Case: State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Babboo and Others

2. Tulsi Prasad (PW 1) and his son Chandrapal (deceased) were residents of village Nagla Nai, at a distance of about four furlongs from police station Hathras, in Aligarh district. It is alleged that Chandrapal, who was about 18 or 19 years old, went towards his plot on the eastern side of the village abadi on July 26, 1968, at about 9 p.m. The respondents were also there at that time, and there were two other persons who had muffled their faces. It is alleged that there was some altercation between the respondents and the deceased. Respondent Ram Prakash caught hold of the deceased and dragged him towards a lamp post on the road near which the altercation took place. The deceased however managed to get himself released from Ram Prakashs hold and ran towards Hathras. He was chased by the respondent and was assaulted with knives by Ram Prakash and Purushottam. The deceased again managed to run away, but he was again chased by the respondents. He was caught by the waist by respondent Babboo near another lamp post, and the other respondents again gave knife blows to him. It is alleged that Chandrapal fell down as a result of those injuries and died instantaneously. His shouts attracted the attention of the people in theand it is alleged that the incident was seen by Tikam Chand (PW 2), Dal Chand (PW 3), Nathi Lal (PW 4) and Narayan (PW 5). The respondents however managed to run away although they were chased by the witnesses for some time. A number of other villagers also arrived at the place of the occurrence, along with Chandrapals father Tulsi Prasad (PW 1). A written report (Ex. Ka 1) was lodged by Tulsi Prasad at the police station at 10.30 p.m. The names of all the three respondents and thewere mentioned in that report. The police took up the investigation and sent the dead for post mortem examination. Dr. B. P. Kacker (PW 10) performed the examination and found the following injuries,1. Incised wound 3/4 inch x 1/2 inch x muscle deep on the left arm middle part inner side, oblique.1/2 inch x 1/2 inch x muscle deep on the left arm middle side oblique.3. Incised wound 1 inch x 1/2 x muscle deep 1/2 inch outer to injury No. 2.4. Incised wound I inch x 1/2 x muscle deep on the left forearms side, oblique.5. Incised wound 1 inch x 1/2 inch x muscle deep on the left forearm outer side on the upper third portion, oblique.6. Punctured wound, with the ends out 1 inch x 1/2 inch x chest cavity deep, on the left side of the back, upper part, from scapular oblique.7. Punctured wound, with ends out,inches x 1/2 inch chest cavity deep on the left side of back, on the posterior fold of the axilla, below the axilla oblique.8. Incised wound 1/2 inch x 1/2 inch x muscle deep on the left side of the back, lower part on the lumber region.9. Incised wound 1/2 inch x 1/4 inch x muscle deep on the left side of the abdomen 1 inch above the iliac spine oblique.He found the following injuries on dissection of the deadThe left pleura was punctured under external injuries Nos. 6 and 7, and contained about 3/4 inch pint of slightly congested blood.(b) The left lung was punctured on the outer side of the lower lobe and this hole was a wound measuring 3/4 inch in length and was in the entire thickness of the lobe.The Medical Officer was of the opinion that death was caused due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of the injury to the lung. The injuries were, in his opinion, sufficient to cause death in the normal course of nature and could be caused by knives.The prosecution examined Tikam Chand (PW 2), Dal Chand (PW 3) Nathi Lal (PW 4) and Narayan (PW 5) as eye witnesses of the incident. It also examined Babu Lal (PW 6) who stated that on hearing a noise he came out of his house and reached the place of occurrence. He saw the dead body of Chandrapal lying there, and he also found that Tikam Chand (PW 2) and Narayan (PW 5) and others were present at that time and they narrated the incident to him. The respondents denied the incident including the allegation of enmity with Tulsi Prasad, but did not lead any evidence in their defence. The Sessions Judge of Aligarh placed reliance on the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and convicted the respondents of the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced them to imprisonment for life as aforesaid. As the High Court has acquitted the respondents, the State has filed the present appeal.4. While the trial judge had no hesitation in placing reliance on the statements of Tikam Chand (PW 2), Dal Chand (PW 3), Nathi Lal (PW 4), Narayan (PW 5) and Babu Lal (PW 6), the High Court has not believed their evidence and the question is whether any substantial illegality has been committed in arriving at that conclusion.

Reasoning: 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.