HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD A.F.R. Judgement Reserved on 19.11.2015 Judgement Delivered on 11.12.2015 Court No. - 50 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 14 of 2000 Appellant :- Amresh Singh & Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Appellant :- V.C. Tiwari,A.K.Awasthi,M.K. Srivastava,Manish Tiwary Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shashi Kant Gupta,J.
Hon'ble Mrs. Vijay Lakshmi,J.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Shashi Kant Gupta J.)
1. This criminal appeal has been preferred by the accused appellants against the judgement and order dated 30.11.1999 passed by the Sessions Judge, Mau in Sessions Trial No. 93 of 1998 (State vs. Amresh Singh and another) convicting and sentencing the appellants for the offences punishable under Section 302/34 IPC to undergo life imprisonment.
2. At the outset, it is relevant to mention here that during pendency of this appeal, the appellant No. 1 - Amresh Singh has died. Accordingly, vide order dated 14.11.2007 this Court has abated the appeal as against the appellant No. 1 - Amresh Singh.
3. Now, we are proceeding to consider the present appeal in respect of the remaining appellant No. 2 Ram Awadh Singh.
4. The facts of the case, as unfolded by the informant Vinit Kumar Singh in the First Information Report (in short 'F.I.R.'), are that there was an ongoing enmity for the last many years over the landed property between Udayee Singh (Deceased), the grand father of the informant and the accused persons. Due to which, Udayee Singh along with the informant and other family members had started to live in a separate 'Pucca' house constructed by him towards south of the village.
5. A day before the occurrence Udayee Singh had spread "Khoiya" (the part of sugarcane which remains after extracting its juice) for drying in front of his Kachcha house. On the day of occurrence i.e. 17.2.1998 at about 6.00 A.M., accused Amresh Singh was passing over the spread Khoiya. On being asked to stop from doing so by the deceased Udayee Singh, accused Amresh Singh started abusing Udayee Singh and the mother of the informant, to which they had objected. Thereafter accused Amresh Singh went back towards his house.
6. At about 7.30 A.M., Udayee Singh was giving fodder to his cattle, the mother of the informant had gone to throw away the dung, Lalit Kumar Singh, the younger brother of the informant and Km. Mamta Singh, the sister of the informant were sitting in front of the Pucca house and Smt. Parmi Devi, wife of Tirth Raj Singh was at her old house. Suddenly, Amresh Singh armed with an axe and his brother Ram Awadh Singh with a Danda came to the house of the informant shouting "Iske Ghar Ka Safaya Kar Diya Jaeye". Then Amresh Singh ran towards Udayee Singh and caught him after surrounding him. Accused Amresh Singh hit him with an axe and Ram Awadh started beating him with the Danda as a result of which Udayee Singh got hurt and fell on the ground. On this the accused Ram Awadh caught hold of Udayee Singh and co-accused Amresh Singh inflicted repeated blows with the axe on the face of Udayee Singh. When Smt. Kalawati, the mother of the informant rushed to rescue Udayee Singh, Ram Awadh caught hold of her also and belaboured her with Danda. Accused Amresh Singh also inflicted injuries with his axe. Then the mother of informant also fell on the ground. On this Ram Awadh again caught hold of the mother of informant and accused Amresh gave several axe blows on her head with the result Udayee Singh and Kalawati both, succumbed to their injuries. Informant, his brother and their grand mother had been crying for help. The accused persons after committing the murder of grand father and mother of informant fled away with their weapons.
7. A written report of the occurrence was prepared by Vinit Kumar Singh, P.W.1. On the basis of written report Ext. Ka-1, P.W.4 Rana Pratap Sigh, Constable Moharir of police station Mohammadabad prepared a chick F.I.R Ext. Ka-8 and case was registered on the same day at 9.30 A.M. The entry was made at report no.12. The extract of G.D. is Ext. Ka-9.
8. Inquest reports of the dead body of Udayee Singh and Smt. Kalawati were prepared on the same day by S.I. Sri Balbir Singh which are Exts. Ka-10 and Ka-11 respectively. In respect of the dead body of Udayee Singh letter to C.M.O letter to R.I., photo of the dead body and Challan lash were prepared by P.W.5 Sri Kripa Shankar Shukla, the then S.H.O of P.S. Kotwali Mohammadabad. These papers are Exts. Ka-11 to Ka-14. Similarly in respect of the dead body of Smt. Kalawati letter to R.I., letter to C.M.O., Challan of the dead body and photo lash were prepared by Sri Kripa Shankar Shukla which are Exts. Ka-16 to Ka-19 respectively. The dead bodies of both the deceased were sealed and same were handed over to constable Sarvasri Kamla Yadav and Sheochand Maurya of P.S. Kotwali Mohammadabad for taking to mortuary for post mortem examination.
