JUDGMENT
Vijay Kumar Verma, J.
1. State of U.P. has preferred both these appeals against the judgment and order dated 07.07.1981 passed by Sri Balraj Uberoi, the then 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Basti in ST. No. 80 of 1980 and S.T. No. 193 of 1980, whereby the respondents-accused have been acquitted of the charges under Sections 147, 148 & 307 read with Section 149 I.P.C.
2. The accused Ram Milan, Hari Ram, Jankoo @ Janak, Raja Ram, Bamboo Din, Ram Din and Jhinkan @ Dukhran were put on trial on the charge of making attempt to commit the murder of Lovkush Chaudhnry by causing injuries to him by means of fire arms and
lathies after forming unlawful assembling on 02.09.1979. During the pendency of those appeals, the respondents-accused Ram Milan, Bamboo Din and Ram Din have died and the appeal against them has abated.
3. The case of the prosecution as appearing from the First Information Report (Ext. Ka 3) lodged by the complainant Gangaram S/o Paras Nath Chaudhary, r/o village Majhari, P.S. Sonha, District Basti and statement of injured Lovkush Chaudhary (P.W. 4), in brief, is that there was some dispute between Somai and Jagdish Lal over a street and to hold the
Panchayat for settlement of that dispute, Lovkush Chauthary and Ramesar had gone to the hamlet (Deeh) of village Majhari on 02.09.1979. After holding the
Panchayat, Lovkush Chaudhary was coming back to his house on the pathway passing through the
Arhar and sugar can field of Ram Ajor and when at about 8.00 a.m. he reached near the sugar cane field, the accused Bamboo Din @ Bhikha, Jhinkan @ Dukhrun, Ram Deen, Ram Milan, Jankoo @ Janak, Raja Ram and Hari Ram came out from the sugar cane field. The accused Bamboo Din, Ram Milan and Ram Deen were armed with country made tamanchas and other accused were having
lathies. On the exhortation of Bamboo Din, the accused having tamanchas fired on Lovkush Chaudhary, who was armed with
lathi. He began to wield his lathi in order to discourage the accused from attacking him and began to move behind from that place. When he reached near
talari (small pond), the accused fired on him due to which ho sustained injuries and loll down towards eastern side of the pond. Thereafter, the accused Jhinkan, Hari Ram, Janakoo @ Janak and Raja Ram began to beat him by
lathies. Ramesar, who had gone with Lovkush to the deeh and stayed there for drinking water, rushed towards the place of occurrence on hearing noise of Lovkush and saw the incident. The complainant Gangaram and witnesses Dharam Dev, Siya Ram, Jagmohan, Lallu @ Lal Bihari and many other people also rushed towards the place of incident on hearing the noise of Lovkush and they also witnessed the incident. Seeing the witnesses moving ahead, the accused persons making fire fled away towards the west. Lovkush Chaudhary, who sustained serious injuries and had become unconscious, was carried to Sadar Hospital Basti, where he was admitted.
4. The complainant Gangaram went to P.S. Sonha and handed over the written report regarding aforesaid incident. On the basis of that report, chik F.I.R. Ext. Ka 3 was prepared by the then Head Moharrir Harish Chandra Singh, who registered a case under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307 I.P.C. at Crime No. 188/79 against all the above named seven accused and made entry in G.D. No. 13 on 02.09.1979 at 9.30 a.m. vide Ext. Ka 4.
5. Lovkush Chaudhary was medically examined in Sadar Hospital, Basti by Dr. M.J. Hassan (P.W. 1) on 02.09.1979 at 10.00 a.m. Following injuries were found on his person.
1. Lacerated wound: 5 cms. x 3 cm x bone deep over top of head with traumatic swelling (Haematoma) 12 cm. x 10 cm. alround 10 cm. above left ear.
2. Lacerated wound: 5 cm. x 1.5 cm. x through & through the pinna of left ear, cutting the cartilage of ear all along the wound & also through it in middle.
