State Of U.P vs Munni Ram & Ors

2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case was that on 14.6.1983, in the afternoon, Sita Ram (hereinafter referred to as PW-2) had noticed that the buffaloes of Ram Ugrah (hereinafter referred to as respondent No: 3) and Ram Ajore (hereinafter referred to as respondent No:

PW-2 told him that the buffaloes had damaged his sugarcane crop, therefore, he would deposit them in the cattle pound. On hearing this, respondent No: 1 went back to his house. When PW-2 reached near the house of Ilakedar, village Pradhan, respondent No: 1, Maya Ram (hereinafter referred to as respondent No: 2), respondent 2 No: 3, respondent No: 4 and Bhagirath (hereinafter referred to as respondent No: 5) confronted him. They were armed with lathies. They took away the buffaloes from PW-2 and assaulted him with their respective weapons. The hue and cry raised by PW-2 attracted his sister-in-law, i.e. Singari Devi, his son Ramesh and his brother Ram Kewal to the spot. When they tried to intervene, they were also assaulted by the respondents. In fact, other witnesses who came to the spot were also assaulted. In this short assault, PW-2, Singari Devi, Ramesh, Hari Ram and Ram Kewal sustained injuries on vital parts of their bodies.

3. The condition of Singari Devi and Ramesh being critical, they were brought to the District Hospital, where they were admitted. All the five injured witnesses were medically examined by Dr. G.P. Agarwal (PW-10) from 10.00 PM on wards. Ramesh Chandra was first medically examined at the District Hospital, Basti on 14.6.83 but was later admitted to the Medical College, Lucknow as 3 his condition became critical. He succumbed to his injuries on 16.6.1983 within three hours after reaching the hospital. The post mortem examination on his dead body was conducted on 16.6.1983 at 3.00 PM by Dr. V.P. Singh (PW-8).

5. The FIR was registered on 15.6.1983 at 7.10 AM by Avadh Prasad (PW-1). The distance of the police station is 13 Kms. from village Raunakala where the incident had taken place. Initially, the case was registered under Section 147, 308 and 426 IPC. After the death of Singari Devi and Ramesh, it was converted to Section 147, 308, 426, 304 IPC and Section 24 of the Cattle Trespass Act, 1871. On completion of the investigation, charge sheet 4 was duly submitted and the case was transferred to the Court of Sessions and Trial Judge.

6. In support of its case, the prosecution examined PW-1, who registered the FIR of the incident in the following morning; PW-2, an injured witness, Mohd. Shami (PW-3), Dr. V.M. Agarwal (PW-4), PW-8 and PW- 10, who had examined all the injured witnesses and conducted autopsy on the deceased persons. PW-5, Tila Mohd. Khan is Head Moharrir. He had prepared the written report and also prepared the check report. According to him, he had completed the other formalities pertaining to the FIR. PW-6, Om Prakash and PW-7, Umesh Babu had filed their affidavits. They had only escorted the dead body to the mortuary. PW-9 Vidya Vinod Pathak is Sub-Inspector Police Station, Kotwali, Basti. He prepared the inquest memo. He also arrested respondent No: 1, 3 and 5 and took them in police custody. PW-11 Chhangur Singh had prepared the panchayatnama of the dead body Ramesh Chandra. Shiv 5 Saran Singh, PW-12 is the investigating officer. This in a nutshell is the entire prosecution evidence.

7. The defence of the respondents is a cross version of the incident. According to them, the incident occurred when PW-2, Hari Ram, Ram Kewal, Ramesh and Gulam Nabi were trying to remove a branch of the Jamun tree, which had been cut from the tree and fallen in the field of the respondents. The incident occurred according to the respondents at about noon time. Respondent No: 2 had gone to the field empty handed and requested the aforesaid persons not to remove the fallen branch of the Jamun tree. On being so requested, they started beating him. His alarm attracted respondent No: 1 and respondent No: 3, who came to the spot armed with lathies. PW-2, Hari Ram, Ram Kewal, Ramesh and Gulam Nabi also attacked respondent No: 1 and respondent No. 3. In the mean time, family members of both the sides gathered at the spot and started hurling brickbats on each other. Consequently, both sides 6 suffered injuries. Respondents also got their injuries medically examined at the District Hospital.

20. We are of the considered opinion that in this case, the High Court has merely corrected the omissions in the appreciation of evidence committed by the trial court in convicting the respondents. The High Court has taken a view which is plausible as well as possible. In light of the aforesaid findings, we find no merit in these appeals and the same are accordingly dismissed.

October 26, 2010.