Allahabad High Court
Siri And Others vs State Of U.P. on 13 May, 2025
Author: Vivek Kumar Birla
Bench: Vivek Kumar Birla
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:75980-DB Reserved on 11.04.2025 Delivered on 13.05.2025 Court No. - 43 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1333 of 1984 Appellant :- Siri And Others Respondent :- State of U.P. Counsel for Appellant :- H.M. Tripathi,Keshav Sahai,P.M.N. Singh,Prem Shankar Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- A.G.A. Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J.
Hon’ble Praveen Kumar Giri,J.
1. Heard Shri Prem Shankar Sharma, learned counsel for the accused appellants, Shri Ghanshyam Kumar learned A.G.A.-I for the State-respondent and perused the record.
2. We proceed to hear the appeal on behalf of surviving appellant No.1- Siri s/o Manroop, appellant No.4- Munakka s/o Manroop, appellant No.5- Misri s/o Manroop and appellant No.7- Ram Gahan. Except appellant No.7- Ram Gahan, the other three surviving appellants have been arrested and confined to jail and recall application is pending for recall of order dated 22.01.2025.
3. The present appeal has been filed against the order and judgment dated 11.05.1984 passed by Shri D.C. Verma Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Varanasi, in Sessions Trial No.254 of 1982 wherein the Trial Court has convicted the accused-appellants and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 302/149 IPC and further six months rigorous imprisonment under Section 323/149 IPC for causing hurt to Mittu and six months rigorous imprisonment under Section 323/149 IPC for causing hurt to Sheo and further sentenced the appellant Siri to under rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 148 IPC and further convicted the other appellants Lalta, Kunwar, Munakka, Misri, Sheo Kumar and Ram Gahan and Lalji and sentenced them under Section 147 IPC to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment each and directed that all the sentences of each accused would run concurrently.
4. The prosecution case is that P.W.-1 Mittu Yadav (informant) and Murat (deceased) are cousin brothers. There is an old litigation and enmity between Murat and the accused persons. On 06.08.1978 at about 4:00 P.M., PW-1 Mittu Yadav and Murat (deceased) were returning back from their agricultural field to their houses. When they reached near a brick-kiln, near the main road, PW-1 saw the accused persons standing near the brick-kiln. Accused Siri was armed with a ballam and all the other accused persons including one Manna were standing there with lathis in their hands. All the nine accused persons and Manna were talking with each other. When PW-1 Mittu and Murat reached near the accused persons, accused Vijai Narain Singh exhorted other accused persons stating that what are you looking at, kill these two bastards, on this, all the accused persons’ started beating Murat (deceased) and Mittu P.W.-1. PW-2 Sheo and PW-3 Moti were grazing their cattle near the brick-kiln and on hearing the loud noise they reached on the spot. Vikrama, Sheonath also reached there. Moti and Sheo intervened to save Murat and Mittu. Mittu wielded lathi in self-defence. The accused persons caused injuries to Mittu, Murat, Sheo (PW-2) and Moti (PW-3). Thereafter treating Murat to be dead, the accused persons ran-away from the spot.
5. The incident took place on 06.08.1978 at 4.00 PM and on the same date at 05:30 P.M. on the basis of written report (Ex.Ka-1) submitted by Informant- Mittu Yadav, the first information report was registered as Case Crime No. 136 of 1982 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 324, 323, 307 IPC at Police Station- Saiyadraja, District- Varanasi against 10 accused persons namely, Siri, Lalta, Kunwar, Munakka, Misri, Sheo Kumar, Ram Gahan, Lalji, Vijay Narain and Manna but on the death of injured Murat, it was converted into Section 302 IPC.
6. The distance of police station from the place of incident is about 5 miles and the F.I.R. was registered promptly on the same date at 05:30 P.M. The Check Report Ex. Ka-7 was prepared by H.C. Chandrahas Singh ( P.W.-7) and an entry was made in G.D. No.22 (Ex.Ka-8).
7. PW-6 Dr. S.C. Pandey was posted as Medical Officer at P.H.C. Chandauli, Varanasi on 06.08.78. PW-6 examined the injuries of Murat Yadav at 6:35 P.M. and found the following injuries on his body: –
1. Incised wound 4cm x 1cm x 0.5cm on inner side of the left leg 7cm below the knee joint.
2. Contusion 10cm x 2.5cm on left side of chest 8 cm below the nipple.
3. Lacerated wound 5cm x 1cm x 0.5cm deep on forehead 8 cm above the nose.
4. Abrasion 1cm x 1cm on right side of the back just above the waist line.
8. In the opinion of the doctor the injuries were simple but due to the critical condition of the patient he was kept under observation and was referred to the S.S.P.G. Hospital, Varanasi for further treatment. The doctor found that the injury no.1, the incised wound, was caused by some sharp weapon and other injuries were caused by blunt weapon. At the time of examination the injuries were fresh in nature. A copy of the injury report is Ex. Ka-3.
9. On the same day at 7:00 P.M., PW-6 examined the injuries on the body of Mittu Yadav (P.W.-1) and found the following injuries: –
1. Lacerated wound 0.5cm x 0.5cm x 0.5cm on left wall of the nose. Injury kept under observation and advised x-ray.
2. Abraded contusion 2cm x 2cm on left half of the upper lip.
3. Complaint of pain in right shoulder.
In the opinion of the doctor the injury No.1 was kept under observation and No. 2 is simple. At the time of examination the injuries were fresh and were caused by blunt weapon. A copy of the injury report 13 Ex. Kа-4.
10. On the same day at 7.15 P. M. PW-6 examined the injuries on the body of Moti (P.W.-3) and found the following injuries: –
1. Lacerated wound 4cm x 1cm x 0.5cm on middle of forehead 9 cm above the nose.
2. Contusion 0.5cm x 0.5cm on the nail of left thumb.
According to the doctor the injuries are simple and were caused by blunt weapon. At the time of the examination the injuries were fresh. A copy of it is Ex. Ka-5.