3. Lacerated wound: 2 cm. x 0.5 cm. x skin deep over left side head 8 cm. above left ear.
4. Lacerated wound: 2.5 cm. x 1 cm. x bone deep over left side back of head Just behind the left our.
5. Lacerated wound: 7 cm. x 1 cm. x bone deep over left side forehead just above eyebrow.
6. Traumatic swelling: 14 cm. x 10 cm. coming the left temple and face.
7. Lacerated wound: 2 cm. x 0.8 cm. x bone deep over right side chin.
8. Gun shot wounds: (Seventy number) in an area of 24 cm. x 14 cm. over back of chest left side, extending from anterior axillary line backwards. All wounds of entry. All measuring 0.2 cm. x 0.2 cm. x depth not probed. No blackening, tattooing or charring present.
9. Gun shot wounds: (Five in number) in an area of 6 cm. x 4 cm. over left side back, 3 cm. outer to vertebral column and 20 cm. below nape of neck. All measuring 0.8 cm. x 0.8 cm. x depth not probed. All wounds of entry. Looking directed forwards. No blackening or tattooing present.
10. Contusions: (Three) in an area of 14 cm. x 8 cm. over left shoulder measuring 4 cm. x 2 cm. and 6 cm. x 2 cm. (largest). Red in colour.
11. Gun shot wounds: (Twenty in number) in an area of 20 cm. x 10 cm. over back of left, upper arm. All wounds of entry. No blackening or tattooing present. All measuring 0.2 cm. x 0.2 cm. x skin deep.
12. Contusion: 9 cm. x 1.5 cm. over left thigh 10 cm. x above knee. Red.
All the injuries were fresh in duration, out. of which injuries No. 8, 9 & 11 were caused by fire arm und rust by blunt object.
6. Investigation was taken up by S.I. Ram Rekha (P.W.7), who was posted as Station Officer at P.S. Sonha. During investigation, the statements of witnesses were recorded, site plan Ext. Ka 10 was prepared, after collecting blood stained and plain earth from the place of occurrence, memo Ext. Ka 9 was prepared and after completion of investigation, charge-shoot Ext. Ka 31 was submitted against all the accused.
7. On the case being committed to the court of session, S.T. No. 80 of 1980 and S.T. No. 193 of 1980 were registered, which were consolidated vide order dated 31.07.1980. Charges under Section 147 and 307 road with Section 149 IPC against the respondents-accused Jhinkan @ Dukharan, Janak @ Jankoo, Hari Ram and Raja Ram were framed on 31.07.1980 and on the same day, separate charges under Section 148 and 307 read with Section 149 I.P.C. were framed against respondents-accused Bamboo Din, Ram Din and Ram Milan. The accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
8. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined 11 witnesses in all. P.W. 1 Dr. M.Z. Hasan had medically examined the injured Lovkush Chaudhary in Sadar Hospital Basti. He has proved injury report Ext. Ka 1. P.W. 2 Dr. R.C. Verma was posted as Radiologist in Sadar Hospital Basti on 02.09.1979. X-ray of the head, chest and arms of Lovkush Chaudhary was done in his supervision. X-ray report Ext. Ka 2 has been proved by this witness. P.W. 3 Dr. O.P. Mishra was posted at Surgeon in Sadar Hospital Basti on 02.09.1979. Treatment of the injured Lovkush Chaudhary was made by him. He has proved bed-head ticket Ext. Ka 3 of the injured. The then Head Moharrir Harish Chandra Singh of P.S. Sonha was examined on 22.04.1980 in Trial Court, but due to mistake his statement was also recorded as P,W. 3, whereas Dr. O.P. Mishra had already been examined as P.W.3. Chile F.I.R. (Ext. Ka 3) and copy of G.D. No. 13 dated 02.09.1979 (Ext. Ka 4) have been proved by this witness. P.W. 4 Lovkush Chaudhary is the injured, P.W. 5 Dharam Deo, P.W. 6 Ganga Ram, P.W. 8 Ramesar and P.W. 9 Lallu @ Lal Behari Pathak are the eye witnesses of the incident. P.W. 7 Jagdish Lal had called the injured Lovkush Chaudhary to hold the
Panchayat to settle his dispute with Somai over a street. P.W. 10 Ram Rekha is the Investigating Officer. He has proved charge-sheet and other papers.