9. On 18.2.98 at 4.-00 P.M P.W.3 Dr. R.P. Singh, the Medical Officer of District Hospital, Azamgarh conducted autopsy on the dead body of Smt. Kalawati vide post-mortem examination report Ext. Ka-6 and on the same day at 3.15 PM autopsy on the dead body of Udayee Singh was conducted vide post-mortem examination report Ext.Ka-7.
10. The investigation of the case was taken up by P.W.5 Kripa Shanker Shukla. He inspected the spot and prepared site plan Ext. Ka 20. He took the hair of Smt. Kalawati and prepared Fard Ext. Ka 3. He also prepared Fard Ext. Ka 4 and Ka-5 in respect of blood stained and simple earth from the place where dead bodies were lying. On the pointing of the accused Amresh Singh, blood stained axe was recovered on 19.2.1998 and Fard Ext. Ka 2 was prepared. He also prepared site plan of the place of recovery of axe which is Ext. Ka-21. He interrogated the witnesses and after completing the investigation Sri Narendra Kumar Singh submitted charge sheet Ext. Ka-12 against the accused persons. After committal the accused did not plead guilty and claimed to be tried, hence this trial.
11. P.W.1 Vinit Kumar Singh, P.W.2 Shrawan Kumar Singh, P.W.3 Dr. R.P. Singh, P.W.4 Ram Pratap Singh and P.W.5 Sri Kripa Shankar Shukla have been examined in support of the prosecution story.
12. P.W. 1 Vinit Kumar Singh has supported the FIR version and has made specific allegation against the accused of committing murder of both the deceased namely Udayee Singh and Kalawati. He proved his written report as Ext. Kha 1 which was handed over to the police station Mohammadabad. P.W.1 has further stated that investigating officer had interrogated him.
13. P.W. 2 Shrawan Kumar Singh had stated that on 17.2.1998 at about 7 or 7.30 A.M., P.W. 2 had gone to see the wheat field. When he was coming back from his field he saw that Amresh and Ram Awadh were inflicting injuries upon Udayee Singh. Amresh was armed with axe (Tangi) and Ram Awadh was having a Danda in his hand. When Udayee Singh fell down Amresh had given axe (Tangi) blows to him. P.W. 2 became bewildered and left the place. He did not see as to who had come to his rescue. When police came there the dead body of Kalawati was also seen. Kalawati was also lying dead as she had sustained injuries over temporal region. P.W.2 has further stated that when he saw Udayee Singh being belaboured for the first time, Vinit, his younger brother and his sister were also present there. P.W.2 has also stated that in his presence, axe (Tangi) was recovered by I.O. who had prepared the Fard. Signatures of P.W.2 was obtained and seeing the said Tangi P.W. 2 stated that it was the same Tangi which was recovered.
14. P.W.4 Constable Moharir Ram Pratap Singh has stated that on 17.2.1998 he was posted as Constable Moharir at P.S. Mohammadabad. On that date, on the basis of the written report of Vinit Kumar Singh, he prepared a chick F.I.R at Crime No. 42/98, under section 302 and 504 IPC. He has proved chick FIR Ext. Ka-8. He has further stated that entry was made in G.D at report no.12 at the same time, the extract of G.D is Ext. Ka-9.
15. P.W.3, Dr. R.P. Singh has stated that on 18.2.1998 at 4.00 P.M., he had conducted autopsy on the dead body of deceased Kalawati which was identified by constables Kamla yadav and Sheochand Maurya. As per the opinion of P.W.3 the deceased was about 35 years. She was of average built, mouth and eyes were half open, cranial cavity was open, on left side brain material mixed with blood was protruding, clotted blood and brain materials were present on the back of skull, face and neck region, rigormortis was present in lower extremity. Following ante- mortem injury was found on the person of deceased Kalawati.
(i).Lacerated wound 9 c.m. x 4 c.m. x bone cavity deep on left side skull close to left ear, underlying bones fractured.
16. Left parietal, left temporal and left side frontal bones were fractured into pieces. Scalp was lacerated, brain was also lacerated, left side brain material was present in a very small quantity, left chamber of the heart was empty and right chamber was full. Stomach was also empty.