11. On the same day at 7:30 P.M., P.W.-6 examined the injuries on the body of Sheo (P.W.-2) and found the following injuries: –
1. Lacerated, wound 1cm x 0.5cm x 0.5cm on right side of the upper lip just below the nose.
2. Abrasion 0.5cm x 0.5cm on right side of the nose.
3. Abrasion 0.5cm x 0.5cm on right side of the forehead 4cm above the right eye bro
4 Abrasion 4cm x 1mm on back of the left forearm 8cm below the elbow joint.
5. Abrasion 5cm x 1.5cm on back of the left forearm 12cm below the elbow joint.
6. Complaint of pain on right elbow joint.
According to the doctor all the injuries were simple, caused by blunt weapon and were fresh. A copy of the injury report is Ex. Kа-6.
12. In the opinion of the doctor, the injuries of all the four injured persons can be received on 06.08.1978 at 4 P.M. All the four injured persons were brought for medical examination by H.C., Deonath Yadav, of P.S., Saiyadraja.
13. PW-6 has also proved the injury report of accused Sheo Kumar. The injuries of Sheo Kumar accused were examined by the doctor at 7:45 P.M. at P.H.C., Chandauli. Accused was brought by Constable Surendra of P.S. Sayedraja. The following injuries were fount on the body of accused Sheo Kumar: –
1. Abraded contusion 3cm x 3cm on frontal part of the head 8cm above the root of the nose.
2. Lacerated wound 4.5cm x 1cm x 0.5cm on the back right heel 2cm below the ankle joint,
Both the injuries were simple in nature and were caused by blunt object like lathi and were fresh at the time of examination.
14. PW-6 also examined the injuries of accused Misri who came for medical examination on his own on 07.08.1978 at 01:30 A.M. The doctor found the following injuries on his body:
1. Contusion 4cm x 20m on top of the right shoulder associated with swelling. This injury was kept under observation and X-ray was advised.
2. Misri complained of pain on left heel.
Injury No.1 was caused by some blunt weapon and about half day old at the time of the examination.
15. On 07.08.1978, PW-6 examined the injuries of accused Lalji at 01:45 A.M. This injured also came for medical examination on his own. The following injuries were found on his body; –
1. Abraded contusion lcm x 0.5cm x 0. 5cm on middle of the skull.
2. Abraded contusion 1cm x 0.5cm x 0.5cm on right side of skull 10cm above the right ear.
Both the injuries, were simple in nature and were caused by blunt object and were half day old at the time of examination. A copy of the injury report is Ex. Kha-3.
16. The investigation was moved into motion by Shri Ram Dhyan Singh, S.I. Saiyadraja (PW-8). He reached at the place of occurrence on 07.08.1978, one day after the incident. On the pointing of Vikrama and Sheonath. He prepared the site plan/Topography Report (Ex.Ka-9). On 08.08.1978, he recorded statement of Head Constable Chandrahas Singh (P.W.-7), obtained the injury reports of Mittu, Sheo and Moti Yadav. On 02.10.1978, he recorded statements of accused Siri, Kunwar, Munakka, Misri, Sheo Kumar, Ram Gahan, Lalji, Lalta and Manna Singh and on 20.11.78, recorded statement of accused Vijai Narain Singh under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
17. On 07.08.1978, Murat (deaceased) succumbed to his injuries in Shiv Prasad Gupta Hospital, Varanasi at 05:25 A.M. On receiving information, P.W.-9 S.I. Ramdev Upadhyay, Kotwali, Varanasi reached the hospital. P.W.-9 appointed the Panchas, prepared the Panchayatnama/Inquest Report of dead body of Murat (Ex.Ka-12), photo laash (Ex.Ka-13), challan laash (Ex.Ka.-14), a letter for postmortem (Ex.Ka.-15), police Form No.33 (Ex.Ka.-16) and sealed the dead body and sent the dead body through constable Bhusi Yadav (P.W.-4) and Constable Chadrama Mishra for postmortem.
18. In the opinion of the witnesses of the Panchayatnama/Inquest Report, the deceased-Murat died due to injuries caused on the person of the deceased.
19. PW-5 Dr. Narsingh Sharma was Medical officer on 07.08.1978 and he conducted the postmortem on the dead body of deceased Murat. The dead body was brought to him in sealed cover by constables Chandrama and Tulsi Ram of P.S. Kotwali. The dead body was accompanied with necessary papers, sample and seal.
The following ante-mortem injuries were found on the dead body of Murat by P.W.-5:
1. Lacerated wound 5cm x 1/4cm scalp deep on the left side front of head, 7cm above left eye brow just to the left of the mid line and it was vertical in direction.
2. Incised wound 3cm x 1/2cm deep on the inner aspect of left leg, 1cm above left knee joint.
3. Contusion 10cm x 2.5cm on the left side chest. This injury was 8cm below the left nipple.
4. Abraded contusion 5cm x 2cm on the back of right side buttock.
20. On internal examination, the scalp was found contused 23cm x 11cm in the middle. The joints between the frontal and parietal bones of the skull were separated on both sides. The right parietal bone was fractured. The brain membrane was congested and clotted blood was present on the upper surface of membrane. The brain was also congested. The carotid artery was ruptured from the middle. The thorax region was found contused in relation to injury No. 3. The stomach contained one lbs, water like liquid and there was digested food in the Small intestine. External injuries Nos. 3 and 4 were caused by some blunt object and injury No. 2 was caused by some sharp edged weapon like ballam. In the opinion of the doctor the injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. At the time of the postmortem PW-5 prepared the postmortem report (Ex. Ka-2).
In the opinion of the doctor (P.W.-5), the death was caused due to coma as a result of injury to the vital organ brain.
