Budh Singh And Ors vs State Of U.P

P.W. 1 allegedly came back to his village at about 6 a.m. in the morning. The inquest of the dead bodies started at 8 a.m. and concluded at 9.30 in the morning on 13.4.1992. The dead bodies were sent in a tractor for autopsy at about 12-12.30 during the day time by P.W. 5-Constable Chandra Sen. The post-mortem examination of both the dead bodies were, however, not done on 13.4.1992, because no autopsy surgeon was available. The post-mortem of the deceased was carried out by P.W. 9-Dr. Madan Mohan, G.D.M.O., Central Police Hospital, Moradabad on 14.4.1992. The ante-mortem injuries found on the dead bodies are as under.

Margins inverted and lacerated. No charring blackening and tattooing present. On opening the left lung and heart, pleura and pericardium underneath are lacerated. Direction posterior and downward.

2. Gun shot wound 0.3 cm x 0.3 cm entry in front and outer and upper part of right thigh above 12 cm below the ant. Sup. Illiac spine, margin lacerated and inverted. No charring blackening and tattooing present.

3. Gun shot wound entry 0.3 cm x 0.3 cm in front of left thigh..... (sic) 10 cm below interior, superior illiac spine ..... (sic) with margins inverted. No charring blackening present."

The learned Trial Judge further was of the opinion that the copy of the FIR had not been served upon the complainant P.W 1 forthwith and the signature of the informant had also not been obtained in chik report (sic for check). There was no reason as to why Rajveer Singh was not sent for medical examination immediately after registration of the case, although the Primary Health Centre was situated nearby the police station. The Trial Judge further noticed that `chiti mazroobi' had not been sent from the police station to examine the injured. Such a `chiti mazroobi', according to the learned Trial Judge, would contain not only the details of the accused, but full particulars of the case, as also the injuries appearing on the person of the victim.

The High Court was of the view that evidence shows that the investigation of the case was entrusted to P.W. 7-S.P.S. Tomar, but he was not present at the police station. The said finding may be correct but it has also been brought on record that one R.A. Singh was present. There was no reason as to why he did not taken up the investigation immediately. It is not the case of the prosecution that S.P.S. Tomar was the officer-in-charge of the police station. Shri R.A. Singh could have recorded the statement of P.W. 1, as also the said Veer Singh. According to P.W. 7, he recorded the statement of eye-witnesses after sunrise on 13.4.1992. If that is so, he should have mentioned the said fact in the general diary after he came back to the police station. He admittedly did not do so, although, the same was required to be done in terms of Section 44 of the Police Act, 1861, which is in the following terms :

The Trial Court disbelieved the evidence of P.W. 2 and P.W. 3. But P.W. 3 had changed his statement regarding place of occurrence where Chatarvati had sustained injuries. The ante-mortem injuries found on the dead body of the Ram Gopal clearly belied the statements of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3. The High Court, however, held that P.Ws. 2 and 3 were not related to the complainant. The following statement of P.W. 2 in his cross-examination goes to show that they were related to the complainant :

According to the High Court's opinion :

Apart from the place where they had been working had not been shown in the site plan, the High Court was also not correct to hold that the agricultural implements were not necessary for preparing kyaries.

The evidence on record does not lead to such an inference. If P.W. 5 is to be believed, the same would clearly suggest that three eye-witnesses, as also P.W. 7 gave false evidence. If P.W. 5 made some mixing statement, it was for the prosecution to examine. According to him, he had been present at the place of occurrence throughout the day, till the dead bodies were sent to the Head Quarter.

It will bear repetition to state that according to P.W. 2, his statements had not been taken by P.W. 7 under Section 161 Cr.P.C. It is interesting to note what P.W. 7 in his evidence stated :

The version of the prosecution is that the lands belonging to P.Ws. 2 and 3 were half a kilometer away and they do not have any field near the field of the deceased. There was no standing crops in the field. The view of the Trial Court, having regard to the aforementioned facts and circumstances of the case, was, therefore, a possible view and as such we need not go into the other contentions as regards the motive or time of death, vis--vis, the medical opinion etc. For the reasons mentioned hereinbefore, we are of the opinion that the High Court was not correct in arriving at the conclusion that the view of the Trial Court was wholly perverse and could not be sustained on the materials brought on record by the prosecution. This appeal is, therefore, allowed.

The impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside. The appellants are on bails. They are discharged from their bail bonds.