9. In their statements recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused persons have denied their participation in the alleged incident of causing injuries to Lovkush Chaudhary and they have stated that due to enmity, they have been falsely implicated in this case. The accused person did not examine any witness, but. they have filed documentary evidence.
10. After hearing arguments of the parties counsel and appraisal of the evidence, the learned Trial Judge acquitted the respondents-accused vide impugned judgment, which has been challenged in this appeal by the State of U.P. after seeking leave of the Court.
11. We have heard Mrs. N.A. Monis learned A.G.A for the appellant-state and Mrs. Anjum Haq Advocate, holding the brief of Sri Madhur Prakash, learned Counsel for the respondents-accused and also perused the impugned judgment as well as evidence on record carefully.
12. It was vehemently contended by the learned A.G.A. that there is overwhelming evidence to establish the complicity of the accused persons in the incident of causing injuries to Lovkush Chaudhary on the alleged date, time and place, but the learned Trial Judge on conjectures and surmises without sufficient reasons has acquitted the accused-respondents. In this regard it was submitted by the learned A.G.A. that. the injured Lovkush Chaudhary as well us the eye witnesses Dharm Deo, Ganga Ram, Knmesar and Lallu @ Lal Behari Pathak have fully supported the case of prosecution in their statements and medical evidence on record also is corroborating their statements, but the learned Trial Judge recording perverse and unreasonable findings has discarded the testimony of these witnesses, whereas on the basis of the testimony of these witnesses, it is fully proved beyond reasonable doubt that injuries were caused to Lovkush Chaudhary by the accused persons by means of fire arms and lathies on the alleged date, time and place. It was also submitted by the learned A.G.A. that this Court is quite competent to re-appreciate the evidence; and since the findings recorded by the learned Trial Judge are perverse and against the evidence, hence impugned judgment should be set aside and accused-respondents should be convicted of the charges framed against them.
13. Supporting the impugned judgment, it was submitted by learned Counsel for the accused-respondents that very sound and cogent reasons have been given by the learned Trial Judge while recording the findings of acquittal in favour of the accused, hence this Court will not be justified to reverse those findings. It was also submitted by learned Counsel for the respondents-accused that if two views are possible on the evidence led by the prosecution, one indicating to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view favourable to the accused is to be accepted by the appellate court in the appeal against acquittal. Next submission made by the learned Counsel for the accused-respondents was that only interested witnesses have been examined by the prosecution in this case and since their testimony is also not reliable, hence the learned Trial Judge has not committed any error in discarding their testimony. It was also submitted that the testimony of injured Lovkush Chaudhary is also not. wholly reliable and his testimony also has been rightly disbelieved by the learned Trial Judge.
14. Before coming to the ground on which the findings of acquittal have been recorded by the learned Trial Judge, let us scrutinise the evidence led by the prosecution to bring home the guilt to the accused-respondents.
15. The maim witness of this case is the injured Lovkush Chaudhary, whose statement was recorded as P.W.4 on 27.08.1980 and 19.09.1980. In his statement this witness has fully supported the incident, which was occurred with him on 02.09.1979. He has stated that on 02.09.1979, he had gone to deeh (hamlet) of village Majhari to hold the Panchayat to settle the dispute between Jagdish Lal and Somai regarding a street and when after holding the Panchayat at about 8.00 a.m., he was coming back to his house and reached near the sugar cane field of Ram Ajore, the accused Bamboo Din @ Bhika, Jhinkan @ Dukharan, Ram Din, Ram Milan, Jankoo @ Janak, Raja Ram and Hari Ram came out from the sugar cane field and accused Bamboo Din, Ram Din and Ram Milan, who were armed with country made tamanchas, fired on him, but he did not sustain injury at that place. It is further stated by Lovkush Chaudhary that saving himself by wielding the lathi and moving behind, when he reached near talari (pond), Bamboo Din, Ram Milan and Ram Din again fired on him, due to which he sustained injuries and fell down there in eastern side of pond and thereafter, the accused Jhinkan, Hari Ram, Janak and Raja Ram began to beat him by lathies. Lengthy cross-examination was made from this witness by the learned Counsel for the accused persons, but nothing material could be elicited from him and he could not be shaken in cross-examination. Thorn is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of injured Lovkush Chaudhary. In our considered view, his testimony is wholly reliable, on the basis of which it is fully proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused-respondents had made attempt to commit his murder by causing him injuries by means of lire arms and lathies at the time when he was coming back to his house alter holding the Panchayat in the hamlet of village Majhari.
