Amar Singh vs State Of U.P.
2016 Latest Caselaw 4030 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

AFR
 
Reserved on 4.12.15
 
Delivered on 11.7.2016
 
Court No. - 10
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 4922 of 2006
 
Appellant :- Amar Singh
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P.
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Kamal Krishna,Anubhav Trivedi,Dilip Kumar,M.D. Singh Shekhar,R.M.Singh,R.N.Pandey,Rajarshi Gupta,Rajeev Gupta,Rakesh Panday,Ravindra Sharma,Satish Trivedi,Shashi Nandan,Suresh Singh,Sushil Kumar Dwivedi,V.S.Chaudhary
 
Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate,A.G.A.,A.K. Srivastava,Narendra Kr.Singh Yadav,Vishnu Pratap
 

 
And
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 5089 of 2006
 
Appellant :- Jai Singh & Another
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P.
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Kamal Krishna,A.Trivedi,Dileep Kumar,Rajiv Gupta,Rajrshi Gupta,Satish Trivedi,Suresh Singh,Sushik Kumar Dwivedi
 
Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate,A.K.Srivastava
 

 
Hon'ble Arun Tandon, J. 

Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J.

Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned AGA for the State.

With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the present two appeals are being heard together and disposed off finally.

These criminal appeals arise out of the judgment and order dated 22.08.2006 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 1, Fatehpur in Session Trial Nos. 569 of 2003 and 570 of 2003 arising out of case crime nos. 137 of 2003 and 139 of 2003 whereby accused-appellants, namely, Jai Singh, Amar Singh and Dayaram Lodh have been convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 302/34 IPC and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, they would further undergo two years additional rigorous imprisonment. Accused-appellant Amar Singh was convicted and sentenced to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment under Section 25 of the Arms Act and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, the accused-appellant Amar Singh was to further undergo one year additional rigorous imprisonment and all the sentences of accused-appellant Amar Singh was to undergo separately.

Brief facts, as per the prosecution case as set up in the FIR are that on 4.7.2003 the cousin brother of the complainant, namely, Ram Bahadur had gone to brickkiln of the Barkat Singh to deposit the money of the brick. The complainant along with his cousin brothers, namely, Ram Pratap, Sohan Lal, wife of Ram Bahadur, namely, Shiv Pyari and Gulab was sitting near the house of Hari Shankar Lodh @ Badku. At about 6:15 in the evening, when Shyam Bahadur came back by tempo from the brickkiln of Barkat Singh and started talking to the complainant and other persons, at that time Jai Singh came on a motorcycle on which the accused Amar Singh and Dayaram Lodh were sitting behind him. Accused Jai Singh and Amar Singh had fired upon Ram Bahadur on account of which Ram Bahadur had fallen down and thereafter accused Jai Singh having reloaded had again fired upon the deceased, whereupon the other accused Dayaram said that the work is done and lets go. Thereafter the accused persons had gone towards Fatehpur on their motorcycles after threatening the witnesses. Due to fear, the complainant had not chased the accused persons and Hari Shankar Lodh had shut down the shutter of his house and door and the people on the road had started running away here and there. The brother of the complainant, namely, Ram Bahadur had been doing business of plotting along with the accused persons, namely, Amar Singh and Jai Singh at Fatehpur. There was also a dispute with regard to plot between the parties and a case is also pending between them in the Court. Accused persons, namely, Amar Singh and Jai Singh wanted to take Rs. 80,000/- forcibly from the brother of the complainant and the brother of the complainant had refused to do so on account of which, accused persons, namely, Amar Singh in collusion with Jai Singh and Dayaram Lodh had murdered the brother of the complainant. Accused Dayaram is a close friend of Jai Singh. The said incident had occurred near the house of Hari Shankar Lodh, gram Madariyapur P.S. Shah Thana Ghazipur, District Fatehpur. The complainant on 4.7.2003 at about 20:35 in the night had given written taharir to the P.S. Shah Thana Ghazipur District Fatehpur (Exhibit-ka-1) with regard to the said incident and a case under Sections 302/34, 506 IPC and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act being case crime no. 137/03 has been registered at Chauki Shah, Thana Ghazipur, District Fatehpur.

Before the Court proceeds to examine the evidence on record, it would be appropriate to briefly summarize the contentions as raised by learned counsel for the appellants.

It has been contended by learned counsel for the appellants that the only independent witness, namely, Hari Shanker Lodh in front of whose house the alleged incident took place though examined as PW-1 before the trial court, but he did not support the case of the prosecution pertaining to the participation of the accused-appellants in the alleged incident and he was declared as hostile. It has further been contended that two other eye witnesses, namely, Ram Khelawan who was examined as PW-2 and Smt. Shiv Pyari who was examined as PW-3 are the family members of the deceased, namely, Ram Bahadur (cousin brother and wife respectively) and the other three witnesses, namely, Ram Pratap and Sohan Lal who are the real brothers of the deceased and Gulab who is the cousin brother of the deceased, namely, Ram Bahadur have not been examined by the prosecution. Similarly another brother of the deceased, namely, Ram Prakash who was the scribe of the FIR was also not examined by the prosecution. It has also been contended that the FIR is anti-dated/anti-timed documents and there are manipulation with the original chick report inasmuch as overwriting is there.

