IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 279 OF 2003 Surjeet Singh Son of Man Singh Resident of village - Nagani Patti – Khatli Palla -3 Tehsil – Thailisain District – Pauri Garhwal …..…..Appellant (I n Jail) Versus State of Uttaranchal …. ……Respondent. Present:- Sri Pankaj Purohit, Advocate, present for the appellant. Sri M.A. Khan, Brief Holder for the State. Coram: Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. Prafulla C. Pant (J.) 1. This appeal, preferred under Section 374 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, CrPC), is directed against the judgment and order dated 29.8.2003, passed by Sessions Judge, Pauri Garhwal, in Sessions Trial No. 7 of 2002, whereby said court has convicted accused/appellant Surjeet Singh under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, IPC), and sentenced him to imprisonment for life, and further directed him to pay fine of ` 5,000/-. In default of payment of fine, the trial court directed that the appellant shall undergo further imprisonment for a period of one year. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties, and perused the lower court record. 3. Prosecution story, in brief, is that on 30th of November, 2001, Ramesh Singh (deceased) had gone with Surjeet Singh 2 (accused/appellant) from their village Nagani to Danda Chani. When they were returning to their home, in the evening at about 6:00 P.M., P.W.1 Virma Devi (mother of the deceased) and P.W. 3 Santoshi (sister of the deceased) heard cries of Ramesh Singh, who was shouting “BACHAO! SURJEET NE MUJHE MAAR DIYA” (Save – Surjeet has assaulted me). On this, the sister and the mother of the deceased ran towards the place, from where the shrieks were coming. They saw, in the outskirts of the village, accused Surjeet Singh running away from the place of incident, after causing injuries on person of Ramesh Singh. P.W. 6 Jeet Singh, who also heard cries in the village, ran towards the place of incident, and he, too, heard the same words. Later, other villagers also rushed to the spot. Injured Ramesh Singh was brought by the villagers to his home (at a distance of 100 meters), where immediately after he succumbed to the injuries suffered in the incident. The villagers informed about the incident to P.W. 2 Govind Singh (father of the deceased), who used to live in Danda Chani, where there was a cow-shed of the family of the deceased. He came to his village Nagani, but it was already night. On the next day (1.12.2001), at about 8:00 A.M., P.W. 2 Govind Singh got scribed the First Information Report (Ex. A 1), and gave it to Patti Patwari - Khatli Palla-3 (In the interior hills of Uttarakhand, certain Revenue Officials are given police powers, under U.P. Government Notification No. 494/VIII-418-16 dated 7th March, 1916). On receipt of the First Information Report, P.W. 8 Dinesh Chandra Singh Rawat, Patwari of the area, prepared Check Report (Ex. A 7), and registered Crime No. 1 of 2001, relating to the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC, against accused Surjeet Singh. Thereafter, he proceeded to village Nagani, and took dead body of Ramesh Singh in his possession, and prepared Inquest Report (Ex. A 4) and other necessary 3 papers, e.g. sample seal (Ex. A 10), Sketch of dead body (Ex. A 11), Police Form No. 13 (Ex. A 12), letter to Chief Medical Officer (Ex. A 13 requesting for post-mortem examination). Dead body of Ramesh Singh was sent for post-mortem examination to District Headquarter at Pauri. P.W. 4 Dr. Arun Kumar, conducted post-mortem examination on 3rd of December, 2001, and prepared Autopsy Report (Ex. A 3). The said Medical Officer recorded as many as 11 ante mortem injuries, and opined that the deceased had died of shock, as a result of ante mortem injuries. Meanwhile, the Investigating Officer interrogated the witnesses, prepared site plan (Ex. A 9). He arrested the accused Surjeet Singh, and recovered “BASULA” (Carpenter’s axe), used in the crime. Blood stained soil and simple soil were also taken from the spot, and memorandum was prepared. Blood stained items, including the cloths, were sent for chemical analysis. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet (Ex. A 16) was filed by the Investigating Officer against the accused Surjeet Singh, for his trial in respect of offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. 4. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pauri Garhwal, on receipt of the charge-sheet, after giving necessary copies to the accused, as required under Section 207 of CrPC, committed the case to the court of Sessions for trial. Learned Sessions Judge, Pauri Garhwal, on 22.3.2002, after hearing the parties, framed charge of offence punishable under Section 302 IPC against accused Surjeet Singh, who pleaded not guilty, and claimed to be tried. On this, prosecution got examined P.W. 1 Virma Devi (eye-witness, and mother of the deceased), P.W. 2 Govind Singh (complainant, and father of the deceased), P.W. 3 Kumari Santoshi (eye-witness, and sister of the deceased), P.W. 4 Dr. Arun Kumar (who conducted post-mortem examination), P.W.5 4 Bharat Singh Negi, P.W. 6 Jeet Singh (who also reached at the spot soon after the incident), P.W. 7 Chaman Singh (who noticed “BASULA” near river in the village) and P.W. 8 Dinesh Chandra Singh Rawat (Investigating Officer). The oral and documentary evidence was put to the accused under Section 313 CrPC, in reply to which, though he admitted that he knew Ramesh Singh (deceased), but as to the rest of the evidence it was alleged by him that the same is false. He pleaded that he has been falsely implicated in the crime, after some conspiracy. However, no evidence in defence was adduced. The trial court, after hearing the parties, found accused Surjeet Singh guilty of charge of offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. Thereafter, parties were heard on sentence, and convict (Surjeet Singh) was sentenced to imprisonment for life, and directed to pay fine of ` 5,000/-. Aggrieved by said judgment and order dated 29.8.2003, this appeal is filed by the convict. 5. Before further discussion, we think it just and proper to mention the ante mortem injuries recorded by P.W. 4 Dr. Arun Kumar, in Autopsy Report (Ex. A3), after post-mortem examination on dead body of Ramesh Singh. The same are being reproduced below :- “1. One incised wound 6” x 1” x brain deep, (bone cut) on right side of head, 5” from right ear, Brain and bones cut seen. 2. One incised wound 3” x ½” x brain deep, (bone cut) on right side of head, 3” from injury no. 1, posteriorly and upward. 3. One incised wound 2 ½ “ x 1” x bone deep on left side of head 4” from left ear. 4. One incised wound 2” x ½” x bone deep on left side of head transverse to injury no. 3. 5 5. One incised wound 2” x ½ ”x bone deep on left side of head just bost to injury no. 4. 6. One incised wound 4” x 1”x muscle deep on the middle and front of neck. 7. One incised wound 2” x 1” x muscle deep on front of neck, 1” left to injury no. 6. 8. One incised wound 2 ½” x 1 “ x bone deep on the left side of mouth, cutting mandibles and both lips. 9. One incised wound 2” x 1” x bone deep in left hand cutting bones of finger and middle finger at joints. 10. One incised wound 1” x ½ “ x muscle deep on the back of left forearm, 5” below elbow. 11. One contusion 3” x 3” on back of the chest.” 6. The Medical Officer (P.W.4 Dr. Arun Kumar), in his statement disclosed that the injuries suffered by the deceased were sufficient to cause his death. He has further stated that the injuries found on the body of the deceased could have been caused on 30th of November, 2001 at 6:00 P.M. He has further made it clear that the injuries (recorded above) could have been caused by an object like “BASULA” (carpenter’s axe). From the medical evidence, as discussed above, it is established on the record that Ramesh Singh has died a homicidal death on 30th of November, 2001. Now, we have to examine, as to whether accused/appellant Surjeet Singh committed murder of the deceased, as alleged by the prosecution, or not. 7. P.W. 1 Virma Devi is mother of the deceased, who has stated that on the day of incident, she heard cries of his son 6 Ramesh Singh – “BACHAO, SURJEET NE MAAR DIYA HAI”. On hearing the cry, she rushed to the spot with her daughter Santoshi (P.W. 3) from where shriek of the deceased came. The spot was at a distance of 100 meters. P.W. 1 Virma Devi has further stated that she saw, at the spot, her son lying in a pool of blood, and accused Surjeet Singh was running away. She further stated that other villagers also followed her, and came to the spot, whereafter Ramesh Singh was taken home, but he succumbed to the injuries. The witness has further stated that she got sent message to her husband in Danda Chani. The oral evidence given by this witness appears to be natural. 8. P.W. 3 Santoshi, sister of the deceased, has corroborated the story narrated by her mother that after hearing words – “BACHAO, SURJEET MAAR RAHA HAI”, she rushed to the spot with her mother, where she saw Surjeet Singh running away, and Ramesh Singh lying in an injured condition. The presence of this witness in the village with her mother is natural, and her testimony also appears to be trustworthy. It is not material that whether actual words were “MAAR DIYA HAI” or “MAAR RAHA HAI”. 9. P.W. 2 Govind Singh, father of the deceased, has stated that he received message through the villagers in Danda Chani, where he used to live in the cow-shed, about the incident. He further states that he came to his village Nagani, but it was already night. He further stated that on the next day (1.12.2001), he got scribed First Information Report (Ex. A 1) through one Jagdish, and gave it at Patwari Chowki. 