Raj Narain Singh vs State Of U.P. & Ors

3. The facts leading to the filing of the present appeals, as per the prosecution, in brief are that on 23.05.1994, i.e., a day prior to the date of the occurrence, Sunil Singh alias Guddoo (PW-2), a resident of village Vasnari, Police Station, Kerakat, District Jaunpur came to visit the house of Raj Narain Singh (PW-1), complainant/appellant herein who is a resident of village Pravaspur, Police Station, Mariyahun, District Jaunpur for the `Bidai' of his sister in connection with a marriage in PW-2's family. On the fateful day, i.e., 24.05.1994 at around 8.30 a.m., PW-2 went to the petrol pump known as the Dharamraj Service Station, Pali owned by the accused persons for procuring petrol for his scooter. At the petrol pump, an altercation arose between PW-2 and Prabhakar Pandey (Accused No.3), and the same ended up in a fight between them. Shortly after PW-2 had left the house of PW-1, PW-1 alongwith one Adya Prasad also left the house for going to the examination centre where they were to evaluate the board examination answer books. On their way to the said examination centre, PW-1 and said Adya Prasad saw that PW-2 was being dragged and beaten by the accused persons. On seeing this, PW-1 and Adya Prasad tried to intervene. At this, Accused No. 3 exhorted Pushkar Pandey (Accused No. 2) to shoot the interveners, whereupon, Accused No. 2 fired a shot from his double barrel gun which compelled PW-1 and his companion to retreat to safety. 2 The gunshot and the resulting commotion attracted the attention of Rajesh and Brijesh, both sons of PW-1, who then emerged from the village pathway on their motorcycle and reached the spot. Karunakar Pandey (Accused No.

1) and Accused No. 3 exhorted Accused No. 2 to kill both Rajesh and Brijesh. Shots fired by Accused No. 2 hit Rajesh and Brijesh, as a result of which, both fell down from their motorcycle and died on the spot. The aforesaid incident was witnessed by Ramjee Maurya (PW-3), Virendra Singh, Bhola Nath Singh and several other persons. PW-2 was taken captive by the accused persons inside the said service station showroom. Immediately thereafter, PW-1 went to the Police Station, Mariyahun and lodged a written report at about 9.10 a.m. on the same day. On the basis of the aforesaid written report, the First Information Report (in short "the FIR") was registered by the Head Constable Jeet Bahadur Singh (PW-8) and a Crime Case No. 178/1994 was registered in the presence of SSI Narendra Pratap Singh (PW-11) under Sections 323, 342, 307, 302 of the IPC. Thereafter, PW-11 proceeded to the spot of occurrence. On reaching the spot of occurrence, PW-11 noticed PW 2 being kept captive by the accused Nos. 1 and 2 inside the showroom. Thereupon, he proceeded towards the showroom and on seeing him the two accused tried to flee away from the place of occurrence. They were, however, apprehended and on searching them, PW-11 recovered a pistol and a gun from their possession. Accused 3 No.3 was found to be absconding from the spot of occurrence. PW-2 was then freed from the custody and sent to the police station along with Constable Sunil Kumar Singh for the purpose of medical treatment. The statement of PW-1 was recorded on the spot and that of PW-2 was recorded after he returned back after undergoing medical examination. Subsequently, with the help of PW-1 and PW-2, a site plan was prepared and four empty cartridges of 12 bore were seized by the police. Dr. M. L. Srivastava (PW-

4), who had examined PW-2 on 24.05.1994 at 1.50 p.m. in his report, mentioned about four injuries on the person of PW-2. Dr. C.K. Gupta (PW-

4. The prosecution, in order to establish the guilt of the accused, examined several witnesses and exhibited documents. After examining the witnesses from both sides and upon hearing arguments advanced by the parties, the trial Court by its judgment dated 01.02.1996 convicted all the three accused. Accused No. 2 was convicted and sentenced to life 4 imprisonment under Section 302 IPC, ten years RI under Section 307 IPC, six months RI under Section 323 read with 34 IPC, six months RI under Section 342 read with 34 IPC; and 3 years RI under Section 27 of the Arms Act. The trial Court also imposed a fine of Rs. 3000 and 1000 under Section 307 IPC and 27 of the Arms Act respectively. Accused No. 1 was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 302 read with 34 IPC, six months RI under Section 323 read with 34 IPC, six months RI under section 342 read with 34 IPC. Accused No. 3 was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 302 read with 34 IPC, seven years RI under Section 307 IPC, six months RI under Section 323 read with 34 IPC, six months RI under Section 342 read with 34 IPC; and six months RI under Section 30 of the Arms Act. The trial Court also imposed a fine of Rs. 3000 under Section 307 IPC. All the accused persons were also directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1, 50,000/- in total as compensation under section 357 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short "the CrPC') to PW-1.

5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid decision of the trial Court, the accused preferred two separate appeals in the Allahabad High Court. Accused No. 2 preferred Criminal Appeal No. 234 of 1996 and Accused No. 1 and 3 preferred Criminal Appeal No. 235 of 1996. The High Court by its impugned judgment dated 27.02.2002 allowed the aforesaid appeals and set 5 aside the decision of the trial Court thereby acquitting all the accused from the aforesaid charges.

15. From the perusal of the post mortem report and the statement of the doctor it is clearly evident that the injuries on the deceased persons were found to be on the chest which is a vital part of the body and the death was natural as the bullet had hit them. According to the statement of PW-7, the cause of death was the gun shot ante-mortem injury on the vital part of the body and from excessive bleeding and shock. According to the statement of PW-7 at the time of firing of the gun its barrel must have been at a distance of 3 to 6 feet from the dead bodies. As a result of which the deceased Brijesh and Rajesh had suffered injuries from the gun shots fired within 6 feet from the place where they were hit by the bullet and the same caused their instant death.

(emphasis underlined)

21. Further, we cannot lose sight of the fact that ghastly acts, of the nature and gravity as the present one, when committed in a public place may very well create a sense of fear and shock in the minds of the witnesses and thus prevent them from coming forward and deposing against the perpetrators of the crime. If the testimonies of those witnesses, who have deposed during the trial, are otherwise found to be reliable, trustworthy and cogent, the said evidence cannot be disbelieved or discarded merely because the prosecution has failed to examine other witnesses allegedly present on the spot.

24. In view of the aforesaid discussion, facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the High Court clearly erred in reversing the order of conviction recorded by the trial Court. Accordingly, we set aside the judgment and order of the High Court and restore the judgment and decision of the trial Court.

25. The appeals are hereby allowed. The bail bonds of the Accused No. 1, Accused No. 2 and Accused No. 3 stand cancelled and they are directed to surrender before the jail authorities within 15 days from today, failing which the authorities are directed to proceed in accordance with law.

26. The appeals are hereby allowed in terms of aforesaid order.