A number of contentions have been raised on the part of the appellants with regard to the conduct of the Investigating Agency and with regard to the availability of the 'jild panchayatnama', it is contended that even in the case diary there is no mention of any investigation being carried out by the police personnel in the evening of 4.7.2003 even then they claim that the FIR was lodged and they had reached the place of occurrence. It is further contended that the investigation of the police is defective and there are laches in the investigation and in fact it has been seriously pointed out to that the FIR is anti-dated and anti-timed and thus, the report being anti-timed, the entire story of the prosecution becomes doubtful. It is also contended that a number of contradictions exist on record with regard to the medical report, testimony of PW2 and PW-3. It is next contended that the conduct of the eye witnesses was unnatural inasmuch as while the deceased was being fired upon, all the real brothers including his wife and cousin brother were present at the place of incident, however, no attempt was made to help the deceased or to catch the assailants. It is further contended that there are material contradictions in the testimony of PW-1 and PW-2 which creates a doubt with regard to the presence of PW-1 and PW-2 at the place of occurrence. It is also contended that in fact no investigation was done on 4.7.2003 and the entire investigation has been done on 5.7.2003 and thus it has been pointed out that the entire prosecution story is false and fabricated and thus the appellants are entitled to grant of indulgence of this Court and the appeal is allowed.

Keeping in view the aforesaid contentions, we now proceed to examine the evidence on record.

The prosecution has examined as many as nine witnesses in support of its case;

The witness of fact, namely, Hari Shanker Lodh has been examined as PW-1 who however has been declared as hostile.

Ram Khelawan, who is the eye witness, has been examined as PW-2 who in his statement has clearly stated that "?kVuk 4 tqykbZ 2003 dh gSA 'kke ds 6 lok 6 cts dh ?kVuk gSA e`rd jke cgknqj esjk ppsjk HkkbZ FkkA eS IykV ds ikl cSBk Fkk tgkW ij edku cu jgk FkkA esjk HkkbZ e`rd Hkh ml le; VsEiks ls mrjdj IykV dh rjQ vk jgs FksA lM+d ls nl dne ij edku cukus dk dke gks jgk FkkA rks e`rd us ge yksxksa ls iwNk fd edku dk eksje vkfn bdB~Bk djus dk dke gks x;kA geus dgk fd dke gks x;kA rHkh rhuksa eqyfteku ,d gh eksVj lkbZfdy ls ?kVukLFky dh vksj vk;sA eqyfteku us jke cgknqj dks xksyh ekj nhA igyh xksyh t; flag us pykbZ tks e`rd ds yxhA mlls e`rd ekSds ij fxj x;kA fQj vej flag us xksyh pyk;hA tks xksyh e`rd dh Nkrh ij yxhA rhljh ¼dk0Q0½ Hkh t; flag us gh ekjh og xksyh Hkh e`rd dks yxhA n;kjke us xksyh ugh pyk;hA" He Further stated that "ekSds ij gh jke izdk'k us rgjhj eqyfteku ds f[kykQ fy[kk;h] ftldks lqudj eSus nLr[kr fd;sA dkxt la0 [email protected] ij esjs gLrk{kj gSA bl izn'kZ d&1 Mkyk x;kA rgjhjh fjiksVZ dks ys tkdj 'kkg pkSdh ij fn;kA** He further stated that "eSus eqyfteku dks eksVj lkbZfdy ij vkrs gq;s 20]22 dne ls ns[k fy;k FkkA e`rd gels 10]12 dne nwj FkkA eqyfteku us vyx&vyx Qk;j fd;sA t; flag us nf{k.k dh vksj ls e`rd ij Qk;j fd;kA eS e`rd ds iwjc rjQ FkkA e`rd dk eqWg mRrj iwjc dh vksj FkkA t; flag }kjk fd;k x;k Qk;j e`rd dh ihB ij yxkA e`rd o t; flag ds chp yxHkx nks dne dk Qklyk FkkA Qk;j yxus ij eqag ds cy fxjkA He further stated that "igys Qk;j ij e`rd ftUnk FkkA fpYyk;k Fkk] nwljs Qk;j ds ckn ugh fpYYkk;kA og ej pqdk FkkA mlds ckn rhljk Qk;j gqvkA ?kVuk ds le; eS] jkeizrki] xqykc] f'koI;kjh] eksgu yky FksA f'koI;kjh e`rd ls 10]12 dne nwj gksxhA e`rd ds 'kjhj ls [kwu fxjk Fkk tks diMs ij yxdj o tehu ij fxjk FkkA e`rd ds ejus ds ckn f'koI;kjh e`rd ds ikl tc igqWph rc eqyfteku pys x;s FksA f'koI;kjh Hkh vius ifr dh yk'k ls fyiVh FkhA f'ko I;kjh ds diM+s ij fyiVus ds dkj.k [kwu yx x;k FkkA eS yk'k ls fyiVk FkkA esjs Hkh diM+ksa ij [kwu yx x;k FkkA ogh diM+s igus eS Fkkus x;k FkkA f'koI;kjh Fkkus ugh x;hA eSus crk;k Fkk fd gekjs diM+ksa ij Hkh [kwu yxk gSA ysfdu njksxk th us diMs+ gekjs ugh fy;sA thi esa ykbZV dh jks'kuh FkhA jkr dh otg ls iapk;rukek rS;kj ugh gqvkA** He further stated that **njksxk th nwljs fnu lqcg lk<+s vkB cts xkao vk;s FksA e`rd dh yk'k tSls jkr esa iM+h Fkh mlh rjg lqcg rd iMh jghA yk'k dh fy[kk i<+h nwljs fnu njksxk th us dh FkhA nwljs fnu njksxk th yxHkx lok ukS cts rd lqcg ekSds ij jgsA njskxk th us jkr eas fy[kk FkkA** He further stated that "tks igyh xksyh t;flag us jke cgknqj dks ekjh og mlds ihB esa yxhA jke cgknqj ds ihB dh rjQ ls xksyh ekjh x;h FkhA vkSj og eqag ds cy fxjk Fkk fQj lh/kk gks x;k FkkA tc e`rd dh ihB esa xksyh yxh ml le; mldk eqag mRrj iwjc ds dksus dh rjQ FkkA xksyh nks dne nwj ls ekjk FkkA rhuksa Qk;j nks dne dh nwjh ls gq;s FksA"