16. The eye witnesses Dharam Deo P.W.5, Ganga Ram P.W.6, Ramesar P.W.8 and Lallu @ Lal Behari Pathak P.W. 9 have fully corroborated the statement of injured Lovkush Chaudhary. We have carefully gone through the statements of these witnesses. Nothing material has been elicited from these witnesses also in cross-examination and on the basis of the testimony of these witnesses, it is fully proved that they had witnessed the occurrence of causing injuries to Lovkush Chaudhary by the accused persons on alleged date, time and place. Witnesses Dharam Deo and Ganga Ram are real brothers, who were irrigating the paddy field by their pumping set and on hearing the noise of Lovkush Chaudhary, they rushed towards the place of occurrence and saw the incident. They have fully supported the statement of injured Lovkush Chaudhary in their statements.
17. P.W.8 Remesar had gone with injured Lovkush Chaudhary to hold the Panchayat in the deeh of village Majhari to settle the dispute between Somai and Jagdish Lal. It is stated by this witness that when Panchayat was over, Lovkush Chaudhary went away immediately from the deeh, but he stayed there to drink water and when after drinking water, he reached near the Khalihan of Jasai, he heard the noise of Lovkush and on hearing his noise when he rushed towards the place from where noise was coming, he saw that the accused Bamboo Din, Ram Din and Ram Milan, who came out from sugar cane field of Ram Ajor, fired on Lovkush Chaudhary and the accused Jhinkan, Hari Ram, Janku and Raja Ram having lathies also came out from the field. It is further stated by this witness that when Lovkush Chaudhary wielding lathi and saving himself reached in eastern side of talari (pond), the accused Bamboo Din, Ram Din and Ram Milan again fired on him by this respective tamancha and when after sustaining injuries, Lovkush fell down there, the rest accused caused mar-poet with him by lathies.
18. P.W. 9 Lallu @ Lal Behari Pathak in his statement recorded on 24.09.1980 has stated that about one year ago at about 8.00 a.m. when he was causing Nirai in his field situated near the field of Ram Ajore Pathak in southern side, he heard the noise of Lovkush Chaudhary from the sugar cane field of Ram Ajore Pathak and when he and Dharam Deo, Ganga Ram, Sita Ram and Jag Mohan reached there, they saw that Bamboo Din, Ram Din and Ram Milan were making fire on Lovkush Chaudhary who was moving behind. It is further stated by this witness that when Lovkush Chaudhary reached near talari (pond), the accused having tamanchas fired on him and thereafter, Hari Ram, Jhinkan, Jankoo and Raja Ram, who were having lathies, began to cause marpeet with Lovkush Chaudhary by lathies, due to which he sustained injuries and Cell down there and thereafter also he was beaten. Nothing material has been elicited in cross- examination from this witness also and his statement is worth relying.
