Case: Kamru Mian Alias Kamru Hassan and Others Vs. State of Bihar

2. All the appellants belong to village Islampur in Patna District. The victim of the offence was one Lala Sing of Tulibigha, police station Ghosi, District Gaya, who was murdered at about 9 p.m. on December 29, 1963, at Balu Kanda of village Islampur in a portion of plot No. 542 about 400 yds. away from Islampur village. According to the prosecution story Dhan Sao (P.W. 13), has a few days before the occurrence in question sold a portion of plot No. 542 to Lala Singh (deceased), Mangal Sao and Ramdeo. On December 29, 1963, the purchasers are stated to have been put in possession of the land purchased by them. There was a room on the portion purchased by Lala Singh. Lala Singh was on the premises when at about 9 p.m. the appellants. Along with some other persons variously armed arrived there and kamru main fired a pistol shot. Lala Singh tried to run away but was surrounded by the appellants and their companions and done to death. Mouinuddin, Constable (P.W. 15) and Chowkidars Jageswar Pandey (P.W. 5) and Ramlagan Paswan (P.W. 8), all three of whom had been deputed byIndredeo Singh (P.W. 20) to remain present at the place of occurrence were breach of peace was apprehended were present and actually witnesses the occurrence. The more persons Ramdeo Dusadh (P.W. 1), servant of Lala Singh and Janakdeo Singh (P.W. 2) were also present at the place with the appellants and their companions arrived there. The F.I.R. (Ex. 5), was lodged by Mouinuddin (P.W. 15) at 9.30 p.m. the same night at the Police Station Islampur which was at a distance of half a mile from the place of occurrence. Mouinuddin had left behind at the place of occurrence the two Chowkidars to guard the dead body of Lala Singh when he went to lodge the report. This report contains all the relevant details of the entire occurrence, including the circumstances in which he and P.W.s 5 and 8 had been directed to remain on duty at the place of occurrence. The Trial Court as well as the high Court accepted the account of the occurrence as given by P.W.s 5, 8 and 15 and there being no reasonably precisegiven by the accused in their statements under Section 342, Cr. P.C., the appellants were convicted, as observed earlier.

Reasoning: 3. Mr. Murddin, learned counsel for the appellants, with his usual fairness did not question the factum of Lala Sing having been murdered at the place of the occurrence. He, however, strongly assailed the reasoning and conclusions of the Trial Court and of the High Court and submitted that there was in fact noto the ghastly murder of the deceased and that the appellants have been falsely implicated apparently because the police investigating agency was interested in getting credit for successfully tracing the murderers. According to him the allegede nowhere near the scene of the occurrence when the deceased met with his death and the story narrated by them occurrence when the deceased met with his death and the story narrated by them was fabricated for the purpose of roping in the appellants. The other line of attack was based not he right of private defence of property and this right was sought to be substantiated by submitting that the room on the site in question has been in possession of the appellants men for a number of years for the purpose of preparing Biris and it was only when Lala Sing (deceased) and his associates attempted to take forcible possession thereof that the trouble started and resulted in Lala Singhs death. These two lines of challenge to the appellants conviction were somewhat mixed up in the appellants arguments and it was contended that their conviction was bad either on the grounds that no one saw the occurrence and, therefore, there is no evidence establishing the appellants guilt or on the ground that the appellants were justified in using force in exercise of their right of private defence. In this connection it was contended that no command certificate directing Mouinuddin (P.W. 15) and the two Chowkidars Jageswar Pandey (P.W. 5) and Ramlagan Paswan (P.W. 8), to keep a watch at the place of occurrence had been issued on a proper from and the one produced on the record seemed to have been fabricated later. This, according to the counsel, belies the version that these three witnesses had been so deputed and were person that the scene of the occurrence when the conflict took place. It was added that seeing the police constables the accused could not have dared to resort to aggression and violence in the manner alleged. It was sought to be concluded on this reasoning that these three witnesses were not present when the occurrence took place and did not witness anything.In our opinion this submission is notMouinuddin (P.W. 15) has stated that the command certificate was made over to him at the place of occurrence. He is supported on this point byWe are unable to find any material on the record in support of these contentions. The submission that there was not one present with the deceased met with his death and thehave falsely repeated in Court a tutored version is unacceptable because the constable (P.W. 15) and the two Chowkidars Jageswar Pandey (P.W. 5) and Ramlagan Paswan (P.W. 8) have been believed by both the Courts below and in our opinion they have deposed to the story which is plausible and sounds convincing. It has not been shown to suffer from any infirmity which would detract from it trustworthiness in spite of the varied criticism by the appellants counsel. This criticism mainly centred round the assessment of the evidence of the Court below which assessment must in our view be treated as final and not open to reconsideration on appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution unless is shown to be vitiated by some grave error or has led to gross injustice. The mere possibility of two views being taken is not enough. Once the conclusion of the two Courts below believing these witnesses is upheld, and in the present case there is no reason why we should not uphold it, the appellants challenge on this ground must be repelled.