Shiv Pyari, who is the wife of the deceased and also the eye witness has been examined as PW-3 and in her statement she stated that "eqfYteku gkftj vnkyr vej flag] t;falag o n;kjke dks ?kVuk ds igys ls tkurh igpkurh gWw eqyfte n;kjke esjs xkao dk jgus okyk gSA eqfYte t;flag xzke xq<+ksjk dk jgus okyk gS tks orZeku le; esa [kq'koar jk; 'kgj dks gh esa jgrk gS rFkk vej flag Hkh xq<+ksjk dk jgus okyk gS rFkk bl le; [kq'koar jk; 'kgj esa jgrk gSA

e`rd Lo0 jke cgknqj mQZ jke vkSrkj esjs irh Fks ?kVuk ds igys ls esjs irh o eqfYteku vej flag o t; flag ls tehu ds lEcU/k eas jft'k Fkh ftl tehu ds okor jaft'k Fkh og IykV dh tehu Fkh eqfYteku t;flag o vej flag o esjs irh tehu ds IykV cukdj csaprs FksA eqyfteku t;flag o vej flag esjs irh ls yM+rs FksA rqeus T;knk tehu csap fy;k gS esjs irh ls 80 gtkj #i;s dh ekWx djrs FksA ftls esjs irh us nsus dks bUdkj fd;k blh ij esjs irh o eqfYteku ls jaft'k FkhA eqfYte n;kjke] t;flag o eqyfte vej flag dk esyh gSA

?kVuk 4 tqykbZ lu~ 2003 le; 6 o lok Ng cts 'kke dh gS ?kVuk ds le; vius IykV eas Fkh esjs lkFk jke [ksykou] jke izrki] lksgu yky o xqykc Hkh ekStwn FksA esjs irh Lo0 jke cgknqj ojdr flag ds HkB~Bs esa bZVk dk iSlk tk djus x;s Fks ogkW ls tek djds VSEiksa ls okil ykSVdj IykV dh rjQ tk jgs Fks vkSj gels iwWNk fd ekSjax o bZVk dke gks x;k mls bdB~Bk dj fn;k fd rHkh ,d eksVj lkbZfdy ls nf{k.k fn'kk ls gkftj vnkyr eqfYteku vk;sA eksVj lkbfdy jksM ds fdukjs [kMh+ fd;k vkSj mrj dj vk;s vkSj rhuksa eksVj lkbZfdy ls mrj dj esjs ifr dh rjQ vk;s vkSj t; flag us igys esjs irh dks ihNs ls xksyh ekj fn;k esjs irh eqag ds cy fpYykrs gq;s fxj iMs+ fQj rqjUr rM+irs gq;s fpr gks x;s rc eqyfte vej flag us reaps ls xksyh ekj nh ftldh xksyh esjs irh dh Nkrh esa yxh rhljh Qk;j t;flag us fd;k tks psgjs es yxh] eqyfte n;kjke us dgk pyks dke gks x;k gSA eqfYteku ;g /kedh nsrs gq;s pys x;s fd vxj fdlh us gekjs f[kykQ xokgh fn;k rks mldk Hkh ;gh gky gksxk vkSj ;g dgrs gq, gkFkksa esa reapk fy;s gq, Qrsgiqj dh rjQ pys x;sA** She further stated that ";g Hkh dguk xyr gS fd ?kVuk ds nwljs fnu lqcg eS u jgh gWw vkSj u yk'k ugh gksA eS vius ifr dks vius tku ls T;knk pkgrh Fkh eS vius ifr ds lkFk ckrphr dj jgh Fkh eq>ls 10&12 dne nwjh ij esjs ifr FksA ,d gh txg ij eS rFkk esjk ifr ckr ugh dj jgs FksA esjs ifr ?kVuk ds le; 10&12 dne fd nwjh ij vkdj [kMs+ gks x;s rFkk iwNus yxsA

ifr dks tc eSus ifgys igy ns[kk rks ifr eq>ls 10&12 dne nwjh ij if'pe nf{k.k fn'kk esa FksA ,d nks feuV yxHkx mlh LFkku ij [kMs+ gks x;sA

eksVj lkbfdy dks 20&22 dne nwjh ij igyh ckj ns[kk FkkA tgkW ij eSus ns[kk ogh ij eksVj lkbZfdy [kM+h gks x;hA vkSj eqfYtekuksa dks eksVj lkbZfdy [kM+h djrs le; ns[k fy;kA rc mrj dj esjs vkneh ds rjQ tkus yxs rc eS le> x;h fd fu;r [kjkc gSA

tc eq>s le{k Eksa vk;k fd eqfYtekuksa fd fu;r [kjkc gS rc ml okor eqfYteku eq>ls 10&15 dne dh nwjh nf{k.k fn'kk esa Fks ml le; eqfYtekuksa ls esjs ifr nks rhu dne nwj nf{k.k fn'kk esa Fks eS ugh crk ldrh fd eqfYteku ml LFkku ls fdrus dne pydj Qk;j fd;k Qk;j yxrs gh esjk vkneh tehu esa fxj x;k fxjus ds ifgys eqfYtekuksa us dqy rhu xksyh esjs ifr dks ekjs FksA esjk ifr eaqg ds cy fxjk FkkA ftlds ckn eqfYteku us esjs ifr ds Åij nks xksyh ekjh FkhA** She further stated that "eq>s ;g tkudkjh ugh gS fd IykfVax ds vykok gekjs ifr ds ikl dekus dk vkSj dksbZ tfj;k ugh gSA 10&12 lky ls ge ifr ifRu ds :i eas jgrs FksA t; flag us tehu ds lEcU/k esa ?kVuk ds igys esjs ifr ds fo:) ,d eqdnek nkf[ky fd;k Fkk ftles vej flag Hkh 'kkfey FksA"