21. After completing the investigation, Investigating Officer submitted the charge-sheet dated 20.11.1978 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323. 324, 307 and 302 of IPC against 10 accused persons namely, Siri, Lalta, Kunwar, Munakka, Misri, Sheo Kumar, Ram Gahan, Lalji, Vijay Narain and Manna.
22. Learned Judicial Magistrate took cognizance on the charge-sheet and thereafter committed the case to the Court of learned Sessions Judge after compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C. and the case was registered as S.T. No. 254 of 1982 (State vs. Siri and others).
23. Learned Sessions Judge framed charges against the accused-appellants as under:
(i) Accused Siri has been charged u/s 148 I.P.C. as he was allegedly armed with ballam and u/s 302/149 I.P.C. for causing the murder of Murat, u/s 323/149 I.P.C. for voluntarily causing hurt to Moti, u/s 323/149 I.P.C. for voluntarily causing hurt to Mittu and u/s 323/149 I.P.C. for voluntarily causing hurt to Sheo.
(ii) Accused Lalta, Kunwar, Munakka, Misri, Sheo Kumar, Ram Gahan, Lalji and Vijai Narain have been charged u/s 147, 302/149. I.P.C. for causing murder of Murat, 323/149 I.P.C. for voluntarily causing hurt to Moti, 323/149 I.P.C. for voluntarily causing hurt to Sheo and u/s 323/149 I.P.C. for voluntarily causing hurt to Mittu.
24. The accused-appellants had not pleaded guilty and sought trial, therefore, the prosecution was permitted to produce its witnesses.
25. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, has adduced many documentary evidence, namely, F.I.R. (Ex.Ka.-7), Written Report (Ex.Ka-1), Injury Report (Ex.Ka-3), Postmortem Report (Ex. Ka-2), Panchayatnama (Ex. Ka-12), Charge-sheet (Ex. Ka-10) & Site Plan (Ex.Ka-9).
26. To prove its case, the prosecution has examined 10 prosecution witnesses, namely, PW-1 Mittu Yadav (informant) cousin of the deceased; PW-2 Sheo villager and eye-witness of the incident; PW-3 Moti villager and eye-witness of the incident; PW-4 constable Bhusi Ram, who has taken the dead body for postmortem; PW-5 Dr. Narsingh Sharma who has done the postmortem of dead body; PW-6 Dr. S.C. Pandey, who has first examined the injuries of both parties; PW-7 H.C. Chandrahas Singh who has scribed the check report; PW-8 Ram Dhyan Singh, Investigating Officer; PW-9 S.I. Ramdev Upadhyay, who has prepared the Panchayatnama and PW-10, Dr. A. K. Rastogi.
27. Mittu (PW-1), the informant as well as eye-witness of the case in hand, deposed that Murat (deceased) was his cousin brother. On the day of occurrence, he was coming with Murat from the agricultural plot and were going to their residence. At about 4:00 P.M. they reached near the brick-kiln where they saw the accused persons standing near the brick-kiln and were talking. When PW-1 and Murat reached near them, accused Vijai Narain Singh exhorted other accused to kill them. It was on this that all the accused persons started beating. Relevant extracts of his deposition read as under:
“1. गजाधर के दो लड़के है जिनका नाम जगरूप और मरूप है। जगरूप के तीन लड़के हैं जिनमें लालता और कवर मुलजिम हाजिर अदालत है। मरूंप के पांच लड़के है जिनमें से सीरी, मिश्री, मुनक्का और शिव कुमार मुलजिमान हाजिर अदालत है। मुलजिम शिवकुमार का लड़का राम गहन भी मुलजिम हाजिर अदालत है। गजाधर के सगे भाई वगेश्वरी है। वगेश्वरी के लड़के सरूप है। सरूप के लड़के लालजी मुलजिम हाजिर अदालत है। मुलजिम विजय नरायन सिंह हाजिर अदालत उपरोक्त मुलजिमान के गोल के है मन्ना सिंह मुलजिम मर चूका है जो विजय नरायन सिंह का चचेरा भाई था।
2. मृतक मुरत यादव मेरा चचेरा भाई था इस घटना के पहल मेरे पिता मुराहू व मृतक मुरत के पिता बददल को मुलजिमान लालता, सीरी, कुंवर ने मारा था जिसका मुकदमा चला था और सीरी व कुंवर व लालता को सजा धारा 325 भा० दण्ड संहिता में हुई थी। और यह मुलजिमान सजा काट कर जेल से छूटे थे।
3. कतल से करीब दो साल पहले मेरे चचेरे भाई बनारस को ललता, सीरी, कुंवर, मुनक्का आदि ने गोली मारी जिसका 307 जा० फौ० का मुकदमा चला था जिस में मुलजिमान संदेह का लाभ पाकर छूट गये।
4. कतल के एक महीना पहले से दोनों पार्टीयों पर धारा 107 जा०फौ० का मुकदमा चल रहा था।
