JUDGMENT
M.C. Jain, J.
1. Sessions Trials No. 120 of 1979 and 342 of 1979 were tried together by 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Shahjahanpur. The accused appellants Manjeet Singh and Navendra Singh faced Sessions Trial No. 120 of 1979. There were four others, namely, Surendra Singh alias Salvendra Singh, Kashmir Singh, Kabul Singh and Babu Singh who were accused in connected Sessions Trial No. 342 of 1979. Theys came to be acquitted but the present two accused appellants Manjeet Singh and Navendra Singh were convicted under Section 302 I.P.C. for the double murder of Jogendra Singh and Darshan Singh on 4th January 1979 at about 3 P.M. at the crossing of Banda Bazar, Police Station Banda, District Shahjahanpur, the F.I.R. of which was lodged at 3.10 P.M. by Constable Rajendra Prasad Dwivedi PW 1. The distance of the Police Station was about one furlong only. The present two accused appellants were said to be the actual murderers whereas the other four (acquitted) were implicated with the aid of Section 120B I.P.C.
2. The case of the prosecution as it surfaced through evidence consequent upon the lodging of the F.I.R. may be narrated thus: The acquitted accused Kashmir Singh was the father of accused appellant Manjeet Singh and of the acquitted accused Salvendra Singh. All of them lived jointly in village Marauri, P.S. Bilsanda, District Pilibhit. Accused Navendra Singh was the nephew of Kashmir Singh’s wife and lived in Punjab. The remaining two accused Kabul Singh and Babu Singh were the residents of village Kuia Maholia, P.S. Banda, District Shahjahanpur. He alongwith his brothers and uncles including Guru Datt Singh had purchased some 200 acres of land in village Kuia Maholia in 1952. Later on, dispute arose between the partners about the ownership and possession of this land leading to prolonged litigation in consolidation courts. Subsequently, Kashmir Singh and his sons came to be a party on behalf of Guru Datt Singh in the said dispute. Kashmir Singh’s sons claimed to have purchased and to have been in possession over Guru Datt’s share in the said land. Phoola Singh PW 5 claimed that cultivation of the said entire land was being done on his behalf by his nephew late Darshan Singh. The prosecution allegation was that Kashmir Singh, his family members and friends came to the conclusion that unless Darshan Singh was removed from the way, they would not be able to get the real possession and to cultivate the land claimed to be so purchased by them. As such, they hatched a conspiracy to murder Darshan Singh alongwith whom Jogendra Singh also came to be murdered.
3. On the fateful day and time, Darshan Singh and Jogendra Singh had come to Banda market. Both of them held their rifles and cartridges with them. The cartridge belt of Darshan Singh was damaged and, therefore, after keeping his rifle at a nearby shop, he handed over the belt to a cobbler, namely, Tejram for repairs, who was sitting on the patri of the road near Banda crossing. Jogendra Singh carrying his rifle and cartridges belt on his back accompanied Darshan Singh. Both these persons sat down on the road patri, while Tej Ram PW 8, sitting there started repairing the belt of Darshan Singh. At about 3 P.M. Manjeet Singh armed with Danter (Kanta) and accused appellant Navendra Singh armed with a sword suddenly appeared there and at once attacked Darshan Singh and Jogendra Singh with their weapons. On being assaulted thereby, they fell down on road patri. Even then both the accused continued striking blows with their respective weapons till they died of the extensive injuries given to them. Constable Rajendra Prasad Dwivedi PW 1 and Constable Rajeshwar Singh PW 2 were on their way from Police Station Banda to take tea at the shop of one Chhotey situated at the crossing. They saw Darshan Singh and Jogendra Singh being so attacked and murdered by the accused. These constables knew both the victims from before and they also knew the accused Manjeet Singh while the other accused Navendra Singh was stranger to them. At once, Constable Rajendra Prasad Dwivedi PW 1 asked his colleague Rajeshwar Singh PW 2 to chase the fleeing accused while he himself returned to the Police Station and reaching there at 3.10 P.M. lodged the report (Ex. Ka-1) by oral narration. In it, he disclosed that the accused Manjeet Singh and his unknown Sikh companion had murdered Darshan Singh and Jogendra Singh with swords and had fled towards west. He also mentioned therein that Constable Rajeshwar Singh PW 2 alongwith some public men were chasing the accused.
4. SI Bhim Singh PW 10 happened to be present at the Police Station at the time of the above report being lodged. He at once took Constable Rajendra Prasad Dwivedi PW 1 and some other police personnel with him for joining the chase of the culprits. While so proceeding for the chase, he directed SI R.L. Verma PW 7 to reach the dead bodies and hold inquest proceedings in respect of the same.