Dr. N.K. Saxena, who had conducted the postmortem on the body of deceased, has been examined as PW-4 and he found the following injuries on the body of the deceased;

"fn0 5-7-03 dks 'ko foPNsnu x`g esa fpfdRlkf/kdkjh ds :i esa esjh M~;wVh FkhA ml fnu e`rd jke cgknqj lfork mez yxHkx 58 o"kZ iq= Jh Hkqb;knhu fu0 xzke enfjekiqj Fkkuk xkthiqj ftyk Qrsgiqj ds 'ko dks loZ eqgj gkyr esa ,l0vks0 Fkkuk xkthiqj us Hkstk Fkk ftldh f'kuk[r dka0 ua0 709 f'kokth flag Fkkuk xkthiqj ftyk Qrsgiqj us dh Fkh tks 'ko dks yk, FksA 'ko dk foPNsnu mDr fnukad 3 ih0,e0 ij eSus fd;k FkkA

ckg~; ijh{k.k

e`R;q ds i'pkr dh vdM+u mijh fgLls tk pqdh Fkh ,oa fupys fgLls esa dkxt QVk FkhA nkfguh vkW[k [kqyh Fkh] ck;h vkW[k rFkk eqWg cUn FksA

e`R;q iwoZ vk;h pksVsa

1& vkXus;kL= dk izos'k ?kko ukd eas nkfguh vksj nkfguh uFkqus ds fUkpys fgLls ls 2-5 ls-eh- mij FkkA rFkk nkfguh vkW[k ds vUnj ds dks.k ls ,d ls0eh0 uhps Fkk ftldh uki 1-5 ls0eh0 1 ls0eh0 xqgk dh xgjkbZ rd FkkA tyu cfuaZx ekStwn Fkh rFkk ?kko ds pkjks rjQ [kjkl ds fu'kku FksA

2& vkXus;kL= ds fudkl dk ?kko nkfguh [kksiM+h esa ihNs dh vksj nkfgus dku ls 7 ls0eh0 ihNs dh rjQ tks 6 ls0eh0 5 ls0eh0 dwi rd xgjk Fkk ftlds fdukjs ckgj dh rjQ Fks tks pksV ua01 ls laca) FkhA

3& vkXus;kL= izos'k dk ?kko ihB ij ck;h rjQ ck;s i[kkSjs ds fupys dks.k ls 5 ls0eh0 uhps FkkA ftldk lkbTk 1 ls0eh0 dwi rd xgjk Fkk ftlesa cfuZax ekStwn FkhA ?kko ds fdukjs [kjkl ekStwn FkhA

4& vkXus;kL= ds fudkl dk ?kko nkfgus lhus esa nkfgus fuiwy ls 4-5 ls0eh0 vUnj dh rjQ Fkk tks 3 ls0eh0 2 ls0eh0 dwi rd xgjk Fkk ftlds fdukjs ckgj dh vksj FksA ;g pksV] pksV ua03 ls lac) FkhA

5& vkXus;kL= ds ?kqlus dk ?kko lhus esa ck;h rjQ ck;s fuiqy ls 6 ls0eh0 uhps o ckgj dh rjQ Fkk tks pkj cts dh fLFkfr esa FkkA ftldk lkbt 1 ls0eh0 1 ls0eh0 dwi rd xgjk FkkA ml ij cfUkZax ekStwn FkhA ?kko ds fdukjs ij [kjkl ekStwn FkhA

6& vkXus;kL= ds fudkl dk ?kko ck;s lhus ij ck;s fuiqy ls 7 ls0eh0 uhps 6 cts dh fLFkfr esa Fkk tks 3 ls0eh0 2 ls0eh0 dwi rd xgjk Fkk tks pksV ua05 ls lac) Fkk vkSj mlds fdukjs ckgj dh vksj FksA

vkWrfjd ijh{k.k

ukd ds nkfgus rjQ dh gM~Mh VwVh gq;h FkhA rFkk f'kj ds ihNs dh rjQ dh gM~Mh VwVh FkhA (sic) o efLRk"d QVk gqvk FkkA 'kj ds csl dh nkfguh chp ¼e/;½ dh tsfu;y dkslk dh vkxs o ihNs dh nhokj VwVh FkhA rFkk ihNs dh tsfu;y dkslk vkxs o ihNs dh nhoky Hkh VwVh FkhA nkfguh nwljh] rhljh pkSFkh o ikWpoh ilfy;kW VwVh FkhA ck;s rjQ dh 3] 4 o 5 oha ilfy;kW VwVh FkhA Iywjk nksuks] QsQM+s nksuks] ds Åij dh f>Yyh ,oa g`n; QVs gq;s FksA cPN dwi esa 1500 ,e0,y0 jDr ekStwn FkkA nkWr [email protected] FkssA vkekl; esa 250 ,e0,y0 ipk gqvk v/kZ rjy inkFkZ ekStwn FkkA NksVh vkWr esa isLV tSlk [kk| inkFkZ ,oa xSl txg txg ekStwn FkhA cMh vkWr esa ey o xS'k txg txg ekStwn FkhA fiRrkl; vk/kk Hkjk FkkA yhoj] fRkYyh ,oa nksuks xqnsZ Qsy FksA is'kkc dh FkSyh vkaf'kd :i ls Hkjh FkhA

esjh jk; esa e`rd dh e`R;q] e`R;q iwoZ igWqpk;h x;h vkXus;kL= ls gq;s jDr lzko o lnek ds dkj.k gq;h FkhA e`rd dh e`R;q yxHkx ,d fnu iwoZ gq;h FkhA