Sari, blouse, petticoat, nasal keel, metallic chain, pair of payal and bichhia and pieces of bungles were sealed and were handed over to concerned constables. Post mortem examination report was prepared by P.W.3 at the time of post mortem examination. It is Ext. Ka-6. According to P.W.3, the death was caused due to coma on account of ante-mortem injuries. The death of deceased could have been caused on 17.2.98 at 7-30 A.M.
17. On the same day at about 3.15 P.M., P.W.3 conducted autopsy on the dead body of deceased Udayee Singh According to P.W. 3, deceased was about 65 years. He was of average built. His face was deshaped. Right eye was lacerated, left eye was half open, teeth were found visible and loose, clotted blood was present over head, face, neck and iliac region. Rigor mortis was present in lower extremity. Dry mud was present over left knee and both the sole. Abdomen was distended. Post-mortem staining was present in dependent parts.
18. Following ante-mortem injuries were found by P.W.3;
(i). Lacerated wound 5 cm x 1 cm x bone deep on left side skull, 4.5 cm above the left ear.
(ii). Lacerated wound 2.5 cm x 1 cm x orbital cavity deep, right side eyeball lacerated.
(iii). Incised wound 4 cm x 1.5 cm x bone deep 1 cm below the right eye lower lid. Underlying bone was fractured.
(iv). Lacerated wound 5 cm x 2 x bone deep over the middle of the nose, underlying bone was fractured.
(v). Lacerated wound 3 cm x 2 cm x bone deep on the middle of lower of right mandible bone, underlying bone was fractured.
(vi). Incised wound 7 cm x 1 x bone deep obliquely placed from left angel of mouth and downwards, underlying bones were fractured.
19. Left parietal bone, right maxillary, right mandibular bone, blower jaw and left mandibular bone were fractured. Brain membranes were lacerated. Clotted blood was present in the brain. Right chamber of the heart was full and left chamber was empty. Gas, faecal and pasty materials were present in large and small intestine. Rectum was unloaded. It was opined that the death was caused as a result of coma due to ante-mortem injuries. The death could have been caused on 17.2.98 at 7.30 A.M. The injuries found on the person of deceased were of ordinary course of nature to cause death. These injuries could be caused with Danda and axe.
20. P.W.5, Sri Kripa Shanker Shukla has stated that in February, 1998 he was posted as S.H.O. Mohammadabad, District Mau. In the presence of P.W.5, case was registered at the police station on 17.2.1998. He reached the spot on the same day, interrogated the informant, inspected the spot and got the inquest report of the dead bodies of deceased Udayee Singh and Smt. Kalawati prepared by S.I. Sri Balbir Singh. Both the dead bodies were sealed and sent to mortuary. The blood stained and simple earth were taken from both the places, kept in separate container and Fard was prepared. P.W.5 has also taken the hair of the deceased Kalawati, sealed it in a container and prepared Fard accordingly. He prepared the site plan of the spot. P.W.5 has also proved Fard in respect of the hair of deceased Kalawati which is Ext. Ka-3.
21. After closure of the evidence of prosecution witnesses, the statements of the accused persons were recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. They have denied the prosecution story and stated to have been falsely implicated on account of enmity. It has been further added by accused Amresh Singh that deceased Udayee Singh had forcibly constructed a house over the land allotted to Harijans which was objected by them. Udayee Singh never allowed the Harijans to occupy their allotted land. Udayee Singh had also not been fair in the partition between him and his brothers. Accused Amresh Singh used to oppose Udayee Singh and help the poor. 16.2.1998 was the polling day for election of the Members of Lok Sabha in which Udayee Singh was prohibiting the Harijans belonging to Bahujan Samaj Party for casting their votes. It has been further stated by the accused Amresh Singh that deceased were killed in the darkness of the night. None had witnessed the occurrence and it had been raining in the night since 3 or 4 A.M. On hearing alarm, the people of the family and vicinity reached there. Accused persons had also gone there. Both the deceased were found lying inside the verandah. The villagers went to the police station. The police came, interrogated Shrawan Kumar and Nirbhai Kumar and took the dead bodies to police station and prepared the papers there. Accused Ram Awadh Singh has also adopted this written statement of Amresh Singh.
22. In defence certified copy of sale deed registered on 10.06.1994 Ext. Kha-1, copy of order dated 01.09.1993 passed by Addl. Commissioner Judicial, Gorakhpur in case no.787/A of 1988 Udayee vs. Ran Vijai and others, Ext. Kha-2 have been filed.
23. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the main allegation has been made against the co-accused Amresh Singh of inflicting injuries by axe (Tangi) and the role assigned to the appellant Ram Awadh Singh is of inflicting injuries by Danda. It is further submitted that there is a great variation in the description of the weapon used by the appellant No. 2 Ram Awadh Singh. Somewhere it was stated that the appellant was carrying a Danda somewhere it was said that he was carrying a Lathi and some where it was stated that he was carrying a Baint. Thus, the prosecution side itself was not clear as to which weapon was used by the appellant. He further submitted that there is a material contradiction in the ocular testimony and the medical evidence. He further submitted that no recovery of Danda allegedly used by Ram Awadh Singh has been made. It is further stated that the eye witnesses named in the FIR like Dadi, grand mother, brother and sister present on the spot have not been produced and have been withheld. It is further submitted that the alleged blood stained hair of Kalawati were found on the axe (Tangi) and use of axe (Tangi) has been assigned to the co-accused Amresh, as such, it can be said that the fatal injury was inflicted on the head of the deceased Kalawati by accused Amresh Singh. It was further submitted that there was only one injury on the head of the deceased Kalawati which even assuming the prosecution story to be true could have been caused by Amresh Singh who was armed with an axe (Tangi). It was further submitted that the content of the stomach reveals that both the deceased persons i.e. Kalawati and Udayee Singh had not eased by the time of their alleged murder i.e. 7.30 A.M. Usually in villages people attend to the call of nature in the early mornings. The aforesaid facts shows that the murder was committed sometime at around 4 O' clock and a false concocted prosecution story has been set up by the prosecution that both the deceased were murdered at around 7.30 A.M. by the appellants.
24. Per contra, learned AGA has submitted that at about 6.30 A.M. on the same day a quarrel had taken place between the accused Amresh and the deceased Udayee Singh and thereafter the accused Amresh Singh went home and returned with his brother Ram Awadh Singh fully prepared with the weapons assigned to them with a common intention to commit the alleged offence. It was further submitted that there might have some exaggeration in the version of the prosecution witnesses while describing the manner of assault but that will not discredit the testimony of the witnesses as they are not supposed to give graphic description of the manner of assault. He further submitted that the medical evidence clearly corroborates the ocular testimony/version as the accused Amresh Singh and Ram Awadh Have been assigned carrying of weapon axe (Tangi) and Danda respectively and both the deceased have suffered incised and lacerated wounds inflicted from the sharp edged weapon as well as from the hard blunt object. He further submitted that mere describing the Danda sometimes as Lathi and 'Baint' will not change the effect and nature of the weapon as all of them i.e. Lathi, Danda and 'Baint' are more or less the same and mere variation in their description will not weaken the prosecution case as all of them are hard and blunt objects. He further submitted that the deceased Udayee Singh has been murdered in a very gruesome manner who sustained four lacerated wounds and two incised wounds. The said injuries have been caused inter alia on the face as well as on the head causing fracture of left parietal bone, right maxillary, right mandibular bone, lower jaw and left mandibular bones of the deceased. The deceased Kalawati was also given a fatal blow causing fracture of her parietal bone, left temporal and left side frontal bone. He further submitted that crime has been committed with utmost cruelty and brutality by the accused who happens to be the grand nephew of the deceased Udayee Singh.
25. Heard Sri Sumit Goyal, learned Counsel for the appellant and Sri Rajeev Gupta, Sri S. N. Tripathi, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
26. The facts of the case have been given in detail in earlier part of the judgment, as such, the same need not be reiterated. It is a double murder case where the real uncle Udayee Singh and sister-in-law (Bhabhi) Kalawati have been allegedly murdered by the accused appellant Amresh Singh and Ram Awadh Singh. The accused Appellant Ram Awadh Singh in his statement recorded under Section 313 CrPC has admitted the enmity with the informant side. It is not disputed that dead bodies of the deceased persons were found nearby their house.
27. During the course of trial the prosecution has got examined P.W. 1 who is an eye witness of the incident and his presence at the place of incident was quite natural as the incident had taken place in front of the house where he used to reside. The said witness in most categorical and explicit manner has given vivid detail of the manner in which the incident has taken place and he has been extensively cross examined by the defence, but has not been able to create any dent in his testimony and he has given cogent and clinching evidence against the appellants. The defence has not been able to point out any material contradiction in his testimony and he has been held to be a wholly reliable witness and from his testimony, the participation and overt act assigned to the appellants are clearly established.