5. After committing the murders, the accused had started running towards west on Khutar-Bilsanda Road. Rajeshwar Singh PW 2 accompanied by some public men including Karnail singh PW 3, one Darshan Singh and Chhotey Singh started chasing the fleeing accused. For some distance both the accused ran on the abovementioned road. Then they returned towards Deokali and thereafter towards Pasiapur Dharampur. Finally, they reached the field area of village Lalpur. All this time, Rajeshwar Singh PW 2, Karnail singh PW 3, Darshan Singh (discharged witness) and subsequently murdered witness Chhotey Singh kept on chasing the accused.
6. As stated earlier, on F.I.R. being lodged at the Police Station immediately after the incident, the Station Officer accompanied by other police personnel at once started for arresting the accused. Fortunately, on coming out of the police station campus, they found Sukhwant Singh PW 6 by the side of the road with his tractor. The police party boarded the tractor and asked Sukhwant Singh to drive towards Bilsanda wherefrom noise of chasing was emanating with rising of dust. Lastly, the police party reached the field area of Lalpur and spotted both the Sikh accused. The two accused on being chased took shelter in a sugarcane field. Reaching near the field, the S.O. alongwith other police personnel and public men surrounded it and called upon the accused to surrender or else they would be shot dead, whereupon both the accused came out of the sugarcane field holding their respective weapons in their hands. They were arrested and weapons, i.e., Danter (Ex.1) and sword (Ex.2) were taken in possession. They were packed and sealed. The accused with their recovered weapons were brought to the Police Station.
7. SI R.L. Verma PW 7 who had been deputed to the place of incident reached there and found Darshan Singh’s dead body lying on the southern patri of Khutar road and that of Jogendra Singh lying nearby on the road itself. He held the inquest proceedings of the two dead bodies, sealed them separately, took in possession the rifle and cartridge belt of Jogendra Singh as also the cartridge belt of Darshan Singh, the personal valuables of the deceased and prepared requisite documents (Ex. Ka-14 and Ka-15). Thereafter, he returned to the Police Station with the above recoveries and got the entries made in the G.D. (Ex. Ka-16). The same day, the Investigating Officer Bhim Singh PW 10 visited the place of occurrence and prepared the site plan and recorded the statements of witnesses of arrest as well.
8. Post mortem over the dead body of Jogendra Singh was conducted in the afternoon of 5.1.1979 by Dr. R.R.D. Dwivedi PW 4 at 1 P.M. He was aged about 45 years and about one day had passed since he died. The following ante-mortem injuries had been found on his person:
1. Incised wound 14 1/2 cm x 2 cm x bone cut on front of the head left side transverse.
2. Incised wound 15 cm x 3 cm x complete cutting of mandible.
3. Incised wound 14 cm x 2.5 cm x cutting of trachea completely, anterior and muscles extending from angle of middle to right side, 3 cm outer to the middle of the neck, with cutting of the open structures.
4. Incised wound 4 cm x 1 cm x bone deep on the top of the left shoulder.
5. Incised wound 5 cm x 2 cm x cutting of lower end of ulna.
6. Incised wound 1 cm x 1/2 cm muscle deep on the outer and middle of the right arm.
7. Incised wound 10 cm x 3.5 cm x cutting of the bone completely on right back of the left skull, 14 cm from the skull.
8. Incised wound 16 cm x 6 cm x complete cutting of base of skull with cutting of all structure.
9. Incised wound 15 cm x 4 cm x complete cutting of the third cervical vertebrae including its structure.
9. The Doctor opined that death had occurred due to shock and haemorrhage owing to ante mortem injuries sustained by the deceased.
10. At 2 P.M. the same day, post mortem over the dead body of Darshan Singh was conducted by the same Doctor. The deceased was found to be aged about 40 years and about one day had passed since he died. The following ante-mortem injuries had been found on his person:
1. Complete cut of the throat except post muscle and structure 6 cm, front, extending from lower part of chin, trachea, oesophagus at the level of 3rd vertebra completely cut and separated with cutting of all muscles and artery both sides.
2. Incised wound 18 cm x 4 cm x skin cut complete on the top of middle of the head.
3. Incised wound 12 cm x 4 cm skull parietal bone cut on the right side, 2 cm above the ear.
4. Incised wound 7 cm x 3 cm x bone cut on the front of the forehead, left side just above the eyebrow.
5. Incised wound 4 cm 2 cm x cutting of upper maxillary bone and right bone left side.
6. Incised wound 3 cm x 1/2 cm x muscle deep on the top of left shoulder.
7. Incised wound 3.5 cm x 1/2 cm x muscle deep on the lower part of the left shoulder.
8. Incised wound 2 cm. x 1 cm. x skin deep on the back of the left elbow.
9. Incised wound 4 cm x 2 cm x fracture of radius and ulna on the middle and back of the right forearm.
10. Incised wound 14 cm x 8 cm x complete cutting of bone of the part of the palm with complete cutting and separate of thumb left with cut of all muscles, skin of palm detached.