'ko ls isaV ,d] 'kVZ ,d] cfu;k;u ,d] vUMj fo;j ,d] lQsn /kkxk esa :nzk{k] lQsn /kkrq dk NYyk] ,d csYV dqy lkr oLrq;s dCts esa fy;k Fkk vkSj mudks loZ eqgj o lhy eqgj djds 'ko ykus okys flikgh dks ns fn;k FkkA

'ko foPNsnu vk[;k eSus ojoDr 'ko foPNsnu vius ys[k o gLrk{kj esa rS;kj fd;k Fkk tks 'kkfey fef'ky dkxt ls 14v gS o esjs lkeus gS ftldh eSa iqf"V djrk gwWA bl ij izn'kZ d&2 Mkyk x;kA

e`rd dh e`R;q vkXus;kL= elyu reapk ls fn0 4-7-03 dks 6-15 cts 'kke dks gksuk laHko gSA 'ko foPNsnu vk[;k esa mfYyf[kr e`R;q iwoZ pksVs izd`fr ds lkekU; vuqdze esa e`R;q dkfjr djus ds fy, i;kZIr gSA"

Vimal Singh (Sub Insptector) has been examined as PW-5 who had prepared the panchnama of the deceased, namely, Ram Bahadur and in his statement he stated that "fn0 4-07-03 dks tc es pkSdh ls vU; iqfyl QkslZ ds lkFk pyk mlds iUnzg feuV ckn eS ?kVukLFky ij igqWp x;k FkkA blds ckn ?kVukLFky ij ge yksx djhc ,d ?kaVk rd #ds jgsA bl ,d ?kaVk esa ge yksx e`rd dks xksyh ekjus okyks dks irk djrs jgs rFkk ifjokj okyksa ls iwNrkN djrs jgsA blds ckn [kq'koar jk; uxj eqyfte vej flag ds ?kj vk;s vkSj mlds ?kj ds vanj ryk'kh fy;kA vej flag ds ?kj djhc lk s fn;k gksA"

Sri K.B. Singh, who is the Station Officer of P.S. Bhalva, District Fatehpur and is also the Investigating Officer of the present case, has been examined as PW-6 who in his statement stated that "eS fn0 4-7-03 dks Fkkuk/;{k xkthiqj ds in ij dk;Zjr FkkA ml fnu eS vius gejkgh dk0 eks0 vlye o pkyd cnu flag ds lkFk ljdkjh thi ls Fkkuk {ks= ds xkao iejkSyh i[kjkSyh o 'kkg eksgEen dk Hkze.k djrs gq;s pkSdh 'kkg ds lkeus igqWp dj btgkj [kSafj;r ysrs le; xzke enfj;kiqj esa gR;k gksus dh lwpuk izkIr gq;h ,oa ?kVuk ls lEcaf/kr eq0v0la0 [email protected] /kkjk 302 vkbZ0ih0lh0 34 o 504 vkbZ0ih0lh0 dh udy fpd o udy jiV izkIr gq;hA oknh eqdnek Jh jke [ksykou iq= jkes'oj lfork fu0 enfj;kiqj Fkkuk xkthiqj Qrsgiqj pkSdh ds lkeus feykA ftldks ?kVuk ds lEca/k esa c;ku ysus ds mijkUr pkSdh bapktZ ,l0vkbZ0 Jh foey flag o pkSdh ds flikgh lquh'k dqekj] gqdqe flag o thrsUnz dqekj dks e; oknh dks lkFk ysdj cgn xzke enfj;kiqj Qrsgiqj ckank ekxZ enfj;kiqj eksM+ ?kVukLFky ij igqWpsA tgkW gfj'kadj yks/k ds edku ds lkeus e`rd jke cgknqj dh yk'k iM+h FkhA VkpZ dh jks'kuh esa ns[kk x;k rks ygwyqgku yk'k ds ikl nks [kks[kk dkjrwl iMs+ FksA nks [kks[ks dkjrwl bl 315 cksj ds FksA yk'k ls vyx gVdj e`rd dh iRuh o ifjokj ds yksx fcy[k jgs FksA ogkW ij ,d f pkSdh 'kkg ls cqyk;k x;k vkj{kh dk0 f'kokth flag }kjk yk;s x;s iapk;rukek ftYn dks ,l0vkbZ0 Jh foey dqekj flag dks nsdj iapk;rukek dh dk;Zokgh esjh ekStwnxh esa ,l0vkbZ0 foey dqekj flag }kjk dh x;h FkhA ftl ij eSus vius gLrk{kj cuk;s FksA iapk;rukek izn'kZ d& 3 dks ns[kdj xokg us dgk bl ij esjs gLrk{kj gSA** He further stated that "eS fQj pkSdh 'kkg igqWpk vkSj iapk;rukek ds xokgku ,l0vkbZ0 foey dqekj flag ds c;ku fd;s rFkk dk0 f'kokth flag dk c;ku fy;kA blds i'pkr xzke vFkg esa cjdr flag ds HkV~Bs ij igqWp dj equhe Jh Qrsg cgknqj flag dk c;ku fy;kA rFkk equhe us e`rd }kjk fn0 4&07&03 dks ikWp gtkj :i;s tek fd;s tkus dh jlhn dh Nk;kizfr fn;kA equhe us crk;k fd e`rd ml fnu :i;s tek djus ds ckn 'kke lk H.C. 3 Mohd. Sayyaddin has been examined as PW-7 and who is also the witness of the recovered tamancha.