5. कतल को हुये करीब पांच साल हो गया। शाम चार बजे का समय था। हम और मुरत खेत से घर आ रहे थे जब हमलोग भट्ठा के पास पहुंचे तो देखा कि लालता, कुंवर, सीरी, मुनक्का, मिश्री, शिव कुमार, राम गहन, लालजी, विजय नरायन सिंह और मन्ना सिंह आपस में बातचित कर रहे थे। मुलजिम सीरी के हाथ में बल्लम था और वाकी मुलजिमान लाठी लिये थे जब हमलोग करीब पहुंच गये तो विजय नरायन सिंह ने ललकारा कि तथा देख रहे हो मार दो सालो को जान से विजय नरायन सिंह के ललकारने पर मुलजिमान लाठी से मारना शुरू कर दिये। मुलजिमान ने मेरी और मुरत को जान से मारने की नियत से मारा। लालता मुलजिम ने लाठी से मुरत को मारा जो प्राणघातक हुई। यह चोट मुरत के सर में लगी। चोटलगने से मुरत गिर गये। गिरने के बाद भी मुलजिमान ने मारा। सीरी मुलजिम ने मुरत को बल्लम से मारा जो बीच पैर के वरिहर में लगा। हमलोगों के शोर पर मोती, शिव आये और बचाने की कोशिश किया तो मुलजिमान ने मोती और शिव को भी लाठी से मारा। मुलजिमान के मारने से मुझे, मुरत, मोती व शिवको चोटे आई। मुझे नाम पर और होट पर चोट आई। मोती के सर में और हाथ के अंगूठे में चोट आई। शिव के सर में बाये और दाहिने तरफ और नाक में और दाहनी वाह में दो जगह चोट आई। मुरत के सर में, नाक पर और बीच पैर के नरिहर व और चोटे आई। बचाव में हमने मोती, और शिव ने लाठी चलाई। गवाहान विकमा प्रसाद, शिवनाथ ने घटना देखी। मुलजिमान मूरत को मरा जान कर और भीड़ देख कर भाग गये।
6. इस घटना की दरखास्त घर से कागज मंगाकर मौके पर मैंने लिखा। दरखास्त लिखने के बाद पुलिस चौकी से दिवान जी आ गये तो मैने लिखित रिपोर्ट दिवान जी से मौके पर दे दिया। जहां घटना हुई उसके पास में ही दो फलाग पर पुलिस चौकी घरौली है। दिवान जी दरखास्त लेने के बाद मुझे, मुरत, मोती और शिव को थाने ले गये। थाने पर दिवान जी ने मेरी लिखी हुई दरखास्त दिया जिसके आधार पर मुकदमा कायम हुआ। गवाह ने लिखित रिपोर्ट को पढ़कर कहा यही है जो मैने लिखा था जो मेरे व हस्ताक्षर में है। रिपोर्ट पर इक्ज० क-1 डाला गया।
7. दरोगा जी ने थाने पर ही मेरा, शिव मोती और मुरत का बयान लिया था।
8. मेरा, शिव और मोती का डाक्टरी मुआइना चन्दौली अस्पताल में हुआ था। मुरत की हालत खराब थी वह कभी होश में रहता था और कभी बेहोश हो जाता था इसलिये मुरत को दिवान जी सिधे कबीर चौरा अस्पताल ले गये। उन्हीं चोटों की वजह से मुरत उसी रात चार पांच बजे भोर में अस्पताल में मर गया।”
28. Sheo (PW-2) who was also an eyewitness to the incident, has deposed on the line of P.W.-1, he deposed that he was grazing his cattle near the-brick-kiln along with PW-3 Moti. According to PW-2, he saw PW-1 Mittu and Murat (deceased) coming from south towards the brick-kiln. He also saw the accused persons standing near the brick-kiln. PW-2 had further deposed that when Mittu and Murat reached on the spot near the brick-kiln, then accused Vijai Narain Singh exhorted all the accused persons to kill. He further deposed that Siri had a ballam in his hand and the other eight men had sticks. Accused Lalta hit Murat on the head with a stick. Accused Siri hit Murat on his left leg with ballam. He and Moti intervened and tried to save Murat and Mittu but they also got injured. Accused-appellants Munakka, Lalta, Siri, Misri, Lalji, Shiv Kumar, Ram Gahan, Kunwar had taken part in the fight and Manna Singh was also there with a stick.
This witness has also supported his deposition during cross-examination.
29. P.W.-3 Moti has deposed on the line of P.W.-2 Sheo.
30. The statements of all the three eye-witnesses P.W. Nos. 1, 2 and 3 were consistent. A very detailed cross-examination has been done but nothing contrary has been brought out to throw any doubt on the statements of the eye-witnesses.
31. P.W.-4 Bhusi Ram, constable who took the dead body for postmortem deposed that he went to the Kabir Chaura Hospital with constable Chandramani Mishra in connection with the Panchayatnama of the deceased Murat Yadav. After preparing the Panchayatnama and other documents, the inspector stamped the body and gave the stamped body along with the documents and sample seal to him and Chandramani to take to the body to mortuary for postmortem. We took the body the same day and presented it before the doctor and gave the documents and sample seal to him.
32. P.W.-5, Dr. Narsingh Sharma deposed that he was working as a medical officer in Swami Vivekanand Government Hospital, Bhelupur, Varanasi and that day he has conducted the postmortem of the body of Murat Yadav. His body was brought to him by constables Chandrama Mishra and Tulsiram from Thana Kotwali along with sample seal and documents. In his opinion, the death of Murat was due to coma caused by injury to the brain. Deceased injury Nos. 1, 3 and 4 could have been caused by a blunt weapon such as a stick and injury No.2 could have been caused by a sharp weapon such as a ballam. He deposed that deceased injuries were usually sufficient to cause natural death.
33. P.W.-6 Dr. S.C. Pandey deposed that on 06.08.1978, he was posted as Medical Officer P.S.C., Chandauli. On that day at 06:35 P.M. Murat Yadav was brought to the hospital by Constable Devnath Yadav, Saiyadraja and due to serious condition of Murat, after medical examination, he was sent to the district hospital for further treatment. He further deposed that he has also done the medical examination of P.W.-1 Mittu Yadav, P.W.-2 Sheo and P.W.-3 Moti on the same date and further he has also done the medical examination of accused Sheo Kumar, Misri and Lalji.
