Satbir Singh And Ors vs State Of U.P

2. Appellants, the deceased and the prosecution witnesses are agnates being descendants of one Badan Singh.

Jagbandhan (deceased No.1), Dhum Singh (PW-7) and Gandhari wife of Ajab Singh (PW-6) were convicted, but others were acquitted in that case. However, the High Court on an appeal preferred by the said four persons acquitted them. Proceedings under Sections 107/117 of the Code of Criminal Procedure had also been initiated by and against both the parties.

5. The incident in question took place on 27th November, 1997 at about 11.00 a.m. According to the first information report which was lodged by Suresh Chandra (PW-1), at about 10.00 a.m. he alongwith his cousin Jagbandhan (deceased No.1) and brother-in-law Ajab Singh were working in their fields. Tilak Ram, Satbir, Vakil and Lekhpal were also ploughing their field. At that time, they started cutting soil from the ridge of their field to which Jagbandhan objected. To this the accused persons started abusing him. Randhir (deceased No.2) intervened. Tilak Ram (A-1) and his three 3 sons Satbir (A-4); Valil (A-2) and Lekhpal (A-3) left the field extending threats. They returned with Dalbir (A-5) ; Dansahai (A-6) and Harvir (A-

9. Prosecution examined five eye witnesses i.e. PWs. 1, 5 and 6 in relation to the first incident i.e. murder of Jagbandhan (deceased No.1) and PW-4 and PW-7 in relation to the second incident i.e. murder of Randhir (deceased No.2). Sachitanand and Janmajay were, however, not examined.

24. The long standing enmity between two branches of the same family stands admitted. It is, therefore, unlikely that other villages would come to depose in favour of one of the parties or the other.

29. The distance between the place of occurrence and the police station is said to be two miles. Two deaths had taken place. There was an injured person. First information report was lodged at 1.15 p.m. If the first information report could be lodged at 1.15 p.m., the occurrence could not be said to have taken place after 1.00 p.m.

30. The entire incident took place in three phases, namely - 17

(b) accused persons going to the village, coming back to the field and killing Jagbandhan and injuring Mithan ; and

(c) going back to the village and assaulting Randhir.

Contention of Mr. Sushil Kuamr that the Investigating officer did not examine some of the witnesses on 27th January, 1997 cannot be accepted for more than one reason, firstly because the delay in the investigation itself may not benefit the accused ; secondly because the Investigating Officer (PW-8) in his deposition explained the reasons for delayed examination of 18 the witnesses. According to him, after preparation of the inquest report he was busy in searching for the accused persons and thus could not record the statement of Dhum Singh.

So far as non-examination of PW-5 is concerned, he stated :-

32. We may place on record that in regard to the purported delay of examination of PW-6, no question was put to the Investigating Officer. 20

36. We, therefore, are of the opinion that the prosecution has been able to establish the existence of common object amongst all the accused persons.

38. We, therefore, do not find any reason to allow the applications for impleading of Suresh Chand and others for the purpose of recording the compromise/settlement in exercise of our jurisdiction under Order 47 Rules 1 and 6 of the Supreme Court Rules, which in our opinion, has no application to the present case. The applications are accordingly dismissed.

39. In the result this appeal fails and is dismissed. 23 .................................J. [S.B. Sinha ] .................................J. [Dr. Mukundakam Sharma] New Delhi February 25, 2009 24