19. P.W. 7 Jagdish Lal has supported the case of prosecution regarding holding the Panchayat by Lovkush Chaudhary. Statement of this witness was recorded on 20.09.1980. It is stated by this witness that about one year ago, Panchayat was held in the morning at about 7.00 a.m. to settle the dispute between him and Somai over a street and Lovkush Chaudhary had conducted that Panchayat, because they both had appointed him as Punch. It is further stated by this witness that Lovkush Chaudhary and Ramesar had come to hold the Panchayat, which continued for about. 3/4 hour and after holding the Panchayat, Lovkush Chaudhary went away to his house. This witness has further stated that when after seeing off his daughter-in-law, he came back, he came to know that Lovkush Chaudhary has been beaten. The witness Jagdish Lal has given the reason for holding the Panchayat so early in the morning. In this regard, it is stated by this witness that he had to see off his daughter-in-law on that day and for this reason, Panchayat was convened early in the morning. There is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of Jagdish Lal and on the basis of his testimony, it is fully established that when after holding the Panchayat in the deeh of village Majhari, Lovkush Chaudhary was going to his house, he was beaten.
20. The ocular evidence of injured Lovkush Chaudhary and aforesaid eye witnesses has been fully corroborated by the medical evidence. Dr. M.J. Hasan had medically examined Lovkush Chaudhary on 02.09.1979 at 10.00 a.m. in Sadar hospital, Basti vide injury report Ext. Ka-1. As mentioned above, three injuries of fire arm and nine injuries caused by blunt object were found on his person at the time of medical examination. Dr. Hassan has stated that injury No. 8, 9, and 11 were caused by firearm and rest by lathies. It is also stated by this witness that the injuries sustained by Lovkush Chaudhary were dangerous to life and death was possible from these injuries, which were fresh in duration at the time of medical examination. Although Dr. Hassan has stated in his cross-examination that all the injuries may be caused of at 3-4 a.m. also, but this part of the statement of this witness is not very material, because on the basis of reliable testimony of injured Lovkush Chaudhary and above cited eye witnesses, it is fully proved that the injuries were caused at about 8.00 a.m. on 02.09.1979.
21. The injured Lovkush Chaudhary in his statement has mentioned those facts due to which the accused persons were having enmity with him. Having regard to the facts mentioned by injured Lovkush Chaudhary regarding enmity with the accused persons, it cannot be said that there was no motive for the accused persons to make attempt to commit the murder of injured.
22. Now we come to the grounds on the basis of which the findings of acquittal have been accorded by the learned Trial Judge in favour of the accused-respondents.
23. The findings of acquittal have been recorded in the impugned judgment from para 9 onwards. In para 9, it is mentioned by learned Trial Judge that although three accused are said to have made fires on the injured before he fell down near talary (pond), but he did not receive a single injury till he reached near that place. On this basis, the case of the prosecution has been disbelieved by the learned Trial Judge, as being impossible. It is further mentioned in para 9 that absence of the blood in the way shows that the incident had not occurred in the manner as alleged by the injured and prosecution witnesses, and on this ground also the case of the prosecution has been held to be extremely doubtful. In our view, these findings of the learned Trial Judge are unreasonable. It has come in the testimony of injured Lovkush Chaudhary and eyewitnesses that while moving behind, the injured was wielding lathi in order to save himself. If due to wielding lathi and in the process of moving behind the injured did not sustain any firearm injury in the way and due to that reason no blood was found on the pathway, then merely on this basis, the entire case of the prosecution cannot be thrown out. On the basis of the wholly reliable testimony of the injured and eyewitnesses, this fact is fully proved beyond reasonable doubt that the incident had occurred in the manner as alleged by them in their statements. In para 9 of the impugned judgment, it is also stated that in F.I.R. (Ext. Ka-6), it is not mentioned that. Lovkush Chaudhary was armed with lathi. In our view, the omission of this fact in F.I.R. is not. very material, because the First Information Report is not an encyclopaedia of the entire case and it need not contain all the details.
