State Of U.P vs Guru Charan & Ors

3. The motive for the assault on the deceased is stated to be old enmity between the deceased and the assailants (hereinafter referred to as the respondents). According to the prosecution about two years prior to the date of the occurrence one Vinod Kumar brother of respondent No.1, Sunil, was murdered. Ramesh Narain, Vijay Kumar (PW1) and Vishwanath were accused of murdering Vinod. They were, however, acquitted in the murder trial. Therefore the respondents were having a grudge against the deceased as well as Vijay Kumar (PW1).

4. Some time after the incident, Vijay Kumar (PW1) along with the driver of the bus went to PS Sahawar in a jeep and lodged a written report Ex.Ka1 at 5.20 pm. On the basis of this, FIR (Ex.Ka16) was prepared by constable Brijesh Kumar, who made an 3 endorsement of the same at GD Report (Ex.Ka17) and registered the case against the respondents u/s. 302, 307, 324, 404 IPC. The investigation was conducted by S.I. Bhagwan Sahai. The Investigation Officer prepared the inquest of deceased Ramesh Narain Upadhyay, Ex. Ka 3 and deceased Jitendra alias Guddu Ex. Ka. 3a at the site. He also prepared photo of the dead body Ex.Ka. 4, and photo of the dead body of deceased Jitendra alias Guddu Ex. Ka.9, wrote letter to C.M.O. Ex. Ka.7 and Ka.5 regarding deceased Ramesh Narain and deceased Jitendra, prepared challan of deceased Ramesh Narain Ex. Ka.6, challan of deceased Jitendra alias Guddu Ex. Ka. 8, recorded statements of the witnesses, prepared site plan Ex. Ka. 10. The Investigation Officer collected blood stained and ordinary soil and prepared memos. Ex. Ka. 11. He prepared Ex. Ka. 12 for taking empty cartridge shells and tickles, Ex. Ka. 13 for taking a blood stained piece of the bus seat and a stove which deceased Ramesh Narain was carrying with him from Sahawar after getting it repaired and left it in the custody vide memo Ex. Ka.

14. The Investigation Officer sent injured Nathu Singh (PW 2) and Virendra for medical examination and their injury reports are Ex. Ka 18 and Ka.19 respectively. The Investigation Officer sent dead bodies of deceased Ramesh Narain and Jitendra alias Guddu duly sealed for postmortem and their postmortem reports are Ext. Ka.2 4 and Ka.3 respectively.

6. The prosecution examined PW1, Vijay Kumar, PW2 Nathu, both injured eye-witnesses, PW3, Dr. Narendra Babu Katiyar, Radiologist, who conducted the post mortem on the deceased persons, PW4, sub-Inspector Bhagwan Sahai, Investigation Officer. PW.5 Dr. Girish Chandra, Medical Officer, CH.C. Sahawar, who examined the injured persons, PW.6 Dr. Ram Babu, Medical Officer, casualty department, Sarojini Naidu Medical College, Agra.

7. We may now notice the medical evidence. It appears that, Virendra Singh driver of the bus, had been sent to the Community Health Centre, Sahawar where he was medically examined on 20.7.1997 at 5.40 pm by Dr. Girish Chandra PW5. The doctor (PW5) found the following injuries on the driver, Virendra:

On internal examination brain matter was found coming out. Peritoneum was lacerated. Cavity contained 2 liters clotted blood. Stomach contained about 15 ounce pasty food in process of digestion. Small intestine and large intestine, gall bladder and right kidney were lacerated.

Two yellow colored bullets were recovered from abdomen. 7 According to the opinion of Doctor, cause of death was due to coma and shock as a result of injuries noted above. The Doctor prepared post mortem report. (Ext. Ka2) Autopsy on the dead body of Jitendra alias Guddu was conducted on same day at 12.00 noon by Dr. Narendra Babu Katiyar (PW.3), who found following ante mortem injuries on his person:-

9 Nathu Singh (PW.2) was shifted to S.R.N. Medical College, Agra and his injuries were examined on 21-7-1997 at 3.50 A.M. by Dr. Ram Babu (PW.6) who found the following injuries on his person:-

8. On 22.7.1997 Guru Charan, respondent was arrested at 12.10 pm in village Jamalpur near Temple. At that time he was carrying .315 bore rifle and six cartridges which were taken into possession. Thereafter Bhagwan Sahai was transferred and remaining investigation was conducted by SO Rajpal Singh who on completion of investigation submitted chargesheet (Ex.Ka15) against the respondents. Fired cartridges recovered from the spot and licensed gun of Guru Charan, respondent was sent to Joint Director Forensic Science Laboratory, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh for comparison and report. Report dated 23.12.1997 (Ex. Ka.20) was submitted by the Asst. Director of the laboratories.

24. The High Court further noticed the claim of Nathu (P.W.2) that after the occurrence he was brought to the police station. He was medically examined in Sahawar and thereafter shifted to Etaah. From Etaah he was further shifted to Agra. But Dr. Ram Babu (P.W.6) who had examined Nathu (P.W.2) at S.N. Medical College, Agra stated that no reference slip was shown to him. The prosecution also did not file any injury report on the reference slip prepared at Sahawar or Etaah. Although Nathu Singh (PW 2) claims to have been brought to the police station by the police personnel he did not identify any particular police officer who helped him. In fact, the investigating officer Bhagwan Sahai (Sub Inspector) in his evidence stated that Nathu Singh (P.W.2) did not meet him on the date of the occurrence. The High Court also noticed that although Nathu Singh (PW 2) had stated that appellant Guru Charan had fired at Ramesh Narain from his licensed .315 bore rifle, the empty cartridges recovered from the bus had not been fired from the licensed rifle of Guru Charan. It is also noticed by the High Court that Nathu (PW

17. It is noticed that according to the witness Vijay Kumar (PW

28. Following are some of the circumstances in which perhaps this Court would be justified in interfering with the judgment of the High Court, but these are illustrative not exhaustive:

30. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the considered opinion that the findings recorded by the High Court do not warrant any interference by this Court. In view of the above, the appeals are dismissed.

February 23, 2010.