Constable no. 241 Akhilesh Tripathi has been examined as PW-8 who is also the writer of chik and G.D. and Sub Inspector Warija Lal has been examined as PW-9 before the trial court and they have supported the case of the prosecution.

Statements of the accused, namely, Amar Singh, Jai Singh and Daya Ram under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded on 26.7.2006 respectively.

Reliance has also been placed in the statement of accused Jai Singh recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein in response to question no. 4 he replied that "eqdnek pyk Fkk] 'ks"k xyr gSA"

Accused-appellants in their defence has examined the three witnesses, namely, Bajrang as DW-1, Jageshwar as DW-2, and Ganesh Prasad as DW-3 before the trial court.

DW-1 Bajrang has totally denied the prosecution version and in his statement he stated that "esjs [ksr gjh'kadj yks/k ds edku ds lkeus Qrsgiqj cgqvk jksM ¼ckank lkxj jksM½ ds if'pe yxs gq;s gSA esjs [ksrksa esa mRrj yxk gqvk esjs xkWo ds Jh ds'ku ukbZ dk V~;wcosy gSA gjh'kadj yks/k ds edku ds mRrj jkecgknqj dk IykV gSA ;g IykV esjs [ksr ls fn[kkbZ nsrk gSA vkt ls djhc rhu lky dqN fnu gq;s jkr esa jkecgknqj dks fdlh us xksyh ekjus dh ckr eSus ?kj esa jkr esa djhc 9&10 cts lquh FkhA ml fnu eS fnu esa 9&10 cts vius [ksrksa esa /kku yxokus ds fy;s ikuh yxkus o yso djus x;k FkkA ml fnu eSus vius [ksr esa 'kke vkB cts rd dke fd;k FkkA bl chp eS dgha x;k ugh FkkA vkB cts 'kke ds ckn ?kj x;k FkkA fnu eas ml fnu jkecgknqj ds IykV esa o gjh'kadj yks/k ds edku ds cxy esa tc ls eS [ksr x;k rc ls tc rd ?kj okil ugh x;k rc rd ogkW ij eSus vius xkao ds jke [ksykou] jke izrki] lksgu yky] xqykc o jkecgknqj dh vksj vkSjr dks ugh ns[kk u ;s yksx ogkW ekStwn FksA vkSj u gh eSus dksbZ ogkW ij xksyh ;kuh Qk;j dh vkokt lquh vkSj u gh vkB cts 'kke rd jke cgknqj dks xksyh gh ekjh x;hA vkSj u gh vkB cts 'kke rd dksbZ yk'k gh iM+h ns[khA"

DW-2 Jageshwar in his statement stated that "lR;oku dksjh esjs xkao esa jkecgknqj ds ?kj vDlj vkrk tkrk FkkA mldk vkuk tkuk jke cgknqj dks vPNk ugh yxrk FkkA blh ckr dks ysdj esjs lkeus dbZ ckj jkecgknqj o lR;oku dksjh ds chp >xM+k gqvk FkkA ftl jkr jkecgknqj dh yk'k feyh Fkh ml fnu lR;oku dksjh xkao enfj;kiqj vk;k FkkA rc fnu esa 10&11 cts esjs lkeus jke cgkqnj o lR;oku dksjh ds chp >xM+k gqvk Fkk ftldk eSus chp cpko djk fn;k FkkA lR;oku dksjh jke cgknqj ds ?kj vDlj vkrk FkkA jke cgknqj ,rjkt djrk FkkA blh ckr dks ysdj >xM+k vDlj gqvk djrk FkkA jkecgknqj dh e`R;q ds ckn Hkh lR;oku xkao vkrk tkrk FkkA"

As far as the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellants that the FIR is anti-timed and in fact no investigation was done on the date of alleged incident has been strongly refuted by the learned A.G.A.

Reliance has also been placed on the Nakal Rapat no. 18 which is Exhibit-K-5 and the same reads as follows:-

"udy jiV jkst0 vke jiV ua0 18 le; 20-35 fn0 4-7-2003 ih0 'kkg ih0,l0 xkthiqj] QrsgiqjA

vkxeu vxUrqdx.k o nkf[kyk ,d vnn rgjhj o dk;eh eq0v0la0 [email protected] /kkjk [email protected]@34 vkbZ0ih0lh0 7 fdz ykW ves.MesUV ,DVA

