Case: Jagdeo Singh and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra

as he was absconding The remaining eight persons were tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Five were acquitted. Jagdeo Singh, Baldeo Singh and Labh Singh were convicted and they are the appellants before us 2. Shri A. N. Mulla learned counsel for the appellants took us through the relevant evidence and submitted that the evidence of P.W. 3, the sole eye witness to the occurrence, was full of infirmities and therefore, no conviction should be based on his evidence. He submitted that P.W. 3 had no genuine opportunity of identifying the assailants of Kripal Singh as Kripal Singh must have got down from the truck and run away as soon as he sensed danger. He was apparently attacked at a distance of 380 feet from the truck, whereas P.W. 3 was attacked near the truck itself. In the circumstances P.W. 3 would not have been able to identify the assailants of the deceased. Considerable argument was advanced on the circumstance that the right hand side door of the truck was found shut whereas the left hand side door of the truck was found open when the police arrived on the spot. This according to Shri Mulla indicated that the assailant did not drag the deceased out of the truck by opening the right hand side door. The deceased himself must have run away. Shri Mulla also commented on the circumstance that there were no blood stains on the drivers seat of the truck whereas there were blood stains on the cleaners seat. He also drew our attention to the circumstance that there was practically no light near the spot where the dead body of the deceased was found lying. Shri Mulla further argued that P.W. 3 had made considerable improvements to the version originally given by him in the statements made by him to the Magistrate and the Police. He particularly drew our attention to the fact that the overt acts now attributed to the accused were not mentioned in the statement made to the Magistrate 3. We have considered the submissions of Shri Mulla carefully. We are not impressed with the submissions. On the other hand we are greatly impressed by the evidence of P.W. 3 His evidence regarding the complicity of the appellants before us is corroborated by the statement made by him to the Taluqa Magistrate soon after he regained conscious ness in the hospital. Very great weight has necessarily to be attached to the statement having regard to the circumstances in which it was made. He was removed from the scene of occurrence in an unconscious state. The statement was recorded soon after he regained consciousness before he could possibly be contacted by anyone. He was obviously under great strain and pain at that time. His answers were brief and to the point. He confined himself to the questions put to him and gave direct answers. In fact if he did not give more details of the occurrence it was obviously because he was merely answering the questions put to him by the Magistrate. We do not think that the several omissions in the statement which have been pointed out to us are of any great significance in the circumstance of the case. His statement shows that Jagdeo Singh and Baldeo Singh went after Kripal Singh While Labh Singh and harbans Singh attacked him. No doubt the overt acts now attributed to the assailants were not mentioned in the statement. That does not detract from the credibility of the witness in the particular circumstances of this case. We are not impressed with the argument that P.W. 3 could not have identified the assailants of the deceased. Both Jagdeo Singh and Baldeo Singh were quit well known to him, and according to his evidence they came near the truck and dragged the deceased out. Whether he was dragged out or whether he himself got down from the truck it must be from the right hand side door only since P.W. 3 was sitting in the cleaners seat and it would not have been easily possible for Kripal Singh to escape from the left hand side door. Further the plan prepared by the investigating Officer shows that the spot where his dead body was found and, therefore, the direction towards which he ran was on the same side as the truck BRV 5657. If the assailants were coming from the truck BRV 5657 the deceased would not have run in that direction but he would have run in the opposite direction. It is clear to our minds that the deceased must have been dragged out of the truck by the accused. As already mentioned by us we are greatly impressed by the evidence of P.W. 3. We do not think it necessary to consider several other minor submissions made by Shri Mulla as we agree with the reasons given by the High Court to affirm the conviction of the three appellants Shri Mulla raised a special plea on behalf of Jagdeo Singh and urged that he was a driver of truck No. BRV 4482 and that this truck never came upon the scene and therefore Jagdeo Singh would not have participated in the occurrence. We do not agree with this submission. We do not think that it was necessary for all the three trucks to have come to the scene of occurrence. Obviously Jagdeo Singh came to the scene in the truck No. BRV 5657. Shri Mulla also submitted that Labh Singh could not be convicted of murder as there were no grounds for applying Section 34 or Section 149. We see no force in this submission either. The attacks on both the deceased and P.W. 3 were part of the same transaction. That some assailants came in one truck and attacked the deceased and the other assailants came in another truck and attacked P.W. 3 does not make any difference. It is a clear case where there was prior concert and planning by all the accuse.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]3. We have considered the submissions of Shri Mulla carefully. We are not impressed with the submissions. On the other hand we are greatly impressed by the evidence of P.W. 3 His evidence regarding the complicity of the appellants before us is corroborated by the statement made by him to the Taluqa Magistrate soon after he regained conscious ness in the hospital. Very great weight has necessarily to be attached to the statement having regard to the circumstances in which it was made. He was removed from the scene of occurrence in an unconscious state. The statement was recorded soon after he regained consciousness before he could possibly be contacted by anyone. He was obviously under great strain and pain at that time. His answers were brief and to the point. He confined himself to the questions put to him and gave direct answers. In fact if he did not give more details of the occurrence it was obviously because he was merely answering the questions put to him by the Magistrate. We do not think that the several omissions in the statement which have been pointed out to us are of any great significance in the circumstance of the case. His statement shows that Jagdeo Singh and Baldeo Singh went after Kripal Singh While Labh Singh and harbans Singh attacked him. No doubt the overt acts now attributed to the assailants were not mentioned in the statement. That does not detract from the credibility of the witness in the particular circumstances of this case. We are not impressed with the argument that P.W. 3 could not have identified the assailants of the deceased. Both Jagdeo Singh and Baldeo Singh were quit well known to him, and according to his evidence they came near the truck and dragged the deceased out. Whether he was dragged out or whether he himself got down from the truck it must be from the right hand side door only since P.W. 3 was sitting in the cleaners seat and it would not have been easily possible for Kripal Singh to escape from the left hand side door. Further the plan prepared by the investigating Officer shows that the spot where his dead body was found and, therefore, the direction towards which he ran was on the same side as the truck BRV 5657. If the assailants were coming from the truck BRV 5657 the deceased would not have run in that direction but he would have run in the opposite direction. It is clear to our minds that the deceased must have been dragged out of the truck by the accused. As already mentioned by us we are greatly impressed by the evidence of P.W. 3. We do not think it necessary to consider several other minor submissions made by Shri Mulla as we agree with the reasons given by the High Court to affirm the conviction of the three appellants Shri Mulla raised a special plea on behalf of Jagdeo Singh and urged that he was a driver of truck No. BRV 4482 and that this truck never came upon the scene and therefore Jagdeo Singh would not have participated in the occurrence. We do not agree with this submission. We do not think that it was necessary for all the three trucks to have come to the scene of occurrence. Obviously Jagdeo Singh came to the scene in the truck No. BRV 5657. Shri Mulla also submitted that Labh Singh could not be convicted of murder as there were no grounds for applying Section 34 or Section 149. We see no force in this submission either. The attacks on both the deceased and P.W. 3 were part of the same transaction. That some assailants came in one truck and attacked the deceased and the other assailants came in another truck and attacked P.W. 3 does not make any difference. It is a clear case where there was prior concert and planning by all the accuse.