Moti Lal & Ors vs State Of U.P

2. The facts leading to the present appeal are that on the night intervening 24th/ 25th June, 1994 at about 1.45 a.m., one Motilal, Surendra Singh, Virendra Singh, Sharda Singh, Miyadi @ Ram Miyadi Singh, Dhunnan Singh, Amar Singh (all are appellants herein) along with Anil Singh (not approached this Court) and Thagai Singh (died during trial) armed with deadly weapons entered the house of one Sita Ram Singh and attacked him and other family members, resulting instantaneous death of Sita Ram Singh and his two sons namely Surinder Singh and Jai Govind and also injuries to the other family members of Sita Ram Singh. The assailants had also set fire to a motorcycle parked in the house of the deceased Sita Ram Singh. In the attack, the appellants used country made pistols (katta), gun, bomb, iron rod (ramma), pharsa fitted lathi etc. The cause of attack is due to rivalry between the family of deceased Sita Ram Singh and the attacking party over a piece of farm land in respect of which some cases were pending in the Civil Courts.

3. Smt. Manju Singh (PW5) is the wife of the deceased Sita Ram Singh who also sustained the injuries in the said attack. She is the informant who rushed to the police 3 station Hata on the same night and got prepared report (Ex. Ka-1) based on which the First Information Report (Ex. Ka-43) was issued at about 2.40 am for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307 and 427, IPC against nine persons including the appellants herein.

4. The injured were immediately sent to Primary Health Center, Hata where they were medically examined by Dr. Ghan Shyam Singh (PW8) between 5.30 and 6.30 a.m. Mr. Umesh Chandra Misra, Investigating Officer (PW9) visited the place of occurrence and found the dead bodies of Sita Ram Singh, Surendra Singh and Jai Govind. He seized the remnants of the burnt motorcycle (Ext. Ka-37), the blood stained ramma (iron rod with an edge on one end), empty cartridges, wads and pellets from the spot (Ext. Ka-34 and Ka-35) and prepared a site map, recorded statements of the injured and others who were found to be conversant with the incident, made inquest report (Ext. Ka-13, Ka-14 and Ka-15) and sent the dead bodies for post-mortem. On the same day, he arrested Sharda Singh, Anil Singh, Virendra Singh, Thagai Singh (died during trial) and Surendra Singh and also recovered one licensed gun (Ext. Ka-38) from the house of one Toofani Singh who was found murdered before half an hour of the present occurrence. Dr. K. Singh (PW7) conducted post-mortem on 26th June, 1994, 4 found ante mortem injuries on the persons of deceased and opined the cause of death as "shock and haemorrhage". The post-mortem reports are Exts. Ka-2, Ka-3 and Ka-4. The Doctor's opinion and the details of ante mortem injuries on the persons of the deceased need not be referred in detail as they have been noticed by the Courts below. On completion of investigation, the I.O. submitted charge-sheet against Motilal, Surendra Singh, Virendra Singh, Dhunnan Singh, Miyadi Singh and Anil Singh for commission of offences punishable under Sections 148, 302 and 307 read with 149, 452 and 427 IPC whereas Sharda Singh, Amar Singh and Thagai Singh were charged with the offences punishable under Sections 147, 302 and 307 read with Section 149, 452 and 427, IPC.

5. Cognizance of the offences was taken by the Magistrate who committed the case to the Court of Sessions vide Sessions Trial No. 184 of 1995. The appellants pleaded not guilty and preferred trial. The learned Sessions Judge, upon appreciation of evidence and material available on record, found that the prosecution has successfully established its case and accordingly found the appellants guilty of various offences and sentenced them vide judgment dated 11th June, 2002. The details of the conviction and sentence awarded are as under:

Radius each present in an area of 1 c.m. on front of right thigh, 18 c.m. above right knee joint bone. Bleeding was present; and (2) two round lacerated wounds of 0.5 c.m. radius each present at a distance of 4 c.m. from each other in right groin, 10 c.m. above 8 injury No.1. Bleeding with clotted blood was found present. It was found that injuries were caused by firearm, simple in nature and were fresh in duration. She is the crucial witness and the entire case mainly centres around her evidence. She, in clear and categorical terms, stated that her husband Sita Ram Singh and two sons Surendra Singh and Jai Govind were murdered. On the fateful day, they were sleeping in the house in the Chhappar of Dalan. The appellants Ram Miyadi, Amar Singh, Moti Lal, Surendra Singh, Virendra Singh, Dhunnan Singh, Sharda Singh along with Anil Singh and Thagai Singh (since died during trial) barged into her house. Anil Singh was holding gun, Sharda Singh was having lathi, Miyadi was having bomb and Moti Lal was holding katta (country made pistol). Surendra Singh and Virendra Singh were also having kattas. Amar Singh was having pharsa fitted with lathi. Anil Singh and Virender Singh were sons of Sharda Singh. Dhunnan Singh was armed with ramma. At the relevant time, the lights were on in the house. Smt. Kaushalya Devi (PW6) was also sleeping inside the house. Immediately upon entering into the house, the appellants started abusing the inmates and indulged in attack during which she also sustained injuries on her body. The appellants hit her husband and two sons with the weapons in their hands. It is in her evidence that her husband and two 9 sons died on the spot due to the injuries inflicted upon them by the appellants. She also stated that amongst others, Smt. Kaushalya Devi (PW6) had also witnessed the occurrence. She also deposed that the appellants set fire to the motor cycle that was parked in the house. Upon hearing the sounds of bomb, guns and shrieks neighbours came to the spot and witnessed the occurrence. That immediately after the occurrence, she went to police station, Hata and got prepared report (Ext. Ka-1) from one Dwarika Tiwari, resident of Hata and lodged report at police station. The appellants were in inimical terms with Bichari Singh Vakil who belonged to her family and there was a litigation pending between them in respect of a piece of farm land. It is also in her evidence that few minutes before the incident, one Toofani Singh was murdered. She explained that the other witnesses Smt. Vijai Laxmi, Smt. Bela Devi, Ram Lachhan Singh and Ram Bilas were won over by the appellants. Though this witness was subjected to intense cross-examination, nothing could be brought on record to impeach her credibility. During her cross-examination, minor discrepancies with reference to her earlier statement recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C. were brought on record which are trivial in nature and the Courts below rightly ignored them. She herself was injured in the incident, 10 therefore, her presence at the time and place of incident can hardly be doubted.

20.The ocular evidence of PWs 5 and 6 and the medical expert's (PW7) evidence leads us to an irresistible conclusion that the appellants are guilty of all the charges levelled against them and the Courts below rightly convicted all of them for the charged offences.

21.No other point is urged.

22.For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any error whatsoever to have been committed by the High Court. The High Court properly re-appreciated the entire evidence available on record, considered all the submissions that were made and arrived at the correct conclusion to confirm the conviction of the appellants under various Sections mentioned hereinabove. This Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution, normally does not interfere with such concurring finding of facts arrived at the Courts below upon proper appreciation of evidence available on record unless it is shown that such appreciation suffers from any manifest error resulting in miscarriage of justice. In the present case, we are satisfied that the Courts below properly appreciated the evidence and rested their conclusions mainly relying upon the evidence of PWs 5 and 6 and the evidence of forensic expert Dr. K. Singh (PW7). We accordingly find no merit in this appeal.

23.The appeal shall accordingly stand dismissed.