bl le; Jh jke [ksykou ,[email protected] jkes'oj lfork [email protected] xzke enfj;kiqj ,[email protected] dsobZ ih0,l0 xkthiqj Qrsgiqj e; gejkgh xqykc flag ,[email protected] tkxs'oj o jke izdk'k ,[email protected] Hkqb;knhu fuoklhx.k xzke enfj;kiqj ,[email protected] dsobZ ih0,l0 enfj;kiqj Qrsgiqj mifLFkr pkSdh vkdj fgUnh fyf[kr o nLr[krh Lo;a ds o ys[kd jke izdk'k ,[email protected] Hkqb;knhu [email protected] xzke enfj;kiqj ,[email protected] dsobZ ih0,l0 xkthiqj Qrsgiqj izk0i= ckcr Lo;a ds ppsjs HkkbZ jke cgknqj ,[email protected] Hkqb;knhu [email protected] mijksDr tehuh fookn o iSls ysu nsu ds fookn ysdj xksyh] reapksa ls ekjdj gR;k dj nsuk o tku ls ekjus dh /kedh nsdj Hk; O;kIr djuk lEcU/k nkf[ky fd;k fd nkf[kyk rgjhj ds vk/kkj ij tfj;s vkj0Vh0lsV dzekad iwNdj ofljkgr fpd n0iq0ua0 [email protected] eq0v0la0 [email protected] fdrk dj /kkjk [email protected]@34 vkbZ0ih0lh0 o rkjh[k ?kVuk 4-7-03 le; 6-15 cts 'kke o lwpuk jiV gktk izpfyr dk;eh ?kVukLFky gfj'kadj yks/k ds edku ds ikl ogn xzke enfj;kiqj ckQklyk djhc 4 fdeh0 mRrj fn'kkA ceqn~nS;r Jh jke [ksykou mijksDr cuke ¼1½ t; flag ,[email protected] vKkr [email protected] [kq'koUrjk; uxj ih0,l0 dksrokyh Qrsgiqj ¼2½ vej flag iVsy ,[email protected] dsoy izlkn [email protected] xzke xksnojk ih0,l0 fd'kuiqj Qrsgiqj gky irk [kq'koUrjk; uxj ih0,l0 dksrokyh Qrsgiqj ¼3½ n;kjke yks/k ,[email protected] fNn~nw [email protected] enfj;kiqj ,[email protected] dsobZ ih0,l0 xkthiqj Qrsgiqj crQrh'kh vfHk;ksx ,l0vks0 dqWoj cgknqj flag Fkkuk xkthiqj Qrsgiqj iathd`r fd;k x;k] Msyh tjk;e jokuk gksxh rdehyk rdehyk lEcfU/kr jftLVªku fd;k tkosxk] tfj;s vkj0Vh0 lsV lwpuk vQljku ckyk nh x;h] pwafd le; ukoDr gksus dkj.k iapk;rukek dk;Zokgh izkr% dh tkosxhA bl lwpuk ij eS ,l0vkbZ0 foey dqekj flag vUnj ekyx`g ls ,d tjc fjokYoj o dkjrwl ysdj e; gejkgh deZ0x.k dka0 617 gqdqe flag dka0 286 lquhy dqekj dka0 184 ftrsUnz flag ,d&,d tjc jkbQy o dkjrwl fnykdj e; gejkgh Fkkuk/;{k egksn; tks fd pkSdh gktk ij ekStwn gS udy fpd udy jiV ysdj ?kVuk LFky ij e; vkxUrqdx.k jokuk gqvkA vkxUrqdx.k iBuh; dkcZu dkih fpd lqiqnZ fd;k x;kA rkyk eky x`g can Bhd lUrjh izgjk fn[kk;k x;k pkHkh iwoZor ikl dka0eq0 gS ,l0vkj0 rS;kj dj izkr% jokuk fd;k tkosxkA pwafd le; ukoDr gS pktZ pkSdh ctqEes vQlj ekrgr fd;k x;kA

ftYn iapk;rukek vU; dkxtkr Hkh fy;s x;sA"

We find that the evidence of Ram Khelawan PW-2 and Shiv Pyari PW-3 who is the wife of the deceased is consistent and their presence at the place of occurrence cannot be disputed. The injuries as shown and the statement of the doctor the same being Dr. N.K. Saxena who has examined as PW-4 corroborates the case of the prosecution as set up in the FIR itself with regard to the nature and site of injuries. Similarly PW-5 S.I. Vimal Singh and PW-6 Sri K.B. Singh has also supported the case of the prosecution.

It may also be appreciated that there is laches on the part of the investigating agency, however, if we look at the law as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of State of MP v. Brij 2005 (2) Crimes 300 (DB) (MP) with regard to the defective investigation, if any, wherein it has been held as follows:

"In the presence of sufficient ocular and medical evidence, acquittal is not proper only if the investigation is defective. In the matter of defective investigation, the Court should be circumspect in evaluation the evidence but the prosecution case cannot be rejected on that ground."

Similarly in the case of Allarakha K. Mansuri v. State of Gujarat, 2002(1) Crimes 322, AIR 2002 SC 1051 wherein it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that "Defective investigation by itself cannot be made a ground for acquitting the accused." The same view has been expressed in the case of Ram Bali v. State of U.P. 2004(2) Crimes 493; AIR 2004 SC 2329 wherein it has been held that "in a case of defective investigation, Court has to be circumspect in evaluating the evidence."

In the case of State of W.B. v. Mir Mohammad Omar, 2000 (4) Crimes 1: AIR 2000 SC 2988 wherein it has been held by Hon'ble Apex Court that "Castigation of investigation unfortunately seems to be a regular practice when the trial courts acquit accused in criminal cases. In our perception it is almost impossible to come across a single case wherein the investigation was conducted completely flawless or absolutely foolproof. The function of the criminal courts should not be wasted in picking out the lapses in investigation and by expressing unsavoury criticism against investigating officers. If offenders are acquitted only on account of flaws or defects in investigation, the cause of criminal justice becomes the victim. Effort should be made by courts to see that criminal justice is salvaged despite such defects in investigation."

Similarly it has been held in the case of State of U.P. v. Hari Mohan, 2000(4) Crims 234: AIR 2000 SC 3157 that "Defective investigation cannot be made a basis for acquitting the accused if despite such defects and failures of the investigation a case is made out against all the accused or any one of them."