11. Incised wound 2 cm. x 1 1/2 cm x skin deep on the top of right (paper torn).
11. According to the Doctor, death had occurred due to shock and haemorrhage owing to ante mortem injuries sustained by the deceased.
12. The Investigating Officer Bhim Singh PW 10 recorded the statements of witnesses including tractor driver Sukhwant Singh PW 6, cobbler and Tejram PW 8. After completion of investigation, the chargesheet was submitted by the Investigating Officer consequent upon which all the accused faced trial.
13. At the trial, the evidence adduced before the court did not disclose clear facts respecting the criminal conspiracy and abatement. As such the accused Kashmir Singh, Salvendra Singh, Babu Singh and Kabul Singh were examined generally under Section 313 Cr.P.C. whereas the accused Manjeet Singh and Navendra Singh were subjected to specific questions. The accused Kashmir Singh, Salvendra Singh, Babu Singh and Kabul Singh stated that they had been falsely roped in on account of enmity.
14. In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused Manjeet Singh admitted his relationship with the other accused Kashmir Singh, Navendra Singh and Salvendra Singh. He stated that as he had taken possession over Gurdatt’s land from Phoola Singh, the latter got him falsely implicated in the case. He denied his having committed the murder of Jogendra Singh and Darshan Singh and his arrest from the field area of Lalpur. He claimed that on 4.1.1979 he was arrested from his house in village Marauri alongwith his cousin accused Navendra Singh.
15. The accused Navendra Singh also took the same plea as that of co-accused Manjeet Singh denying his having committed the murders of Jogendra Singh and Darshan Singh, or his arrest from the field area of Lalpur.
16. However, the accused did not lead any evidence in defence.
17. The prosecution in all examined 13 witnesses. Constable Rajendra Prasad Dwivedi PW 1, Rajeshwar Singh PW 2, Karnail singh PW 3 and Tejram PW 8 were the eyewitnesses. Rest was more or less the evidence of formal nature. The evidence adduced by the prosecution did not commend itself to the trial Judge in respect of the accused Kashmir Singh, Salvendra Singh, Babu Singh and Kabul Singh and accordingly, they were acquitted.
18. But the trial court was of the view that the prosecution had successfully proved the guilt of the accused Manjeet Singh and Navendra Singh under Section 302 I.P.C. and they were accordingly convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment.
19. The accused appellant Manjeet Singh died during the pendency of appeal and the same abated against him under order dated 16.1.2004. Presently, the Court is concerned with only the remaining accused appellant Navendra Singh.
20. We have heard Shri P.N. Misra, learned Counsel for the accused appellant Navendra Singh and Shri M.C. Joshi, learned A.G.A. Record has been summoned which we have carefully perused. The arguments of Shri Misra may be summarized thus: The alleged weapons of offence were not left by the accused at the spot or in the way while fleeing and it was artificial. It was also unnatural that they did not brandish their weapons towards the witnesses chasing them. There was no serologist report. There were no bloodstains on the clothes of the accused and that it was also unusual that they were not given a beating/thrashing on being apprehended which would have naturally been there consequent upon the alleged commission of double murder by them.
21. On pondering over the evidence brought on record and the arguments advanced for the accused, we find ourselves to be in complete agreement with the trial judge that the guilt of the surviving accused Navendra Singh and deceased accused Manjeet Singh was proved to the hilt without any shadow of doubt whatsoever. It was almost a case of spot arrest of both of them. There was convincing testimony adduced from the side of the prosecution that it were they who had committed this double murder. The time, place, manner of the incident and the weapons used by these two accused in murdering Jogendra Singh and Darshan Singh had been proved by trustworthy and convincing evidence including the main fact that the double murder had been committed by them only, and by none else.
