Case: Darshan and Ors Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh

for causing the death of Kanti Devi except that the High Court gave benefit of doubt to Harroo and acquitted him. 9. With the assistance of learned Counsel for the parties, we have very carefully gone through the evidence of Ramesh Chandar Singh (P.W. 1) and Babloo (P.W. 2) and other materials on record and we find that the findings recorded by the courts below do not suffer from any infirmity so as to call for an interference by this Court in these appeals. Learned Counsel for the Appellants, however, strenuously urged that the First Information Report which was alleged to have been lodged within half an hour of occurrence was in fact not lodged and the same was ante dated. This contention proceeds on the footing that it was impossible for Ramesh Chander Singh (P.W. 1) to go alone to the police station and lodge the FIR when he admitted that he was afraid of the Appellants. It was next contended that the conduct of Ramesh Chander Singh (P.W. 1) was totally contrary, to a human conduct inasmuch as he instead of attending on the injured Kanti Devi and calling a doctor straight away went to the police station to lodge the FIR. It was also submitted that Ramesh Chander Singh (P.W. 1) did not raise any hue and cry after seeing the firing on Kanti Devi. We do not see any substance in any of these contentions. Ramesh Chander Singh (P.W. 1) in his evidence has testified that he went to the police station straight away and lodged the FIR within half an hour at about 10.30 p.m. His evidence stands corroborated from the FIR itself where date and time has been correctly recorded and was so testified by the Investigating Officer. His going straight away to the police station in our considered view was not at all unnatural. The theory of ante dating the FIR has, therefore, no substance. It was then contended that Dr. Tiwari (C.W. 1) who was on emergency duty claimed to have forwarded a report to the police station but the same was not produced. This again has got no relevance because the police reached the place of incident immediately within short time and the crime was already registered on the complaint of Ramesh Chander Singh (P.W. (sic)). 10. It was then contended on behalf of the Appellants that Ramesh Chander Singh (P.W. 1) at the time of occurrence had a vision in one eye only and other eye was stone blind and if this be so, it was almost difficult for him to identify the assailants when they were climbing up the steps and coming towards the male ward. This submission is devoid of any merit because there was sufficient light in the hospital premises and we see no difficulty whatsoever in identifying the assailants by Ramesh Chander Singh (P.W. 1) with one eye. 11. It was then contended for the Appellants that both the eye witnesses might not have seen the assailants because according the Ramesh Chander Singh (P.W. 1), he was hiding behind the pillar and due to said obstruction, he could not have seen the occurrence. This submission again has no substance because Ramesh Chander Singh (P.W. 1) in his evidence had asserted that he identified the assailants and thereafter he took Babloo (P.W. 2) with him and tried to hide behind the pillar to save their lives. Within minutes thereafter, the Appellants entered the male ward and opened the fire at Kanti Devi. In the facts and circumstances of this case, this submission deserves no further elaborate discussion. 12. It was then contended by learned Counsel for the Appellants that the prosecution had come before the court alleging enmity with the Appellants and if this be so, the Appellants false involvement in the present crime due to enmity cannot be ruled out. From the materials on record, it is quite clear that Appellants did not approve the marriage of Kanti Devi with Naresh Pai and as a result thereof, there were several attempts on the life of Ramesh Chander Singh (P.W. 1) and in fact Mahesh Kumar, the brother of Ramesh Chander Singh was murdered, although the Appellants were acquitted in the said crime. In our considered view, the Appellants were more agitated and were waiting for an opportunity to do away with their sister and supporters of her marriage and accordingly the Appellants accomplish their design on 30th June, 1977. The motive and issue of enmity were rightly held proved in favour of the prosecution. It Was also urged that the conduct of Ramesh Chander Singh (P.W. 1) was unnatural because when assistants were running away, Ramesh Chander Singh did not raise any hue and cry and tried to catch hold of them. This argument needs to just stated and rejected. 13. It was then contended that the prosecution had failed to examine any independent witness who had witnessed the incident in the hospital. It is in these circumstances, an adverse inference must be drawn against the prosecution. This submission again, in our opinion, has no substance. What is required to be considered in the present case is trustworthy and could be accepted safely notwithstanding the fact that they were close relatives. On careful scrutiny of their evidence, we find that their evidence is totally unblemished and suffers from no infirmity. It was also contended that Ramesh Chander Singh (P.W. 1) had no reason to be in the hospital when Kanti Devi, the mother of Babloo was looking after the patient. This submission is again devoid of any merit. 14. It was then contended that the evidence of Dr. Tiwari (C.W. 1) is inconsistent with the evidence of Ramesh Chander Singh (P.W. 1). this has reference to the fact that whether Kanti Devi was lying on the cot at the time of incident or on the floor. This fact is totally insignificant and we see no serious inconsistency which would weaken the substratum of the prosecution case.

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

Explanation:
0[ds]9. With the assistance of learned Counsel for the parties, we have very carefully gone through the evidence of Ramesh Chandar Singh (P.W. 1) and Babloo (P.W. 2) and other materials on record and we find that the findings recorded by the courts below do not suffer from any infirmity so as to call for an interference by this Court in these appeals.We do not see any substance in any of these contentions. Ramesh Chander Singh (P.W. 1) in his evidence has testified that he went to the police station straight away and lodged the FIR within half an hour at about 10.30 p.m. His evidence stands corroborated from the FIR itself where date and time has been correctly recorded and was so testified by the Investigating Officer. His going straight away to the police station in our considered view was not at all unnatural. The theory of ante dating the FIR has, therefore, no substance.It was then contended that Dr. Tiwari (C.W. 1) who was on emergency duty claimed to have forwarded a report to the police station but the same was not produced.This again has got no relevance because the police reached the place of incident immediately within short time and the crime was already registered on the complaint of Ramesh Chander Singh (P.W. (sic)).This submission is devoid of any merit because there was sufficient light in the hospital premises and we see no difficulty whatsoever in identifying the assailants by Ramesh Chander Singh (P.W. 1) with one eye.This submission again has no substance because Ramesh Chander Singh (P.W. 1) in his evidence had asserted that he identified the assailants and thereafter he took Babloo (P.W. 2) with him and tried to hide behind the pillar to save their lives. Within minutes thereafter, the Appellants entered the male ward and opened the fire at Kanti Devi. In the facts and circumstances of this case, this submission deserves no further elaborate discussion.From the materials on record, it is quite clear that Appellants did not approve the marriage of Kanti Devi with Naresh Pai and as a result thereof, there were several attempts on the life of Ramesh Chander Singh (P.W. 1) and in fact Mahesh Kumar, the brother of Ramesh Chander Singh was murdered, although the Appellants were acquitted in the said crime. In our considered view, the Appellants were more agitated and were waiting for an opportunity to do away with their sister and supporters of her marriage and accordingly the Appellants accomplish their design on 30th June, 1977. The motive and issue of enmity were rightly held proved in favour of the prosecution. It Was also urged that the conduct of Ramesh Chander Singh (P.W. 1) was unnatural because when assistants were running away, Ramesh Chander Singh did not raise any hue and cry and tried to catch hold of them. This argument needs to just stated and rejected.This submission again, in our opinion, has no substance. What is required to be considered in the present case is trustworthy and could be accepted safely notwithstanding the fact that they were close relatives. On careful scrutiny of their evidence, we find that their evidence is totally unblemished and suffers from no infirmity. It was also contended that Ramesh Chander Singh (P.W. 1) had no reason to be in the hospital when Kanti Devi, the mother of Babloo was looking after the patient. This submission is again devoid of any merit.This fact is totally insignificant and we see no serious inconsistency which would weaken the substratum of the prosecution case.