34. Head Constable Chandrahas Singh (P.W.-7), who had written the check report of the instant case deposed as under:
“1. अगस्त सन् 1978 में मैं बहैसियत एस०सी० थाना सैयदराजा में तैनात था। दिनांक 06.08.78 को एच०सी० देवनाथ यादव चौकी घरौली थाना सैयदराजा के साथ मित्तू यादव मजरूव मुराहू?, मजरूब शिव, व मजरूब मोती थाने पर आये मित्तू यादव ने लिखित दरखास्त मुझे दिया था जिसके आधार पर चिक रिपोर्ट मैने अपने लेख व हस्ताक्षर में मुकदमा अपराध संख्या 136 सन् 78 पर तैयार किया। गवाह को चिक रिपोर्ट दिखाकर पूछा गया तो कहा कि यह वही चिक रिपोर्ट है जिसको मैने मित्तू यादव की दरखास्त के आधार पर अपने लेख व हस्ताक्षर तैयार किया समय 05.30 बजे शाम तैयार किया। चिक रिपोर्ट पर मेरी दस्तखत है। इस पर इक्७० क-7 डाला गया। इस मुकदमे का इन्द्राज बमुताबिक चिक जी०डी० में रपट नम्बर 22 समय 05.30 बजे शाम किया। असल जी०डी० मेरे सामने है। मेरे लेख व हस्ताक्षर में है। इस की सत्य प्रतिलिपी अपने लेख व हस्ताक्षर में दाखिल कर रहा हूँ। इस पर इक्ज० क-8 डाला गया।
2. सभी मजरूवान मूरत, मित्तू, मोती व शिव के चोटों का इन्द्राज जी०डी० में किया। मजरूवान की चोटों का मुआइना करने हेतू एम०ओ० चन्दौली को रिपोर्ट अपने लेख व हस्ताक्षर में तैयार किया। सभी मजरूवान व चिट्ठी मजरूबी के साथ एच०सी० देवनाथ यादव को चोटों के मुआइना हेतू भेजा गया।
3. मुकदमा कायमी 06.08.78 को 05.30 बजे शाम हुआ था। इसी घटना के सम्बन्ध में शिव कुमार वल्द मनरूप सा० हलुआ मडई थाना सैयदराजा जिला वाराणसी ने भी एक रिपोर्ट लिखित थाने पर दिया था जो शिव, वगैरह बारह आदमियों के खिलाफ थी और जो अपराध संख्या 136ए धारा 147/323 आई.पी.सी. के अंतर्गत दर्ज हुई थी। वादी मित्तू के साथ थाने पर अन्य मजरूब मूरत, शिव, मोती एच०सी० देवनाथ के साथ थाने पर आये थे। अपराध संख्या 136ए का वादी शिव कुमार थाने पर सिपाही 834 सूर्यनाथ सिंह चौकी घरौली थाना सैयदराजा के साथ थाने पर आया था। अपराध संख्या का मुकदमा कायम होने के बाद लोग अस्पताल भेजे जा चूके थे। उसके बाद अपराध संख्या 136ए का मुकदमा कायम हुआ था और इसके वादी शिव कुमार को हथकड़ी लगाई गई थी। जब 136ए के कायमी के बाद मजरूब को सूर्यनाथ यादव और रमा शंकर सिंह सिपाहियों के साथ अस्पताल भेजा गया तो सिपाहियों को हिदायत दी गई थी कि अपराध संख्या 136ए के मुलजिमान अगर अस्पताल में मिले तो उन्हे गिरफ्तार कर ले।
4. यह कहना गलत है कि विजई सिंह सा० घरौली व शिव वगैरह की साजीश में होकर वादी मित्तू के मुकदमे की कायमी पहले दिखाई गई। यह भी गलत है कि इसके लिये डायरी में पहले से जगह छोड़ी गई थी। यह भी गलत है कि विजई सिंह सा० घरौली के कहने से इसे मुकदमें मन्ना सिंह व विजई सिंह सा० हलुवा का डाक्टरी मुआइना के बाद मुलजिम बनाया गया है।”
35. S.I. Ram Dhyan Singh (P.W.-8), Investigating Officer of the case, deposed about the entire work done during the course of investigation. Relevant extracts of his deposition is quoted hereinunder:
“1. अगस्त सन् 1978 में मैं बहैसियत एस०आई० थाना सैयदराजा में तैनात था। दिनांक 06.08.78 को यह मुकदमा मेरी मौजूदगी में कायम हुआ था। दिनांक 06.08.78 को नकल चिक व नकल रपट करने के बाद प्रधान लेखक का बयान लिया उसके बाद वादी मुकदमा मित्तू यादव, मजरूब मूरत यादव व शिव यादव, मोती यादव तथा गवाह विकमा और शिवनाथ का बयान लिया और उसी दिन मुराहू और वैजनाथ से भी पूछताछ किया।
2. दिनांक 07.08.78 को गवाह विकमा और शिवनाथ के निशादेही पर घटनास्थल का निरीक्षण किया और नकशा नजरी बनाया असल नकशा न जरी मेरे सामने है जो मेरे लेख व हस्ताक्षर में है। नकशा में खसरा दर्ज है। नकशा नजरी वलिहाज मौका सही है। इस पर इक्ज० क-9 डाला गया।
3. दिनांक 08.08.78 को चन्द्रहास सिंह एच०सी० का बयान लिया और नतीजा डाक्टरी मित्तू यादव, शिव यादव, मोती यादव का प्राप्त किया। दिनांक 12.08.78 को मौके पर पहुंचा वादी ने बताया कि मूरत दिनांक 07.08.78 को कबीर चौरा अस्पताल में मर चूका है। और थाना कोतवाली के दरोगा जी ने पंचायतनामा कराया है। मुलजिमान के विरूद्ध दवीश दिया और जुर्म धारा 302 आई.पी.सी. में तरमीम किया गया। दिनांक 20.08.78 को सी०ओ० (sic) ग्रामीण श्रीधर पाठक आये और मौके पर गये और घटनास्थल पर जाकर गवाहान से बातचीत किया और मुझे निर्देश दिया दिनांक 11.09.78 को नतीजा पोस्टमार्टम मूरत यादव का प्राप्त हुआ अवलोकन किया और जमान्तनामा भी मिला जिसका परचे मे तकमीला किया दिनांक 02.10.78 को मुलजिम सिरी, कुवर, मुनक्का, मिश्री, शिव कुमार, राम गहन, लालजी, लालता, मन्ना का बयान लिया। जमानतनामा जो प्राप्त था सामिल किया। दिनांक 20.11.78 को का० पैरोकार बिहारी यादव और मुलजिम विजय नरायन का बयान लिया। आरोप पत्र वाद जांच मुलजिमान सिरी आदि के विरूद्ध सिद्ध होने पर अंतर्गत धारा 147/148/149/323/324/307/302 आई.पी.सी. में प्रेषित किया गया। असल आरोप पत्र मेरे सामने है मेरे लेख व हस्ताक्षर में है जिस पर इक्ज० क-10 डाला गया।