10. The statement of P.W. 1 Virma Devi and P.W. 3 Santoshi further gets corroborated from the statement of P.W. 6 Jeet 7 Singh, who also followed them, on hearing voice of Ramesh Singh – “BACHAO, SURJEET NE MUJHE MAAR DIYA HAI”. None of these witnesses have any enmity with accused Surjeet Singh. There appears no reason, on their part, to falsely implicate accused Surjeet Singh in the crime. The prosecution story further gets corroborated from the statement of P.W. 7 Chaman Singh, who noticed “BASULA” (Ex. A 5) near a river in the village, and handed it over to P.W. 5 Bharat Singh Negi, Village Pradhan. It has come in the statement of P.W. 8 Dinesh Chand Singh Rawat (Patwari), who investigated the crime, that Bharat Singh Negi handed over the “BASULA” to him on 6.12.2001, and Memorandum (Ex. A 5) was prepared. The Chemical Examiner’s Report (Ex. A 15) shows that the “BASULA” contained blood stains, but classification of blood was not possible due to disintegration of the blood cells. 11. Having reassessed the entire evidence on record, we concur with the view taken by the trial court that the prosecution has successfully proved the charge of offence punishable under Section 302 IPC against accused/appellant Surjeet Singh. 12. On behalf of the appellant, it is argued that there is no motive for commission of crime, on the part of the accused. Learned counsel for the appellant pointed out from the oral evidence on record that the deceased and the accused were friends, and there was no enmity between them. It is true that from the evidence on record, it is clear that accused Surjeet Singh and deceased Ramesh Singh were friends, and had gone together from village Nagani to Danda Chani on the day of incident, and were returning to their village. But it is a settled principle of law that merely for the reason that the prosecution 8 could not show motive of commission of crime, the prosecution story could not be disbelieved. Motive has a little importance in the cases, where there is a direct evidence available on the record. Needless to say that it is not a case of circumstantial evidence. After all, what was in the mind of the accused, while inflicting the injuries, and how the quarrel started between the two (the accused and the deceased), nobody could see nor describe. As to the fact relating to the state of mind, no evidence can be given by the witnesses. As such, we are of the view that even if the motive is not proved, it does not shake truthfulness of the prosecution story. 13. Sri Pankaj Purohit, learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that had the accused intended to kill Ramesh Singh, he could have done so in a time, when he was passing through village Nagani to Danda Chani, and on his way-back to home, through jungles, and nor at the outskirts of the village. It is further contended that committing crime, when the two (the accused and the deceased) reached near the outskirts of the village, appears to be an unnatural conduct on the part of accused/appellant. In our opinion, it is nobody’s case that accused had taken the deceased with him with intention to kill on that day. It has come on the record that they were friends, and had gone together. What quarrel actually took place, when the two reached near the outskirts of the village, is not known. It could have been said to be unnatural conduct of the accused, killing the deceased in the jungle, only when the two had enmity and the accused wanted to kill him in a planned manner. It is not a case of the prosecution. Therefore, we do not find much force in the argument, advanced on behalf of the appellant. 9 14. Lastly, it is argued that the First Information Report is ante time, and the same was not sent to the Magistrate immediately, as required under Section 157 of CrPC. No doubt, the Investigating Officer was required to send a copy of the First Information Report to the Magistrate without delay, but we have to keep in mind the facts and circumstances of each case. It is not a case, which was investigated by regular trained police. A Revenue Official (Patwari) has investigated the crime. Judicial notice can be taken of the fact that in hilly terrain, and considering the geographical area, where the crime is committed, and the fact that the Investigating Officer is not supported by sufficient staff, it was not possible for the Patwari to send the First Information Report immediately to the Magistrate. As such, the prosecution story cannot be disbelieved on that ground. 15. For the reasons, as discussed above, this appeal has no force, and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Accused/appellant Surjeet Singh is in jail. Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the Superintendent of Jail, where the convict (appellant) is serving out the sentence. Lower court record be sent back. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) 24.12.2010 Avneet