28. One of the contention of the learned counsel for the accused appellant that it was a case of blind murder committed in the dark around 4 O' clock in the morning. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted for the reason that the bodies of the deceased persons were not found in the house of the deceased but were found outside the house of the deceased persons, as such, there was no occasion for anyone to have thrown the dead bodies of the deceased outside the house after murdering them inside the house. It is also notable that had there been any enmity due to political reason, it would have been only with the deceased Udayee Singh and not with the deceased Kalawati, as such, there was no reason for murdering Kalawati. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant has no force that they might have been murdered sometime in the night.
29. The next contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that there is a great variation in the description of the weapon used by the accused appellant Ram Awadh Singh as sometimes it was stated that the appellant was carrying Danda and at some places it was said that he was carrying a Lathi and again at some places it was stated that he was carrying a 'Baint', as such, the prosecution side itself was not clear as to which weapon was used by the accused appellant Ram Awadh Singh and this fact makes the prosecution story doubtful.
30. This contention of the learned counsel for the appellant does not have any force and is liable to be rejected outrightly as the alleged weapon Lathi, Danda and Baint; are all hard and blunt object and they are all similar. They may differ in size but ultimately if they are used to hit the victims, it will more or less cause the same kind of injury. It cannot be said that they are different kind of weapons and will cause different types of injuries. It all depends as to how much of force is applied while hitting the victims with it.
31. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that there is a great variance in the medical report and the ocular testimony as the statement of P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 shows that numerous assaults were made upon the deceased Udayee Singh on his stomach and also upon other deceased Kalawati with an axe while in fact the deceased Kalawati sustained only solitary injury on her head and the other deceased Udayee Singh suffered six injuries i.e. two incised wounds and four lacerated wounds and this discrepancy in the ocular testimony is in contrast to the medical evidence, which indicates that none of the witnesses had witnessed the incident, as it was a case of blind murder, and the appellants have been falsely implicated due to their previous enmity.
32. The aforesaid argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellant does not impress us at all and liable to be rejected. P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 are the eye witnesses of the incident and they have categorically assigned the role to the accused Amresh Singh and the present appellant Ram Awadh Singh of causing injuries by axe (Tangi) and Danda respectively. The deceased Udayee Singh has suffered four lacerated wounds and two incised wounds. The four lacerated wounds alleged to have been caused by hard and blunt object i.e. Danda which was being carried by Ram Awadh Singh. On the other hand, the accused Amresh Singh has been assigned the role of causing the aforementioned two incised wounds by using the axe (Tangi) and these injuries have been caused on the vital part. The injuries caused to him were sufficient to cause the death of the deceased Udayee Singh. The other deceased Kalawati has suffered fatal lacerated injury on her head causing fracture of her left parietal, left temporal and left side frontal bones into pieces. The accused appellant Ram Awadh Singh has been assigned the role of causing this fatal injury with a Danda. Merely because there was some discrepancy in the manner of assault, it would not, in any way, discredit the prosecution story. There is always a tendency on the part of the witnesses to exaggerate and in the present case it appears that witnesses in their enthusiasm have exaggerated the number of blows inflicted upon the deceased persons by the accused appellants, as such, this would by itself not falsify the prosecution story.
33. From the perusal of post-mortem report, it is clear that Udayee Singh has received as many as six injuries on his person being caused by blunt object i.e. Danda as well as by Tangi which has been assigned to the appellant Ram Awadh and Amresh Singh respectively. From the perusal of the post-mortem report of Kalawati, it is evident that she has received only one lacerated wound which admittedly is a result of assault made by the appellant Ram Awadh and the said factum is clinching and specifically corroborated by the doctor who had conducted the post-mortem, therefore so far as the participation of Ram Awadh in the present case is concerned specifically the role assigned to him of assaulting by Danda to both of victims is clearly established. Moreover , the other deceased Kalawati has died on account of injuries caused by ram Awadh on her head, therefore by no stretch imagination only on the factum of the number of the wounds, the clinching and corroborative testimonies of the witnesses can not be thrown overboard and the prosecution story is to be decided on the anvil of the complete statement and not in a segregated manner.
