Case: State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Babboo and Others

also, and it will be sufficient to say that it has been considered by the trial Judge at length and has been rejected for satisfactory reasons based on the evidence on record.10. It may also be mentioned that the High Court has taken the view that the persons who were examined as eye witnesses of the incident could not give any satisfactory explanation for their presence and were chance witnesses. In the same breath, the High Court has taken note of the fact that they were persons who were living in the neighbourhood. The witnesses have explained the circumstances in which they came to the place of the incident, and there is no evidence on the record to justify the High Courts conclusion that they were chance witnesses. It appears that the High Court realised the infirmity of its argument, and thought it necessary to reiterate its earlier view that the statements of the witnesses were unbelievable because the deceased could not have received the injuries if the assailants had been on his right side. As has been shown, we have not found it possible to accept that reasoning, and we have no doubt that it could not be used for the purpose of dubbing the witnesses as chance witnesses. They were persons living in the neighbourhood, and reached the place of occurrence in the circumstances mentioned by them.11. The High Court has stated further that the murder was committed by someone stealthily, and that the residents of the locality would have come to the place of occurrence if an alarm had been raised at all. In taking that view the High Court however lost sight of the statement of Babu Lal (PW 6) that while he was at his house in the village, he heard a noise, came out of his house, and saw that a crowd including Tikam Chand (PW 2) and Narayan (PW 5) had assembled at the place of the incident and the two witnesses narrated the incident to him. The High Court also did not take note of the statement of Tikam Chand (PW 2) in which he clearly stated that he raised an alarm when he saw the respondents catching hold of the deceased and assaulting him. The High Court therefore again misread the evidence in not taking notice of all this evidence and in rejecting the prosecution evidence on a hypothetical ground.12. The High Court has distrusted the prosecution evidence because Tulsi Prasad (PW 1) did not name the boy of his village who, according to him, first came and told him about the murder, and also because the alleged eye witnesses did not send a man to inform him of the murder. Tulsi Prasad has stated that he did not remember the name of the boy who gave him the information about the murder of his son and his statement could not be rejected merely because he did not name him in the first information report, or because the eye witnesses did not send a man to inform him of what had happened. On the other hand, we find that Tulsi Prasad did not try to fill the omission by naming the boy during the course of the trial.13. Lastly, the High Court has rejected the prosecution evidence on the ground of enmity of Tulsi Prasad (PW 1) with the respondents because of their working against him at the election. Here again, the High Court has misread the evidence. As has been pointed out by the trial Judge, there were as many as 11 candidates at the municipal election, including Tulsi Prasad, Ram Babu Sharma and Babu Lal (PW 6). It was Babu Lal (PW 6) who came out successful, while the others were defeated. The result of the election could not therefore have given rise to enmity on the part of Tulsi Prasad against Ram Babu Sharma, and much less against his nephew respondent Ram Prakash who was alleged to have worked for Ram Babu Sharma at the election. The High Court also lost sight of the fact that it had been brought out in the cross-examination of Nathi Lal (PW 4) that a case under Section 107, Cr. P.C. had been started in which Tulsi Prasad and Ram Prakashs another uncle Jai Narain were arrayed on the one side, while the prosecution witnesses Nathi Lal, Dal Chand and Narayan were arrayed on the other side.14. It would thus appear that the High Court has misread the evidence on the record in several important particulars, and it is no wonder that it has arrived at the incorrect conclusion that the statements of Tikam Chand (PW 2), Dal Chand(PW 3), Nathi Lal(PW 4) and Narayan (PW 5) were unreliable. We have gone through their statements and we are fully satisfied that the prosecution case has been fully established by the prosecution evidence, including the statement of Dr. B. P. Kacker (PW 10). As has been stated, the names of Tikam Chand, Dal Chand, Nathi Lal and Narayan were mentioned in the first information report soon after the incident and their testimony has not been shaken during the course of the cross-examination. The order of the Sessions Judge convicting the respondents of the offence under Sections 302/34, IPC was therefore correct and must be restored.15. As has been stated, Dr. B. P. Kacker has stated that the injuries found on the dead body were sufficient in the normal of nature to cause the death of Chandrapal. Two of those injuries were punctured wounds which were chest cavity deep and the left pleura and the left lung had been punctured. The injury to the lung was in the entire thickness of the lower lobe, and there can be no doubt that the act by which the death was caused was done with the intention of causing bodily injury and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death within the meaning of Section 300, IPC.

Court's decision (1 = petition accepted / positive for appellant, 0 = rejected / negative): 1

Reasoning from the judgment:
1[ds]The High Court also lost sight of the fact that it had been brought out in theof Nathi Lal (PW 4) that a case under Section 107, Cr. P.C. had been started in which Tulsi Prasad and Ram Prakashs another uncle Jai Narain were arrayed on the one side, while the prosecution witnesses Nathi Lal, Dal Chand and Narayan were arrayed on the other side.14. It would thus appear that the High Court has misread the evidence on the record in several important particulars, and it is no wonder that it has arrived at the incorrect conclusion that the statements of Tikam Chand (PW 2), Dal Chand(PW 3), Nathi Lal(PW 4) and Narayan (PW 5) were unreliable. We have gone through their statements and we are fully satisfied that the prosecution case has been fully established by the prosecution evidence, including the statement of Dr. B. P. Kacker (PW 10). As has been stated, the names of Tikam Chand, Dal Chand, Nathi Lal and Narayan were mentioned in the first information report soon after the incident and their testimony has not been shaken during the course of theThe order of the Sessions Judge convicting the respondents of the offence under Sections 302/34, IPC was therefore correct and must be restored.