4. विजई सिंह सा० घरौली का नाम मैने सुना है। मुझे याद नही कि विजई सिंह सा० घरौली और मुलजिम विजय नरायन हाजिर आलत के बीच धारा 307 आई.पी.सी. का कोई मुकदमा चला था या नही। मुकदमा हाजा के कायमी के समय मैं थाने पर मौजूद था। कायमी के फौरन वाद मै तफतीस में चला गया था। मुझे याद नही कि शिव कुमार मुलजिम मेरे सामने आ गया था या नही। विजई सिंह सा० घरौली वादी मित्तू के साथ नही आये थे। विजई सिंह सा० घरौली के मैं उस समय पहचान्ता था। विजई सिंह सा० घरौली का नाम भी मैने सुना था और देखा भी था। यह कहना गलत है कि विजई सिंह सा० घरौली के कहने से मुलजिमान विजय नरायन और मन्ना का नाम रिपोर्ट में लिखा गया हो और इसीलिये मैं विजई सिंह सा० घरौला की थाने पर उपस्थिती से इंकार कर रहा हूँ। यह भी गलत है कि इसीलिये पहले मैंने अपने बयान में यह कहा हो कि विजई सिंह सा० घरौली का नाम सुना है। सी०ओ० साहब ने किन किन गवाहो से पूछताछ किया था यह मुझे याद नही है। मुझे याद दरसाठ नही है कि मन्ना और विजय नरायन मुलजिमान का कोई दरखास् कप्तान साहब के पास से मेरे पास आई थी या नही। सी०ओ० साहब ने यह निर्देश दिया था कि सही तफतीश करके तुरंत कार्यवाही करे।”
36. S.I. Ramdev Upadhyay (P.W.-9), who has done the Panchayatnama of the dead body deposed that on 07.08.1978, he was posted as Sub Inspector in Thana Kotwali, District Varanasi. On that day, he had prepared the Panchayatnama of the dead body of Murat in Shiv Prasad Gupta Hospital. The dead body was kept in the mortuary of the hospital. He appointed Panchas for the Panchayatnama and inspected the dead body in front of the Panchas. After that, he prepared the Panchayatnama in his handwriting and signature. At the time of Panchayatnama, he had prepared the photograph of the dead body, challan of the dead body and the letter for postmortem in his handwriting. After this Constable Bhusi Ram and Chandrama Singh were sent along with body, sample seal and related documents to the mortuary for postmortem.
37. Dr. A. K. Rastogi (PW-10) was Medical officer of the S.S.P.G. Hospital, Varanasi on 06.08.1978. PW-10 has deposed that Murat (deceased) was admitted in the hospital at 8:35 P.M. on 06.08.1978, on a reference slip from P.H.C., Chandauli brought by constable Deonath Yadav. At the time of admission, Murat was unconscious. PW-10 prepared a bed head ticket which is Ex. Ka-18. According to P.W.-10, Murat died in the hospital on 07.08.78 at 5:25 A.M. and Dr. C.N. Shukla gave death certificate Ex.Ka-19 and sent an information Ex. Ka-20 to P. S, Kotwali.
38. Thereafter, the statements of the accused-appellants under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded, in which all the incriminating evidence was put to them. They denied all the allegations and stated that they were falsely implicated in the present case.
39. Accused Vijai Narain Singh has stated that due to old enmity and litigation with one Vijai Singh of village Dharauli, this false case has been started against him because Vijai Singh of Dharauli and Lallan (brother of deceased), Murat (deceased) and others belong to same group.
40. Accused, Siri has, admitted that there has been litigation between complainant (Mittu) and the accused persons but has denied that he grudged enmity. He further stated that he has been falsely implicated in this case because of the old enmity.
41. Accused Lalta has stated that at the time of the alleged occurrence he was not present in the village and was attending a meeting of Congress party in Chandauli. Accused Lalta has also denied the prosecution allegations and has stated that Vijai Singh of Dharauli was inimical to him so he has been falsely implicated in this case.
42. Accused Kunwar, Munakka, Ram Gahan have denied the prosecution allegations and have attributed the cause of implication to enmity.
43. Accused Misri has also admitted litigation with Mittu (P.W.-1) and others but has denied that he grudge enmity. He further denied that accused Vijai Narain Singh was his helper. According to accused Misri, the quarrel was started by the wife of Sheo (P.W.-2) and on the instigation of Sheo (PW-2), other persons started beating accused Sheo Kumar and on the call of Sheo Kumar, accused himself and Lalji reached on the spot but they were also beaten. Accused Sheo Kumar lodged a report of this occurrence at P. S., Saiyadraja.
44. Accused Sheo Kumar and Lalji have adopted the statement of accused Misri and stated that they yielded lathi in self-defence and that might have caused injuries on the other side.
45. Thereafter, the Trial Court vide impugned judgement convicted all the appellants and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 302/149 IPC and further sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 323/149 IPC for voluntarily causing hurt to Moti, further six months rigorous imprisonment under Section 323/149 IPC for causing hurt to Mittu and six months rigorous imprisonment under Section 323/149 IPC for causing hurt to Sheo and further sentenced the appellant Siri to under rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 148 IPC and further convicted the other appellants Lalta, Kunwar, Munakka, Misri, Sheo Kumar, Ram Gahan and Lalji and sentenced them under Section 147 IPC to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment each and directed that all the sentences of each accused would run concurrently.