24. In para 10 of the judgment, the conduct, of the witness Ramesar has been held to be doubtful. The reason mentioned by learned Trial Judge for this conclusion is that although the witness Ramesar had accompanied the injured Lovkush Chaudhary to the hamlet of Village Majhari, but he did not come back with him. The learned Trial Judge has remarked in this para, “I cannot understand the reason why Rameshwar should have stayed back in the hamlet and should not accompanied Lovkush specially when he had come with him to this hamlet.” It is further mentioned in para 10 of the judgment that story has been invented by the prosecution that Ramesar had stayed in the hamlet (Deeh) to drink water. It is also mentioned in this para that Ramesar had not stated this fact to the Investigating Officer in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and improvement was done in his evidence and he was made to say that he stayed back in the hamlet to drink water in order to avoid the situation, that if he had come with Lovkush Chaudhary, he should have received the injuries. These findings recorded by learned Trial Judge in para 10 of the judgment have no legs to stand. It is fully proved on the basis of statements of the injured Lovkush Chaudhary and witness Jagdish Lal that the injured was accompanied by Ramesar to the hamlet to hold the Panchayat on the day of occurrence. There is nothing unusual if Ramesar had stayed in the hamlet to drink water after the Panchayat. It has come in the evidence of injured Lovkush Chaudhary (P.W.4) that he had to go to his sasural on that day and hence he had gone to hold the Panchayat. In early hours and after holding Panchayat he proceeded to his house, but Ramesar, who had accompanied him to the hamlet to hold the Panchayat, stayed there to drink water. P.W.7, Jagdish Lal has specifically stated that Ramesar also had come with Lovkush to hold the Panchayat. Having regard to the evidence of the injured Lovkush Chaudhary, Ramesar and witness Jagdish Lal, there remains no doubt that Ramesar also had come to hold the Panchayat with injured Lovkush Chaudhary. So far as the omission to mention the fact of staying in the hamlet in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of the witness Ramesar is concerned, no opportunity was given to this witness to explain this fact at the time of his examination in Trial Court. When Ramesar was examined as P.W. 8 in Trial Court, it was not asked from him as to whether he had told the Investigating Officer regarding stay in hamlet to drink water. Had this question was put to the witness Ramesar in Trial Court at the time of his examination, he would have offered some explanation. From the statement of P.W. 10, S.I. Ram Rekha (Investigating Officer) it is observed that no question was asked from him on this point and he was also not asked whether Ramesar had told him that he had stayed in the hamlet to drink water. Therefore, the statement of witness Ramesar recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. could not be used as evidence by the learned Trial Judge, but as mentioned above, in para 10 of the impugned Judgment, the learned Trial Judge has made use of the statement of Ramesar recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. without drawing his attention towards that statement and without getting the same proved by the Investigating Officer. In this regard, we would like to refer Section 172(2) Cr.P.C, which lays down that any criminal Court may send for the police diaries of the case under enquiry or trial in such Court, and may use such diaries, not as evidence in the case, but to aid it in such enquiry or trial. From bare perusal of Sub-section (2) of Section 172 Cr.P.C, if is seen that there is embargo for criminal Courts to use the case diaries as evidence in the case, but the learned Trial Judge in utter disregard of the mandatory provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 172 Cr.P.C. has made use of the statement of witness Ramesar (P.W. 8) recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. without following the procedure laid down in Section 162 Cr.P.C, which runs thus:
162. Statements to police not to be signed: Use of statements in evidence: (1) No statement made by any parson to a police officer in the course of an investigation under this Chapter, shall if reduced to writing, be signed by the person making it; nor shall any such statement or any record thereof, whether in a police diary or otherwise, or any part of such statement of record, be used for purpose, save as hereinafter provided, at any inquiry or trial in respect of any offence under investigation at the time when such statement was made:
Provided that when any witness is called for the prosecution in such inquiry or trial whose statement has been reduced into writing as aforesaid, any part of his statement, if duly proved, may be used by the accused, and with the permission of the Court, by the prosecution, to contradict such witness in the manner provided by Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872); and when any part or such statement is so used, any part thereof may also be used in the re-examination of such witness, but for the purpose only of explaining any matter referred to in his cross-examination.
(2) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to apply to any statement falling within the provisions of Clause (1) of Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), or to affect the provisions of Section 27 of that Act.
