of Anand Singh. The trial court, after hearing the parties, found that the prosecution has successfully proved chain of circumstances and found accused Chagat Singh @ Kunwar Singh guilty of charge of offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. After hearing on sentence, the convict was sentenced to imprisonment for life by the trial court. Aggrieved by the said judgment and order dated 16.2.2002 passed by Sessions Judge, Pauri Garhwal, in Sessions Trial No. 42 of 1997, this appeal is preferred by the convict. 4. Before further discussion, we think it just and proper to mention ante mortem injuries found by PW3 Dr. Kailash Chandra Jangpangi, who conducted post mortem examination on dead body of Bhagat Singh son of Motha Singh on 26.1.1997 at 3.00 PM. The ante mortem injuries are being reproduced below from Autopsy Report (Ext. A2). (i) Trance Lacerated wound extending face supra orbital region, left side to right side. The eyeballs are depressed. The right maxillary bone had commuttal fracture. (ii) Vertical Lacerated wound over nose, bone deep. The air nasal tube is filled with depressed bone with blood clots. (iii) Fracture in jaw and upper jaw. In the lining of teeth, four teeth of upper jaw incision and bleeding. (iv) Lower jaw is also fractured on right side. (v) The tongue, trachea and oesophagus filled with blood clots.” 5 5. PW3 Dr. Kailash Chandra Jangpangi stated that deceased had died of asphyxia due to the ante mortem injuries. He further stated that the injuries could have been caused by some blunt object. He told that ante mortem injuries could have been caused on 24.1.1997. The witness proved the autopsy report (Ext. A2) prepared by him. From the statement of the Medical Officer read with Autopsy Report, it is proved on the record that Bhagat Singh son of Motha Singh died homicidal death after his trachea and oesophagus pipes were filled with the blood and deceased was unable to breath. Now, we have to see whether accused Chagat Singh committed murder of Bhagat Singh, son of Motha Singh, as suggested by prosecution or not. 6. PW1 Shankar Singh, Village Pradhan, has stated that Bhagat Singh (deceased) used to graze goats. On 24.1.1997, he had gone to graze the goats but did not return, though the goats came back to the house. On receiving information, he went in search of Bhagat Singh with PW2 Sharadi Devi (wife of the deceased) and others. The witness has further stated that dead body of Bhagat Singh was found lying near the way leading to Markhola. It is also stated by this witness that Sharadi Devi suspected that accused Chagat Singh had killed her husband. This witness has further stated that he sent information to Naib Tehsildar about the incident, and on next day as directed by Naib Tehsildar, a First Information Report (Ext. A1) was given by him to Supervisory Kannongo of the area. 7. PW2 Sharadi Devi (widow of the deceased) has also stated that her husband used to graze goats, and on the day of incident he did not come back to the house by 6 evening. The witness has further stated that she along with other villagers started search of her husband with Petromax and found dead body lying below the path leading to Markhola. PW2 Sharadi Devi has further proved the motive of commission of crime by accused Chagat Singh. She has stated that a goat was purchased by her husband from accused Chagat Singh regarding which there was a dispute as to the payment of price. According to this witness, her husband had paid ` 500/- and he refused to pay more amount. In the cross- examination, PW2 Sharadi Devi states that at about 10.00 PM in the night the dead body was found lying at the above mentioned place. 8. PW4 is the most important witness of this case and has given an important link of chain of circumstance. He is a teacher, who was on way back from his school to the Village Markhola. He saw accused Chagat Singh throwing the dead body of Bhagat Singh (son of Motha Singh) in field from the path leading to Markhola. This witness has also stated that Bhagat Singh (DW1) son of Anandi Prasad, was also following him at that time. PW4 Rajendra Singh has stated that when he saw accused was throwing dead body and he further saw blood soaked hands of the accused Chagat Singh, he asked him as to what he has done and why he killed Bhagat Singh (son of Motha Singh). The witness further states, that on being questioned Chagat Singh stared at him with deadly look. The witness further states that he got frightened and went ahead. PW4 Rajendra Singh has further stated that while going to Markhola, he orally gave a call to the villagers of Banjkote that Bhagat Singh (son of Motha Singh) has been killed. Though this witness has not alleged in First Information Report nor immediately 7 informed the wife of the deceased about the incident but his statement cannot be disbelieved, for the reason that DW1 Bhagat Singh (son of Anandi Singh), who was said to have been accompanying witness Rajendra Singh, himself states in the cross-examination that he was following Rajendra Singh and he saw accused Chagat Singh with blood soaked hands. DW1 Bhagat Singh, son of Anand Singh further corroborated the prosecution story in his cross examination that Rajendra Singh (PW4) asked Chagat Singh as to what he had done, on which accused stared at them with deadly look and they went ahead after orally making call to the villagers of Banjkote that Chagat Singh has killed Bhagat Singh (son of Motha Singh). But this witness (DW1) Bhagat Singh, son of Anand Singh has clearly stated in his examination that he did not see commission of murder by Chagat Singh. 9. PW5 Mohd. Yameen has given link evidence that accused Chagat Singh purchased on 24.1.1997 two cotton mattresses from his shop. The witness further states that at the time he purchased mattresses, the same were stainless. PW5 Mohd. Yameen further stated that the blood-stained pieces opened in the court were of the same mattresses, which were purchased by the accused on the day of incident. PW6 Darban Singh has stated that on 24.1.1997, at about 4.00 PM, he saw Bhagat Singh (son of Motha Singh) grazing the cattle near Kusridang and immediately thereafter he saw accused Chagat Singh going towards that side, with a bundle of two mattresses on his head. PW7 Maan Singh has stated that after the incident, the blood stained mattresses were recovered from the house of the accused in respect of which Recovery Memo was prepared by Investigating Officer. 8 10. From the above evidence on record, we are of the view that the prosecution has successfully proved the complete chain of circumstances leading to the conclusion that it is only the accused Chagat Singh who committed murder of Bhagat Singh son of Motha Singh on 24.1.11997. 11. On behalf of the appellant, learned Amicus Curiae pointed out that had (PW4) Rajendra Singh seen the incident, he could have lodged the First Information Report, as he was a literate person. We have gone through the evidence on record carefully. The statement of PW4 Rajendra Singh gets corroboration from the cross- examination of DW1 Bhagat Singh son of Anand Singh that Rajendra Singh did inform the villagers orally by calling them from the path way that Chagat Singh had killed Bhagat Singh son of Motha Singh. 12. Learned Amicus Curiae further pleaded that even if the prosecution story is taken to be true, it is the case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. However, on going through the nature of ante mortem injuries found by PW3 Dr. Kailash Chandra Jangpangi, which are mentioned in the Autopsy Report (Ext. A2), we do not find it to be a case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The deceased appears to have been killed brutally. 13. Therefore, the appeal has no force, and the same is liable to be dismissed. The appeal is dismissed. Accused appellant Chagat Singh @ Kunwar Singh is on bail. His bail is cancelled. Lower court record be sent back to make appellant Chagat Singh serve out the sentence awarded by the trial court. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) 11.07.2011 Rathour