34. Next contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that P.W. 2 was a chance and a pocket witness and has been set up by the police is without any basis and has no merit and is accordingly rejected. The accused appellant Ram Awadh Singh in his statement himself has stated that when the police arrived, P.W. 2 was present there and his statement was recorded and this apart there is nothing on record to indicate that he had been set up. The presence of PW 2 at the place of incident is also clearly established as his field are within the close vicinity of the incident as evident from the site plan and he in most explicit manner has shown the reason of him being present at the place of incident and has also clearly stated in his statements about the manner, time and place of incident which stands in complete corroboration with PW 1 and by no stretch of imagination, the said witness can be said to be a chance witness. Perusal of the record clearly shows that he was a natural witness and no discrepancy can be found in his testimony and his testimony fully corroborates the prosecution story.
35. Learned counsel for the appellant next submitted that the hair of the deceased Kalawati found on the axe (Tangi) were not sent for chemical examination, as such, it cannot be said that the hair found on the axe (Tangi) were not of the deceased Kalawati. He further submitted that the role of causing injury by axe (Tangi) has been assigned to the accused Amresh Singh, as such, it was quite possible that the injury to the deceased Kalawati might have been caused from the reverse side of axe by him. This contention of the appellant has got no force. Admittedly, the alleged hair found on the axe were not sent for chemical examination, as such, it cannot be said that hair found on the axe were of Kalawati. Neither there is anything on record nor any suggestion was given by the defence with regard to the use of Axe from the reverse side. It is also pertinent to note that the alleged incident lasted for a couple of minutes and it would be presumed that a person inflicting the injury with an axe would use it in the usual and natural manner, and would not simultaneously cause injuries from the front and reverse side of the axe.
36. Next submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that since there was no common intention between the accused persons, the provision of Section 34 cannot be invoked, has no merit and liable to be rejected. Perusal of the record clearly shows that Ram Awadh Singh himself has exhorted uttering the words "Iske Ghar Ka Safaya Kar Diya Jaye". Moreover both the accused Amresh Singh and Ram Awadh Singh had arrived together at the scene along with a Danda and an axe to assault the deceased persons in perpetuation of their nefarious design and in the process they caused the brutal death of the deceased and the act of causing death of the deceased was pre-meditated and it cannot be said that there was no prior meeting of minds. The facts of the case as well as the evidence available on record including the nature of injuries suffered by the deceased clearly indicate that the incident has been committed in pre-concerted and pre-planned manner with the common intention to commit murder as both the appellants came prepared to the house of the victim with weapons and appellant Ram Awadh shouting "Iske Ghar Ka Safaya kar Diya Jaeye".
37. Next contention is that the post-mortem report shows that both the persons had not attended the call of nature early in the morning as the small intestine was filled with faecal, gases and pasty material. This argument also does not impress us. The post-mortem report clearly shows that rectum was unloaded and merely because some food contents were present in the small intestine, it would not conclusively indicate that murder occurred during the night hours.
38. In support of the it submissions, learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the following decisions: Subhash and another Vs. State of UP, 1976 AIR 1976 Supreme Court 1924; Chandubhai Shanabhai Parmar Vs. The State of Gujarat, AIR 1982 Supreme Court 1022; Suraj Mal Vs. The State (Delhi Administration), AIR 1979 Supreme Court 1408; Rajagopalswamy Konar and another Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1994 Supreme Court 1621 and Ram Krishan and another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1977 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 636.
39. The ratio of the aforesaid cases relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant in support of his contention has no application in the facts and circumstances of this case and the facts of the aforesaid cases are quite distinguishable to the facts of this case.
40. Considering the entire aspects of the matter and looking to the circumstances, under which the present offence has been committed, we are of the view that the impugned judgement and order passed by the trial court is well thought and well discussed, and the trial court has rightly held that the prosecution has succeeded to prove the guilt of the accused appellant beyond reasonable doubt. As such, the impugned judgement and order passed by the trial court is liable to be upheld and the appeal having no force is liable to be dismissed.
41. Accordingly the present Criminal Appeal is dismissed.
42. The conviction and sentence imposed upon the accused appellant No. 2 Ram Awadh Singh vide impugned judgement and order dated 30.11.1999 is hereby confirmed.
43. The accused appellant Ram Awadh Singh is on bail. His personal and surety bonds are cancelled and he is directed to surrender before the Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned forthwith, who shall take him into custody and send him in jail for serving out the sentence imposed upon him by the trial court. In case he fails to surrender, as directed above, the Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned is directed to take coercive action against him in this regard.
44.Copy of this judgement alongwith lower court record be sent forthwith to the Sessions Judge, Mau for compliance.
Order date : 11.12.2015 vinay