Case: Natthu Singh &amp; Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh

Gopal Tiwari (PW 16). If the appellants had any reason to think that the four bundles were added surreptitiously, they should have cross-examined the Investigating Officer in that respect. But this was not done even though the Investigating Officer was cross-examined at considerable length. On the other hand, the evidence on the record leaves no room for doubt that the cap, the three cartridges and the broken portion of the butt-end of the gun were recovered early in the morning of November 12, 1970 and were sealed soon after. An attempt was also made to argue that Nirpat Singhs gun could not have been recovered and shown to Syed Ahmad Sultan (CW 2) as alleged by the prosecution because the witness returned from tour late in the evening while the gun was seized much earlier. The argument is futile because recovery memo Ex. Ka-8 shows that it was drawn up at 11.30 p.m. 20. It has next been argued by Mr. Pramod Swarup that there was no reason why the plea of alibi taken by Nirpat Singh, Uttam Singh and Mahipal Singh should have been rejected. We find however that appellant Nirpat Singh was employed as a clerk at a short distance of 6 miles from the place of the incident. He did not even take the plea of alibi in the Court of the committing magistrate. All the same, the trial Judge examined Rasool (CW 1) and he proved that Nirpat Singh remained on duty only upto 3 p.m. on November 11, 1970 and went away thereafter. It is therefore futile to argue that he should have been held to be on his duty as a telephone clerk at Mahoba from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. As has been stated, Mahoba was close by, and could be reached within a short time. Uttam Singh was employed as a teacher in a school at village Supa, where the murders took place, and it appears that the place of the first incident was at a distance of only 175 yards from the school. The trial Judge has rejected the plea of alibi for the reason that no such defence was taken in the Court of the committing magistrate and also because of the proximity of the school to the place of the incident where Uttam Singh could have reached well in time even if he had left at the close of the school at 4 p.m. 21. It has not been argued that appellant Natthu Singh was in a position to make out a plea of alibi and it only remains for us to examine a similar argument on behalf of appellant Mahipal Singh. He also did not take the plea in the Court of the committing magistrate that he was far away from the place of the incident owing to his posting at police station Bajna at the time of the incident. Moreover there is no justification for the argument of Mr. Pramod Swarup that the trial Court and the High Court have found it in Mahipal Singhs favour that he left Bajna police station only at 1 p.m. on the date of the incident. We have gone through the two judgments, and we find that no such finding has been arrived at there. All the same, the trial Court and the High Court have examined the plea of alibi even on the Assumption that Mahipal Singh left Bajna at 1 p.m., and have given reasons for holding that he could still have reached the place of the incident. It will be recalled that the participation of Mahipal Singh in the crime has been established not only by the parol evidence on the record, but also by the recovery of his cap from the place of the second incident and his conduct in escaping from police custody. He claims to have taken leave of absence for November 11 and 12, 1970, but he failed to report at the place of his posting even after the expiry of the leave. He in fact escaped from police custody and was re-arrested after several months on August 1, 1971 when proceedings were taken against him under Section 87, Cr. P.C. There is thus no force in the argument that the plea of alibi has been rejected out of hand. 22. It has lastly been argued on behalf of the appellants that there was no justification for awarding the extreme penalty of death for the murders because of the delay in the trial, and reference in this connection has been made to Vivian Rodrick v. The State of West Bengal [AIR 1971 SC 1584 : (1971) 1 SCC 468 : 1971 SCC (Cri) 192.] , State of Maharashtra v. Manglya Dhavu Kongi [AIR 1972 SC 1797 : (1972) 3 SCC 46 : 1972 SCC (Cri) 237.] and Shanker v. State of U.P. [AIR 1975 SC 757 : (1975) 3 SCC 851 : 1975 SCC (Cri) 270.]. There is however no force in the argument because, as has been stated, appellants Natthu Singh, Uttam Singh and Mahipal Singh absconded and were apprehended after proceeding were taken against them under Section 87, Cr. P.C. Mahipal Singh was finally arrested on August 1, 1971. The trial Judge convicted and sentenced the appellants on December 12, 1973, and the High Court confirmed the death sentence on September 2, 1974. It cannot therefore be said that there has been any such delay as to justify the lesser sentence. On the other hand, the evidence on the record leaves no room for doubt that the appellants had on several occasions tried to take the law in their own hands and that led up to the murders which were committed after premeditation, with lethal weapons and in broad daylight when there was really no occasion for any provocation. There was no justification for murdering Banmali, Basdeo and Prem Narain for they had not even purchased the field from Natthu Singh. There is therefore no extenuating circumstances to justify the lesser sentence.

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

Explanation:
0[ds]8. It would thus appear that the prosecution has led satisfactory evidence to prove how the appellants were bent upon obtaining the reconveyance of the "Bandhi" field from Ram Dayal and Smt. Kishori Devi, mother of Govind Das, at the original price of Rs. 6000. It will be recalled that they convened a "panchayat" for that purpose about a month before the date of the occurrence, but without success9. It has also been proved by satisfactory evidence that the Police made report Ex.0 against appellants Natthu Singh, Nirpat Singh and Uttam Singh for action under Section 107, Cr. P.C. but they did not enter appearance in the proceedings. It may also be mentioned that it is not disputed before us that appellants Natthu Singh, Nirpat Singh and Mahipal Singh had licensed guns withthem.Ram Dayal (PW 12) made an application Ex.1 to the Collector of Hamirpur on October 27, 1970 for cancellation of the licenses and he initially succeeded in obtaining an order in his favour, but it was stayed by the Collector. The three appellants thus continued to have the licensed guns with them which, according to the prosecution, were used by them soon after, on November 11, 1970, in committing the four murders10. There is thus satisfactory evidence on the record to prove the motive for the crime, the possession of licensed guns by appellants Natthu Singh, Nirpat Singh and Mahipal Singh and the circumstances which led up to the murders. Nothing of any importance has been urged against this part of the evidenceThere is however no force in the argument because, as has been stated, appellants Natthu Singh, Uttam Singh and Mahipal Singh absconded and were apprehended after proceeding were taken against them under Section 87, Cr. P.C. Mahipal Singh was finally arrested on August 1, 1971. The trial Judge convicted and sentenced the appellants on December 12, 1973, and the High Court confirmed the death sentence on September 2, 1974. It cannot therefore be said that there has been any such delay as to justify the lesser sentence. On the other hand, the evidence on the record leaves no room for doubt that the appellants had on several occasions tried to take the law in their own hands and that led up to the murders which were committed after premeditation, with lethal weapons and in broad daylight when there was really no occasion for any provocation. There was no justification for murdering Banmali, Basdeo and Prem Narain for they had not even purchased the field from Natthu Singh. There is therefore no extenuating circumstances to justify the lesser sentence.