A reference has also been made to the case of State of Karnataka v. K. Yarappa Reddy wherein the Hon'ble Apex court has held that "It can be a guiding principle that as investigation is not the solitary area for judicial scrutiny in a criminal trial, the conclusion of the court in the case cannot be allowed to depend solely on the probity of investigation. It is well nigh settled that even if the investigation is illegal or even suspicious the rest of evidence must be scrutinized independently of the impact of it. Otherwise criminal trial will plummet to that level of the investigating officers ruling the roost. The Court must have predominance and pre-eminence in criminal trials over the action taken by investigating officers. Criminal justice should not be made the casually for the wrongs committed by the investigating officers in the case. In other words, if the court is convinced that the testimony of a witness to the occurrence is true the court is free to act on it albeit investigating officer's suspicious role in the case." The said judgment has been relied upon in the case of V.K. Mishra v. State of Uttarakhand 2015 (9) SCC 606.

It may further be appreciated that even the defence witness Bajrang has admitted that on the date of incident it was a dark night and thus it is apparent that in view of the absence of light the actual punchayatnama was done on the next day in the morning since it was not possible to carry out the investigation in the darkness. The empty cartridge was also recovered and taken into possession on the next day. However, merely on account of some laches on the part of the investigating agency the entire prosecution story could not be disbelieved.

The court below while going through the evidence has rightly concluded that "lk{kh&1 ctjax vius izfrijh{k.k esa ;g Lohdkj djrk gS fd ?kVuk okyh jkr va/ksjh FkhA bl lk{kh dk [ksr e`rd ds IykV ds ikl gh crk;k x;k gSA blds vfrfjDr foospd] lk{kh ,o iapk;rukes ds ys[kd vfHk;kstu lk{kh&5 us Hkh vius lk{; ds i`"B&7 ij ;g dFku fd;k gS fd ?kVuk okyh jkr va/ksjh FkhA bl izdkj vfHk;kstu i{k ,oa cpko i{k nksuks ds gh lk{; ls ;g Li"V gksrk gS fd ?kVuk okyh jkr va/ksjh jkr FkhA vfHk;kstu lk{kh&5 blh dze esa vkxs dFku djrk gS fd ekSds ij izdk'k dh O;oLFkk u gksus ds dkj.k ge yksxksa us iapk;rukes dh dk;Zokgh ugha dh FkhA ekSds ij ykyVsu ty jgh FkhA thi eksVjlkbZfdy dh ykbV esa iapk;rukek ugha Hkjk tk ldrk FkkA blh izdkj vfHk;kstu lk{kh&6 foospd us Hkh eq[; ijh{k.k esa crk;k gS fd i;kZIr izdk'k dh O;oLFkk u gksus ds dkj.k iapk;rukek vkfn dh dk;Zokgh lqpk: :i ls laHko u gksus dh fLFkfr esa ml fnu dk;Zokgh ugh gqbZ FkhA ekSds ij nks [kks[kk dkjrwl mlus VkpZ dh jks'kuh esa ns[kk FkkA mlds }kjk [kks[kk dkjrwl dCts eas ml fnu ugha fy;k x;k fdUrq mlus ?kVukLFky dh lqj{kk ds fy;s dk0 lquhy dqekj vkSj ftrsUnz dqekj dks ekSds ij gh jksd fn;k FkkA tSlk foospd lk{kh dFku djrk gSA pwafd ekSds ij foospuk dh vU; dksbZ dk;Zokgh va/ksjs ds dkj.k ml fnu ugh dh x;h vkSj vfHk;qDrx.k dh fxjQ~rkjh ds fy;s foospd pys x;sA blfy;s [kks[kk dkjrwl Hkh dCts eas ml fnu ugha fy;k x;k vkSj nwljs fnu dCts essa ysdj bldh QnZ cuk;h x;hA blls ;g ugha dgk tk ldrk fd [kks[ks dks ckn esa ekSds ij c<+k fn;k x;k gS D;kasfd rgjhj izn'kZ d&1 esa ;g mYys[k gS fd ekSds ij nks [kks[kk dkjrwl iMs+ gSA foospd ds vuqlkj va/ksjs ds dkj.k ekSds ij mlh fnu QnZ bR;kfn u cuk;k tkuk foospd dh ykijokgh dgk ldrk gSA blds vfrfjDr nwljs fnu iapk;rukesa dh dk;Zokgh nsj ls izkjEHk djuk Hkh iqfyl dh mis{kk dgk tk ldrk gS fdUrq blls lEiw.kZ vfHk;kstu dFkkud dks frjLd`r ugha fd;k tk ldrkA"

Thus after going through the entire evidence on record we find that the presence of the deceased at the place of occurrence cannot be disputed, there is a prompt FIR. Moreover, the presence of the eye witnesses can also not be disputed as they are natural witnesses and their presence at the spot was very apparent and could be easily explained. The statements of PW-2 Ram Khelawan and PW-3 Shiv Pyari who were the eye witnesses are consistent with each other as well as with the postmortem report.

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and also keeping in view the well discussed findings recorded by the court below, to which no perversity can be attributed, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the judgment and order dated 22.08.2006 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 1, Fatehpur in Session Trial Nos. 569 of 2003 and 570 of 2003 arising out of case crime nos. 137 of 2003 and 139 of 2003 and accordingly, the same is affirmed. Both the two appeals are dismissed. Consequences to follow. No order as to costs.

Let a copy of the order be placed on record in connected Criminal Appeal No. 5089 of 2006.

A copy of the order be communicated to the CJM concerned for onward compliance.

Order Date :-11.7.2016

Anand