Case: State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. P.A. Madhu

The facts of the case have been detailed in the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge and the High Court and need not be repeated. The matter, therefore, lies within a narrow compass and we purpose only to examine the reasons and the inferences drawn by the High Court for acquitting the respondent, Madhu.M/s. Hindustan Construction Company (hereinafter referred to as the company), had undertaken the construction of Jamuna Hydel Project in Khadar, District Dehradun.To begin with, it appears that there was some dispute about the dearness allowance claim of the labour from the management which was referred to the Industrial Tribunal. The respondent, who was the Secretary of the Union, was looking after the case on behalf of the workers, while PWs 5 and 7 were the officers appearing on behalf of the management before the Tribunal. The deceased, S.J. Sirgaonkar, was Deputy Personnel Manager of the Bombay Branch of M/s. Hindustan Construction Company. He was shot dead by the respondent after he (deceased), alongwith the other officers of the management, had come out of the Tribunals office at Meerut after filing their written statements. Thereafter one of the eye-witnesses, S.K. Gui (PW 7) asked someone to give a telephone call to the police station, which was nearby, on receipt of which th e police arrived at the spot, seized the pistol and took the accused and some of the witnesses to the police station where a form FIR was registered. The Panchanama was prepared and other formalities were, however, done at the spot.The learned Sessions Judge, after a careful consideration of the evidence of the three main eye-witnesses (PWs 5, 6 and 7) as also the evidence of Durga Das (DW 1), came to a clear conclusion that the prosecution case against the respondent was fully proved and accordingly be convicted the respondent under s. 302, I.P.C. and sentenced him to imprisonment for life. He also convicted the respondent under s. 25(1)(a) of the Indian Arms Act and sentenced him to one years R.I. The respondent went up in appeal to the High Court against the decision of the Sessions Judge which was reversed by the High Court and the respondent was acquitted of the charges framed against him.

Court's reasoning:
The High Court was further of the view that it is extremely doubtful that the witnesses could see the incident from inside the court room as there was no door or window through which the incident could be seen. To buttress this observation, the High Court seems to have relied on the evidence of DW 1 that the four persons, including DW 1, entered the court room as soon as the first shot was fired. This statement is obviously wrong because all the three witnesses stated that the shots were fired while they were outside the court room and they actually saw the respondent firing the shots. I t was only after a few shots were fired that they entered the court room and even so they were able to see the whole occurrence from the glass panes of the court room. There is absolutely no evidence on record to show that there were no glass panes in the window and that the place of occurrence could not be visible from the court room. In these circumstances the conclusion of the High Court is purely speculative and against the weight of evidence on the record.The High Court seems to have placed some reliance on the evidence of D.W.1 but as he was highly interested, his evidence unless corroborated by independent evidence should not have been acted upon in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this caseLastly, the High Court seems to have completely overlooked the fact that there was no reason for three eye- witnesses, one of whom was a standing counsel far about 30 years, to have falsely implicated the respondent merely because he was Secretary of the Union. The consistent course of conduct of the respondent speaks volumes against his innocence. He was caught red-handed at the spot and was surrounded by the witnesses so that he could not escape, and the police arrived within fifteen minutes of the occurrence and took him to the police station. Some comment was made by the High Court about the delay in the inquest report but that does not appear to be of any consequence if the evidence of the three eye-w itnesses is to be believedWe have given our anxious consideration to the evidence of the three witnesses (PWs 5, 6 and 7) and we find ourselves in complete agreement with the Sessions Judge that these witnesses were both reliable and trustworthy. In fact, the High Court committed a grave error of law in not going into the intrinsic merits of the evidence of each of the eye-witnesses and in discarding the same on general ground which also have no substance9. Here, t he High Court completely lost sight of two important) that PWs 5 and 7 were high officers of the Company and were not likely to depose falsely on a matter like this, and (2) that, who was the standing counsel of the Company and other labour cases for more than 3 decades, fully corroborates the evidence of PWs 5 and 7. We have examined the evidence of PWs S and 7 with very great care and caution but we are unable to find any discrepancy or defect in their evidence so as to lead any court to reject the same. On the other hand, on a consideration of their evidence. we are satisfied that are throughout consistent and congruous and that their evidence bears a ring of truth; We are indeed surprised how th e High Court could disbelieve the evidence of thes in the case of ad murder committed in broad day light where the respondent was caughtd at the spot. The High Court also over looked the crying conduct of the respondent who went on firing one shot after the other so as to make sure that Sirgaonkar does not survive at any cost.Another ground on which the High Court has reversed the judgment of the Sessions Judge is that it is difficult to believe that after the respondent threw the pistol he continued to remain at the spot and did not make any attempt to escape. With due respect, this finding of the High Court is also most unrealistic. There is clear evidence of PWs. 5, 6 and 7 that after the respondent threw down the pistol he was surrounded by the three witnesses so that he could not escape. The High Court has failed to consider this important aspect of the matter. Moreover, if a person commits ad murder in the premises of a court which is bound to be full of other litigants also, he cannot think of escaping and is bound to be caught by someone or the otherThe High Court was further of the view that it is extremely doubtful that the witnesses could see the incident from inside the court room as there was no door or window through which the incident could be seen. To buttress this observation, the High Court seems to have relied on the evidence of DW 1 that the four persons, including DW 1, entered the court room as soon as the first shot was fired. This statement is obviously wrong because all the three witnesses stated that the shots were fired while they were outside the court room and they actually saw the respondent firing the shots. I t was only after a few shots were fired that they entered the court room and even so they were able to see the whole occurrence from the glass panes of the court room. There is absolutely no evidence on record to show that there were no glass panes in the window and that the place of occurrence could not be visible from the court room. In these circumstances the conclusion of the High Court is purely speculative and against the weight of evidence on the record.The High Court seems to have placed some reliance on the evidence of D.W.1 but as he was highly interested, his evidence unless corroborated by independent evidence should not have been acted upon in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this