22. We shall make our meaning clear by relevant discussion. It so happened that at the time of the incident, Constable Rajendra Prasad Dwivedi PW 1 and Constable Rajeshwar Singh PW 2 were on their way from P.S. Banda to take tea at the nearby shop of Chhotey. The said tea shop was shown in the site plan and its location qua the Police Station well fit in the version of the F.I.R. There was clear testimony of Constable Rajendra Prasad Dwivedi PW 1 corroborated by the recital in the F.I.R. (Ex.Ka-1) which had been lodged by him within five minutes of the incident that he had witnessed. His testimony was supported by his colleague Constable Rajeshwar Singh PW 2 and public witness Karnail singh PW 3. Karnail singh PW 3 satisfactorily explained his presence in Banda market on the day in question which happened to be the weekly market day. He was not shown in any way to be under the influence of the deceased Darshan Singh or his family or to have any enmity with the accused. Besides that, being weekly market day, there was some gathering at Gurdwara also for celebrating Guru Govind Singh’s birthday. Not only this, Tejram, cobbler, PW 8 also fully supported the testimony of Constable Rajendra Prasad Dwivedi PW 1, Rajeshwar Singh PW 2 and Karnail singh PW 3 as to the happening that in the afternoon when a Sikh gentleman was getting his cartridge belt repaired by him and another Sikh was (sic) nearby, two Sikhs came there and started assaulting the former by swords. He emphatically denied the defence suggestion that he did not work as cobbler in Banda market as also the other suggestion that he was a labourer at the farm of Darshan Singh. Had he known Darshan Singh from before, there could hardly he any necessity for him to conceal the fact that one of the murdered persons was Darshan Singh. There could be no doubt about the place of incident either, keeping in view the clear testimony of all the four above witnesses. SI R.L. Verma PW 7 who had reached the spot within few minutes of the lodging of the F.I.R. also supported the statement of these four witnesses by stating that the dead bodies of Darshan Singh and Jogendra Singh were found at the places where they were murdered as per the statements of Constable Rajendra Prasad Dwivedi PW 1, Rajeshwar Singh PW 2, Karnail singh PW 3 and Tejram PW 8. He also found a cartridge belt lying near the dead body of Darshan Singh. Another cartridge belt and a rifle were found on the dead body of Jogendra Singh. Both the dead bodies were also found covered with blood.
23. Constable Rajendra Prasad Dwivedi PW 1, Constable Rajeshwar Singh PW 2 and Karnail singh PW 3 stated that one of the assailants was armed with a Banka and the other with a sword and both of them struck both the victims causing extensive sharp edged injuries to them, resulting in their instantaneous death. True, in the F.I.R., the weapons of both the assailants were mentioned as swords and Tejram PW 8 also described them as swords in court but as rightly observed by the trial court, such type of failing in observation was natural. Banka is also a sharp edged weapon. Both were sharp cutting weapons. In any view of the matter, so far as the surviving accused appellant Navendra Singh was concerned, he was armed with a sword and the same was recovered from him immediately after the incident. The deceased did sustain a number of injuries capable of being caused by such weapon. Constable Rajendra Prasad Dwivedi PW 1 and Constable Rajeshwar Singh PW 2 clearly stated that they had recognised the deceased accused Manjeet Singh as one of the two assailants. They claimed to have known him from before. This fact was not disputed by the defence in their cross examination. Since last 3-4 years, cases of murder of Darshan Singh’s father and grandmother and attempted murder of Darshan Singh had come to be registered at Police Station Banda against Kashmir Singh-father of Manjeet Singh and his another son Salvendra Singh. So, it was natural that Constable Rajendra Prasad Dwivedi PW 1 and Constable Rajeshwar Singh PW 2 of that police station knew the family members of Kashmir Singh including the deceased accused Manjeet Singh. Karnail singh PW 3 did not know Manjeet Singh and Navendra Singh from before but he came to know their names after they were apprehended on being chased including by him. It was established from the statements of Constable Rajendra Prasad Dwivedi PW 1, Constable Rajeshwar Singh PW 2 and Karnail singh PW 3 that Manjeet Singh’s companion committing this crime was Navendra Singh-surviving accused appellant. This accused being an outsider was unknown to these witnesses from before and his name came to be known only on being arrested red handed. It was natural since the surviving accused appellant Navendra Singh belonged to Amritsar and at the time of the incident in question was visiting his maternal uncle Kashmir Singh, father of Manjeet Singh. The fact that in the F.I.R. also Manjeet Singh’s companion was described as unknown person, shows its spontaneity having been lodged by Constable Rajendra Prasad Dwivedi PW 1 immediately after seeing the incident before the arrest of the accused.