46. Learned counsel for the surviving accused-appellant submits that an F.I.R. was also lodged on behalf of the accused persons as Case Crime No. 136A of 1978, under Sections 147, 323 IPC in which parties have arrived at a compromise. Although complainant in his deposition, deposed that accused Siri had a ballam in his hand and he attacked the deceased with it, the post-mortem report indicates that ballam injury was found below the left knee of the deceased, which was not sufficient to cause the death of Murat (the deceased). He further submits that the deceased died due to injury No.1, inflicted by Lalta, who has died during the pendency of this appeal. The other injuries caused by the accused persons were not sufficient to cause Murat’s death.
47. It is further submitted that conviction under Section 302 IPC is not made out as no overt act satisfying the requirements of Section 302 of the IPC has been established. Alternatively, if the Court finds that the presented evidence did not establish the intent to kill and that the death was caused during a sudden quarrel or in the heat of the moment, without premeditation or intent to kill, the conviction might be reduced to Section 304 Part I or Part II of the IPC. In the present case, there is no material on record to show any premeditation. The dispute began among the women and escalated, leading to a physical fight among the men, and the incident occurred without premeditation in the sudden heat of passion.
48. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that now the surviving accused persons namely, Siri aged about 92 years (in jail); Munakka aged about 90 years (in jail); Misri aged about 85 years (in jail) and Ram Gahan aged about 85 years, are suffering from several illness of old age.
49. Per contra, learned A.G.A. submitted that accused Siri armed with ballam and other accused persons armed themselves with lathi were assembled at the spot with a common object to kill the complainant and Murat and the accused-appellants were the real aggressor of the incident and no alleged fight among the women took place at the spot on the date of incident.
50. Learned A.G.A. has further submitted that ingredients of Section 300 of IPC are rightly held to be made out by the learned Sessions Judge who has applied the law to the facts in case. It is submitted that the decision of the learned Sessions Judge is just and proper and does not call for any interference or modification as the surviving accused-appellants had a direct role in causing the deceased’s death by using ballam and inflicting blows with lathi.
51. We have carefully perused the record and judgment of the trial court and have heard Shri Prem Shankar Sharma, learned counsel for the accused appellants, Shri Ghanshyam Kumar learned A.G.A.-I in support of the prosecution case.
52. We find that there was a pre-existing enmity between the complainant’s faction and the accused appellants’ faction. On the date of the incident, i.e., August 6, 1978, Mittu (P.W.-1) and Murat (deceased) were returning from their field when they encountered the accused persons, who were ten in number. Due to the prior litigation and the animosity between them, they began abusing each other, and in the ensuing altercation, both factions sustained injuries. Upon hearing the commotion, Sheo (P.W.-2) and Moti (P.W.-3) also arrived at the scene to aid the complainant and the deceased, but they too sustained injuries. We also find that both factions used lathis against each other, and accused Siri also attacked the deceased with a ballam on his left leg. All the injured were medically examined by Dr. S.N. Singh, Medical Officer P.S.C., Chandauli and because of the critical condition of deceased, he was referred to the S.S.P.G. Hospital after primary medical examination. On 07.08.1978, Murat (deceased) succumbed to his injuries in S.S.P.G. Hospital. The said facts were proved by the deposition of injured eye-witnesses Mittu (P.W.-1), Sheo (P.W.-2), Moti (P.W.-3) and other prosecution witnesses. We also find from the deposition of complainant (P.W.-1) that Murat was died due to the fatal blow of lathi on the head of the deceased inflicted by accused Lalta, who has already died during pendency of the appeal.
53. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Lakshman Singh vs. State of Bihar (now Jharkhand) (2021) 9 SCC 191 held as under:
“9. In State of M.P. vs. Mansingh, (2003) 10 SCC 414, it is observed and held by this Court that “the evidence of injured witnesses has greater evidentiary value and unless compelling reasons exist, their statements are not to be discarded lightly”. It is further observed in the said decision that “minor discrepancies do not corrode the credibility of an otherwise acceptable evidence”. It is further observed that “mere non-mention of the name of an eyewitness does not render the prosecution version fragile”.
9.1 A similar view has been expressed by this Court in the subsequent decision in the case of Abdul Sayeed (supra). It was the case of identification by witnesses in a crowd of assailants. It is held that “in cases where there are large number of assailants, it can be difficult for witnesses to identify each assailant and attribute specific role to him”. It is further observed that “when incident stood concluded within few minutes, it is natural that exact version of incident revealing every minute detail, i.e., meticulous exactitude of individual acts, cannot be given by eyewitnesses”. It is further observed that “where witness to occurrence was himself injured in the incident, testimony of such witness is generally considered to be very reliable, as he is a witness that comes with an inbuilt guarantee of his presence at the scene of crime and is unlikely to spare his actual assailant(s) in order to falsely implicate someone”. It is further observed that “thus, deposition of injured witness should be relied upon unless there are strong grounds for rejection of his evidence on basis of major contradictions and discrepancies therein”.
9.2 The aforesaid principle of law has been reiterated again by this Court in the case of Ramvilas (supra) and it is held that “evidence of injured witnesses is entitled to a great weight and very cogent and convincing grounds are required to discard their evidence”. It is further observed that “being injured witnesses, their presence at the time and place of occurrence cannot be doubted.”
(emphasis supplied)
54. We find that the incident took place on 06.08.1978 at 04:00 P.M. The check report scribed by Head Constable Chandrahas Singh (P.W.-7) mentions that the F.I.R. was lodged on the same date at 05:30 P.M. The distance between the place of incident and the police station is only 5 miles away. Considering these facts and circumstances, it is apparent that the F.I.R. was promptly lodged after the occurrence of the incident.
