Ramji Singh vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh

Babu Ram (PW­1) lodged a written complaint (Exh.P.1) with the Police Station Churkhi to the effect that he had been informed by his nephew Sarman Singh (deceased) that when he­ Sarman Singh was ploughing his field in the morning of 17.06.1982, accused Lakhan Singh (A­1) reached there and hurled abuses at Sarman Singh. Lakhan Singh told Sarman Singh that he should not till the plot otherwise he would be killed. Sarman Singh retorted that the plot does not belong to 1 Lakhan’s father and that though Lakhan Singh had been cultivating the plot by force, now Sarman Singh would not permit him to do so. Heated altercation took place between the two and both of them abused each other. Thereafter, Lakhan Singh went to his house. Sarman Singh after completing the ploughing came home and mentioned about this incident to Babu Ram (PW­1.) In the FIR it is also reported that the relations between the two were strained and Lakhan Singh belonged to a different group in the elections for the post of Village Pradhan. Sarman Singh had fought the election against Lakhan Singh. Lakhan Singh had won the election.

2. Immediately, after informing Babu Ram of the incident, Sarman Singh went to get his agricultural implement (datuwa) repaired from the carpenter and the informant Babu Ram (PW­1) also accompanied him. It was about noon. As soon as they were crossing the house of Dasharath Singh, Sarman Singh told Babu Ram (PW­1) that Babu Ram should get the datuwa repaired from the carpenter while he (Sarman Singh) went to collect the price of the bullocks from Dasharath Singh. Sarman Singh entered the courtyard of the house of Dasharath Singh and sat on a cot. 2 Informant Babu Ram (PW­1) went towards the house of the carpenter. He had just reached the house of the carpenter when he heard some noise. He immediately ran and reached the house of Dasharath Singh where he saw accused Lakhan Singh (A­1), armed with lathi, Ramji Singh (A­2) and Krishna Autar (A­3), armed with guns and Laxman Singh (A­4), son of Lakhan Singh, and Lala Ram (A­5), armed with axes and Virendra Singh (A­6) with kanta ­ pitchfork. They were outside the house of Dasharath Singh and Lakhan Singh pointed out that Sarman Singh is a big gunda, he should not be permitted to escape and he should be killed. Ramji Singh(A­2) and Krishna Autar (A­3) fired three times each from their weapons from the entrance of the house of Dasharath Singh. Laxman Singh (A­4) and Lala Ram(A­5) gave blows with their axes, and Virendra Singh(A­6), attacked him with the pitchfork on his face and hands. Sarman Singh died on the spot itself. In the meantime, Nand Kishore (PW­2), Gaya Prasad, Takhta Singh and Dasharath Singh’s wife Bhagwanta, and other villagers reached the spot. The accused threatened all the persons present there that if anybody interfered, he would kill them and, thereafter the accused ran away from the spot. 3

3. A written complaint in this behalf was prepared by Babu Ram (PW­1) and was scribed by Ram Lakhan (PW­4). Thereafter Babu Ram (PW­1) went to the police station which is about 8 miles from the village and handed over the written complaint. Crime No.66/82 was recorded under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC for short), against the aforesaid 6 accused. Thereafter, investigation was done and the dead body of the deceased Sarman Singh was sent for post­ mortem examination. After completion of the investigation charge sheet under Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.PC for short) was filed against all the 6 accused. The Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions. The Sessions Judge charged Lakhan Singh under Sections 147, 449, 302/149 of the IPC whereas Ramji Singh, Krishna Autar, Laxman Singh, Lala Ram, and Virendra Singh were charged for having committed offence punishable under Sections 148, 302/149, 449 of the IPC.

4. The prosecution examined a number of witnesses. The case of the accused persons was of denial and according to them Babu Ram was inimical to them and, therefore, they had been falsely 4 implicated by him. The Trial Court acquitted all the accused mainly on the following grounds :­ (1) Medical evidence did not support the oral testimony of the witnesses and therefore the presence of eye witness was doubtful;

5. The State filed an appeal in the High Court. During the pendency of the appeal, three of the accused namely, Lakhan Singh (A­1), Krishna Autar (A­3) and Virendra Singh (A­6), died and the appeal abated qua them. The High Court set aside the judgment of the Trial Court and held that :­ (1) there was no material contradiction between the medical evidence and the statement of the eye witnesses;

Accordingly, Ramji Singh (A­2), Laxman Singh (A­4) and Lala Ram (A­5) were found guilty of having committed offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 302/149 of the IPC, and for the offence under Section 302 read with 149, IPC they have been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.10,000/­ each. Hence this appeal by the convicted accused.

12. It was urged that Constable Siya Ram (PW­3) who took the dead body of the deceased from the place of occurrence to the hospital for post­mortem had admitted that the dead body was given to him at 5.30 PM and he reached the Police Station, Orai at 10.00 AM next morning. This witness states that he started from the police station for the village at 2.00 PM, which supports the prosecution version that the FIR was lodged at about 2.00 PM. He was accompanied by another constable, the SHO and the sub­inspector. According to him, they left Pithuipur where the occurrence took place at 5.30 PM carrying the dead body in the bullock cart and on the way the wheel of the bullock­cart stopped functioning and they spent that night in village Bamohra. He states that he could make arrangement of another wheel at about 6 to 7.00 AM in the next morning and, thereafter, covered the distance between Bamohra and Orai in 3 1 (1994) 5 SCC 188 13 hours. The distance is 24 Kms, and according to the Trial Court and the appellants bullock cart cannot cover this distance in 3 hours. In our opinion, the Trial Court had no material to come to this conclusion that the bullock­cart cannot cover this distance in 3­4 hours.

(xvi) Entry wound fire arm 1.2x1.2 cm on left thigh 10 cm from penis no tattooing charing etc present. (xvii) Fire arm entry wound 20 cm x 1.6 cm, 2 cm above and lateral to injury no.16 tattooing charing etc. present.

(xviii) Fire arm entry wound 4 x 2 cm, oblique 1.5 cm lat to injury no.16 and 1.2 below the injury no.17 tattooing charing etc present.

15 (xxiii) Six fire arm exit wound in area of 10 cm x 5 cm x on medial side upper part of left thigh adjacent to the penis size varying from 0.3 cm to 0.8 cm.

14. On careful analysis of the medical evidence we find it fully corroborates the prosecution story. According to both the eye witnesses (PWs 1 and 2) accused Ramji Singh and Krishna Autar, had fired three times each. There are corresponding 6 fire arm entry wounds which are mentioned at serial no.(viii),

22. In view of the above discussion, we find no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stands disposed of.