24. The evidence as to the chase and arrest of the surviving accused appellant Navendra Singh and the deceased accused appellant Manjeet Singh was also of sterling character. There were statements of Constable Rajeshwar Singh PW 2 and Karnail singh PW 3 to the effect that right from the place of murder to the place of arrest, they had chased these accused. Constable Rajendra Prasad Dwivedi PW 1, Investigating Officer SI Bhim Singh PW 10 and Sukhwant Singh PW 6 (tractor driver) fully supported the statements of Constable Rajeshwar Singh PW 2 and Karnail singh PW 3 as to the finale about their arrest. Constable Rajendra Prasad Dwivedi PW 1 and SI Bhim Singh PW 10 had started from the Police Station alongwith other police personnel. Finding Sukhwant Singh PW 6 on the tractor outside the Police Station, they had taken it for chasing the fleeing culprits. The testimony of all the above witnesses was natural and consistent on the point that the arrest was made in a wheat field. At that time, the deceased accused appellant Manjeet Singh was found carrying a bloodstained Danter (Ex.1) and the surviving accused appellant Navendra Singh was found carrying bloodstained sword (Ex.2). To come to the point, the statements of these witnesses left not the slightest doubt as to the time, place and the manner of the arrest of accused together with the weapons of offence Ex. 1 and 2.
25. We should also point out that none of the witnesses, i.e., Constable Rajendra Prasad Dwivedi PW 1, Constable Rajeshwar Singh PW 2, Karnail singh PW 3, Sukhwant Singh PW 6 and Bhim Singh PW 10 had any motive to falsely implicate either the surviving accused appellant Navendra Singh or the deceased accused appellant Manjeet Singh. They were neither shown to be thick with the family of the deceased or to be inimical with any of them (Navendra Singh and Manjeet Singh). Sukhwant Singh PW 6 too had no motive to falsely swear that he had taken the police party on his tractor for the chase and then he had seen the policemen apprehending the arrested accused. Whatever he deposed was based on his personal knowledge and witnessing. He stated that he did not see the actual arrest of the accused as his tractor was left by the roadside while police party went to the fields to arrest the accused. His statement was quite natural.
26. The prosecution case could not be doubted on the reasoning of the learned Counsel for the accused appellants that it was artificial that the accused did not drop their weapons either at the spot itself or while fleeing and also that they did not brandish these weapons towards the witnesses. There was hardly any time for them to take a reasoned decision in this behalf weighing all the pros and cons. Moreover, they had immediately been given a chase by a number of persons and could have kept their weapons with them to launch attack on the chasers if such an opportunity could be available to them. In any view of the matter, it cannot always be explained as to how the mind of a culprit works.
27. Chemical examiner’s report was there on record that Danter (Ex.1) and sword (Ex.2) were found to have blood stains on their blades, which supported the prosecution story, although the same alongwith the clothes of the deceased were not sent to the serologist to find out whether the blood was of human or blood group found on the clothes of the deceased tallied (sic). True, it would have been better had these weapons alongwith clothes of the deceased been tallied with the blood found on the weapons. But minus that also, it was proved clinchingly that the culprits of this double murder were surviving accused appellant Navendra Singh and the deceased accused appellant Manjeet Singh. There were perfectly believable eyewitnesses against them and they had been arrested too immediately after commission of the crime by being given a hot chase. Weapons of offences were also then recovered from them. We reject the argument of Sri Misra in this behalf.
28. It was not necessary that the clothes of the accused appellants must have received bloodstains while inflicting blows on the victims.
29. This argument is also superfluous that after being apprehended, they were not thrashed or beaten up. The double murder had already been committed by them. Giving beating to them after they were apprehended was not to render the two deceased alive. They were in the custody of police. The law was to take its own course. After a crime is committed, the purpose is to proceed against the culprit as per the law of the land. They having been apprehended almost red handed with the weapons of offence, the purpose had been served that they were to be proceeded against according to law. The policemen or public witnesses who had given them a chase were not expected to have beaten them up black and blue. This argument raised by Sri Misra has to be rejected and we accordingly reject it.
30. In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in any of the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the surviving accused appellant Navendra Singh. The guilt was proved to the hilt by sterling eyewitness account coupled with the spot arrest of the accused appellants with their respective weapons of offence. The eyewitness account was well in conformity with the medical evidence also.
31. In the result, we dismiss this appeal.
32. The appeal of accused appellant Manjeet Singh has abated because of his death. The surviving accused appellant Navendra Singh is on bail. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shahjahanpur shall cause him to be arrested and lodged in jail to serve out the sentence of life imprisonment awarded by the trial court. We note that in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. he has given his address as “Navendra Singh, S/o Swarn Singh, r/o Udho Nagar, Police Station Vyas, District Amritsar (Punjab)” . All out efforts shall be made to get him arrested and lodged in jail. The purpose of mentioning such address is to facilitate and ensure his arrest and for being lodged in jail to serve out the life sentence.
33. Compliance shall be reported by the lower court within two months.
34. Certify the judgment to the lower court immediately.