Case: Bhagwati and Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh

This appeal by Bhagwati, Shital and Ram Avadh, sons of Salaru, is directed against the appellate judgment of the Allahabad High Court dated December 18, 1970, setting aside their acquittal by Civil and Sessions Judgeof the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. and sentencing them to imprisonment for life for that offence.2. It was alleged by the prosecution that one Sheo Prasad was the first cousin of Bachchu Lal (PW 5). He married Smt. Dharamraji, but had no child. He had some agricultural land in village Nagwa, in Gonda district of Uttar Pradesh, but he allowed Bachchu Lal to cultivate it because of his weak health. Sheo Prasad died, and his widow Smt. Dharamraji inherited his fields which however continued to be cultivated by Bachchu Lal. Smt. Dharamraji thereafter went away to Basti as she married Nabbu Lal, who was theof appellant Bhagwati. There after she executed a sale deed (Ex.of the land in favour of Bhagwati on May 11, 1965. A day earlier, Bachchu Lal made an application for mutation of the fields in his name on the basis of his relationship with Sheo Prasad. Bhagwati also made a similar application after execution of the sale deed in his favour, and Smt. Dharamraji supported that application by filing her consent on November 15, 1965. Bachchu Lals case was that, after her remarriage, Smt. Dharamraji forfeited her right to Sheo Prasads fields; and it is not in dispute that the controversy was pending on the date of the alleged incident.3. Bachchu Lal was, according to the prosecution, in possession of the land all along and was cultivating it. On July 2, 1967, half an hour after sunrise, Bachchu Lals sons Jokhan and Munna went to Sheo Prasads field, which was adjacent to their own field, to plough it. After they had ploughed it a little, it is alleged that appellants Bhagwati, Shital and Ram Avadh came there. Bhagwati and Ram Avadh were armed with lathis, while Shital was armed with a spear. They began to beat Jokhan and Munna, who cried for help. Lalla (PW 1), Sridhar (PW 2) and Matai alias Matadin who were ploughing their fields nearby, rushed to the place of occurrence. They saw the appellants beating both Jokhan and Munna in the field of Sheo Prasad. When Jokhan fell down, Munna in the field Sheo Prasad. When Jokhan fell down, Munna ran away to the adjacent field of Molhu, but the appellants brought him to Sheo Prasads field by dragging him by his leg, and beat him again. Lalla (PW 1), Sridhar (PW 2) and Matai alias Matadin reprimanded the appellants, and they ran away towards the village. The witnesses went near Jokhan and Munna and found that they were about to die. Cots were obtained from the village and Jokhan and Munna were taken to Domariya Dih which was at a distance of about a mile. They were then taken in "ekkas" to police station Wazirganj, which was at a distance of about seven miles from the place of occurrence. Jokhan died on the way near Jamadarpura. An oral report (Ex.was lodged by Lalla (PW 1), at the police station at 8.45 a.m. Munna was sent to Sadar Hospital, Goonda, but he also succumbed to his injuries on the way. A case was registered at the police station and it was investigated by Station House Officer Tej Bahadur Singh (PW 10). The dead bodies were taken to the mortuary at Gonda and were examined by Dr. J. Chandra. Appellant Bhagwati was arrested the same day, but appellant Shital was not found until July 5 and appellant Ram Avadh surrendered on July 11.

Reasoning: 10. It will be recalled that it was Lalla (PW 1) who lodged the first information report at police station Wazirganj. He took the injured persons on cots and in "ekkas" to the police station, and it must have taken some time to make those arrangements. Then there was a distance of seven miles to cover but, even so, the report was lodged at 8.45 a.m. There was therefore no delay in making the report. It was an oral report, in which the incident was mentioned, along with the names of all the three appellants as the perpetrators of the crime and the names of three eyewitnesses, namely, Lalla, (PW 1), Sridhar (PW 2) and one Matai alias Matadin. It was also stated in the report that while all the accused were armed with "lathis", one had a "ballam", and that the deceased were beaten in Smt. Dharamrajis field. Lalla (PW 1) was therefore an important witness. His statement that he was ploughing his own field nearby, has been corroborated by the other evidence on the record which shows that he was the owner of a field situated at a distance of not more than 200 steps from the place of the first beating and that his own field was found ploughed upto two "koondas". Nothing has been elicited in theof Lalla to discredit his statement which is in accord with the first information report Ex.The trial Judge however took the view that as Lalla was the "next door neighbour of the Bachchu Lal, and so he is bound to have sympathy, at least for Bachchu Lal". To say the least, that was a most unreasonable finding for the fact that Lalla was a neighbour went to show that he was a natural witness and was attracted to the scene of occurrence because he was cultivating his own field at the time of the incident. The trial judge also lost sight of the fact that the appellants were not able to advance any reason why Lalls should have implicated them falsely in such a serious offence.11. The trial Judge has rejected the evidence of Sridhar (PW 2) on the ground that he had a field of three or four biswas only, which was lying parat, and there was no reason for him to be in the field so early merely to uproot kansas and to cut grass. The trial Judge however lost sight of the fact that the prosecution had led evidence to prove that Sridhars field was actually found dug out, upto an area of about two biswas, which showed that he was actually working there at the time of the incident. Why Sridhar attached so much importance to such a small field and worked on it, was a matter of his choice but that could not, at any rate, justify the view that he was a false witness. It may be that he was friendly with Munna deceased, but there is no evidence to show that he was on inimical terms with the appellants and would have implicated them falsely. The High Court was therefore justified in taking the view that both Lalla and Sridhar were truthful witnesses, and that the trial Judge was unreasonable in rejecting their evidence for unsatisfactory reasons.