55. In respect of promptly lodged F.I.R., the hon’ble Supreme Court in Jai Prakash Singh v. State Of Bihar And Another, (2012) 4 SCC 379, has observed as under:
“12. The FIR in criminal case is a vital and valuable piece of evidence though may not be substantive piece of evidence. The object of insisting upon prompt lodging of the FIR in respect of the commission of an offence is to obtain early information regarding the circumstances in which the crime was committed, the names of actual culprits and the part played by them as well as the names of eye- witnesses present at the scene of occurrence. If there is a delay in lodging the FIR, it looses the advantage of spontaneity, danger creeps in of the introduction of coloured version, exaggerated account or concocted story as a result of large number of consultations/deliberations. Undoubtedly, the promptness in lodging the FIR is an assurance regarding truth of the informant’s version. A promptly lodged FIR reflects the first hand account of what has actually happened, and who was responsible for the offence in question. (Vide: Thulia Kali v. The State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1973 SC 501; State of Punjab v. Surja Ram, AIR 1995 SC 2413; Girish Yadav & Ors. v. State of M.P., (1996) 8 SCC 186; and Takdir Samsuddin Sheikh v. State of Gujarat & Anr., AIR 2012 SC 37)”
(Emphasis Supplied)
56. Dr. S.C. Pandey, Medical Officer P.S.C., Chandauli (P.W.-6), has proved the injuries of Murat Yadav (deceased), Mittu Yadav (P.W.-1), Sheo (P.W.-2), Moti (P.W.-3) as well as accused Sheo, Misri and Lalji. He has categorically stated that the injuries were caused in the manner as alleged and were in simple in nature. Post-mortem report of the deceased was proved by Dr. Narsingh Sharma (P.W.-5).
57. While considering the evidence of P.W.-1 to P.W.-3 in cumulative nature, the death can be said to be homicidal death. Postmortem report goes to show that the injuries on the body of the deceased would be the cause of death and that it was homicidal death.
58. We are convinced that it was homicidal death but, it would be seen whether it is homicidal death punishable under Section 302 or Section 304 Part I or Part II of IPC?
59. It would be relevant to refer to Section 299 of the Indian Penal Code, which read as under:
“299. Culpable homicide: Whoever causes death by doing an act with the intention of causing death, or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death, commits the offence of culpable homicide.”
60. The academic distinction between ‘murder’ and ‘culpable homicide not amounting to murder’ has always vexed the Courts. The confusion is caused, if Courts loose sight of the true scope and meaning of the terms used by the legislature in these sections, and allow themselves to be drawn into minute abstractions. The safest way of approach to the interpretation and application of these provisions seems to be is to keep in focus the keywords used in the various clauses of Section 299 and 300 of I.P.C. The following comparative table will be helpful in appreciating the points of distinction between the two offences.
Section 300
A person commits culpable homicide if the act by which the death is caused is done-
Subject to certain exceptions culpable homicide is murder if the act by which the death is caused is done.
INTENTION
(a) with the intention of causing death; or
(1) with the intention of causing death; or
(b) with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death; or
(2) with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused;
KNOWLEDGE
KNOWLEDGE
(c) with the knowledge that the act is likely to cause death.
(3) with the knowledge that the act is so immediately dangerous that it must in all probability cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as is mentioned above.
61. In view of the aforesaid discussions, it appears that the death caused by the accused-appellants was not premeditated, accused though had knowledge and intention that their act would cause bodily harm to the deceased but they did not want to kill the deceased. As per the prosecution version, initially, there were ten accused persons who gave beating to Murat (deceased) and Mittu (complainant) and after some time, hearing the commotion, Sheo (P.W.-2) and Moti (P.W.-3) reached at the place of incident. If all the accused had the intention to kill, they possessed sufficient force to kill both Murat and Mittu and to cause grievous harm to P.W.-2 and P.W.-3. However, in the present case, only simple injuries were attributed to P.W.-1 to P.W.-3, and as per Dr. Narsingh Sharma, Murat died due to injury No. 1, which was inflicted by a blow of a lathi during the fight. Hence the instant case falls under the Exceptions 1 and 4 to Section 300 of IPC. While considering Section 299 as reproduced hereinabove offence committed will fall under Section 304 Part-II as per the observations of the Apex Court in Chmaru Budhwa vs. State of M.P.; AIR 1954 SC 652, wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the crime was committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the accused’s having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner thus would fall within the Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC. Accordingly, Hon’ble Supreme held that the accused has committed offence under Section 304 Part-II of the IPC.
62. We come to the definite conclusion that the death was not premeditated. The precedents discussed by us would permit us to uphold our finding which we conclusively hold that the offence is not punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C. but is culpable homicide not amounting to murder, punishable U/s 304 (Part II) of I.P.C.
63. Therefore, the surviving accused-appellants, Siri, Munakka, Misri and Ram Gahan are convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304 (Part II) of IPC and sentenced to the period of imprisonment for four months along with a fine of Rs. 25,000/- each. The appellants namely, Siri, Munakka and Misri are already in jail, they shall be released after the period of sentence is over. So far as the absconding accused-appellant Ram Gahan is concerned, the Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned is directed to take him in custody and send him to jail to serve the sentence and also realise fine of Rs. 25,000/- from each surviving appellants. The fine must be deposited by them within four weeks from the date of their release from jail which shall be paid to the legal heirs of Murat (deceased). In case of default in payment of fine, the same shall be recovered from the arrears of their land revenue.
64. In view of the above, the criminal appeal is partly allowed. Record and proceedings be sent back to the Court below forthwith for compliance.
65. The Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned is also directed to send his compliance report within one month to this Court from the date of receipt of this order.
Order Date : 13.05.2025
K.K. Maurya/K.Tiwari
[ad_1]
Source link