From perusal of Section 162(1) Cr. P.C., it. is clear that the Statement made by any person to be a Police; Officer in the course of investigation, if reduced to writing, will not be used for any purpose at any enquiry, or trial in respect of any offence under investigation at the time when such statement was made. The proviso to Section 162(1) Cr.P.C. provides that if any such statement is duly proved, then it may be used by the accused and with the permission of the Court by the prosecution, to contradict such witness in the manner provided in Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act. Sub-section (2) of Section 162 Cr.P.C. can be said to be an exception to Sub-section(1), because the statement of the witness recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. if duly proved, can be used as evidence in the circumstances mentioned in Section 32(1) of Indian Evidence Act. Section 145 of Indian Evidence Act lays down that a witness may be cross-examined as to previous Statements made by him in writing or reduced into writing, and relevant to matters in question, without such writing being shown to him, or being proved; but, if it is intended to contradict him by the writing, his attention must, before the writing can be proved, be called to those parts of it, which are to be used for the purpose of contradicting him. From a bare perusal of Section 162(1) and Section 172(2) Cr.P.C. as well as Section 145 of Indian Evidence Act, it is crystal clear that except as provided in Sub-section (2) of Section 162 Cr.P.C. no Criminal Court can use the statement of the witness recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. as substantive evidence and such statement can only be used for contradicting the witness, if ho is called for the prosecution in the inquiry or trial and in that case the condition laid down in Section 145 Cr.P.C. has to be compiled with for making, use of the statement of the witness. In instant case, neither the statement, of the witness Ramesar (P.W.8) recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was got proved by the Investigating Officer, S.I. Ramrekha (P.W.10) nor the attention of this witness was drawn towards that statement at the time of his examination in Trial Court. Hence, in our considered view the aforesaid finding recorded in para 10 of the impugned Judgment, which is based on the alleged statement of the witness Rnmesar recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. is perverse and cannot be approved.
25. In para 11 of the impugned judgment, it is mentioned that all the eyewitnesses, who have been produced in the case are partisan witnesses and there is none, who could be called an independent witness. The testimony of the witnesses Dharamdeo (P.W.5) and Gangaram (P.W.6) has been disbelieved by the learned Trial Judge on the ground that they are nephews of Lovkush Chaudhary. It is true that the witnesses Dharamdeo and Gangaram are nephews of injured Lovkush Chaudhary, but in our considered view, the testimony of these witnesses cannot be discarded on this ground, although their testimony is to be scrutinized with care and caution. The Hon’ble Apex Court has held in catena of cases that the testimony of a witness cannot be discarded on the ground that, he is related to the victim or deceased. In Dalip Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab , it has been laid down as under:
A witness is normally to be considered independent unless he or she springs from sources which are likely to be tainted and that usually means unless the witness has cause, such as enmity against, the accused, to wish to implicate him falsely. Ordinarily a close relation would be the last to screen the real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent person. It is true, when feelings run high and there is personal cause for enmity, that there is tendency to drag in an innocent person against whom a witness has a grudge alongwith the guilty, but foundation must be laid for such a criticism and the mere fact of relationship far from being a foundation is often a sure guarantee of truth. However, we ate not attempting any sweeping generalization. Each case must be judged on its own facts. Our observations are only made to combat what is so often put forward in cases before us as a general rule of prudence. There is no such general rule. Each case must be limited to and be governed by its own facts.
The above decision has been followed in Guli Chand and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan , in which Vadivelu Thovar v. State of Madras was also relied upon. We may also observe that the ground that the witness examined by the prosecution being a close relative and consequently being a partisan witness, should not be relied upon, has no substance, as this theory was repelled by the Hon’ble Apex Court as early as in Dalip Singh’s case (Supra), in which surprise was expressed over the impression, which prevailed in the minds of the Members of the Bar that relatives are not independent witnesses.
26. Again in Masalti and Ors. v. State of U.P. , the Hon’ble Apex Court observed:
But it would, we think, be unreasonable to contend that evidence given by witnesses should be discarded only on the ground that it is evidence of partisan or interested witnesses…. The mechanical rejection of such evidence on the sole ground that it is partisan would invariably lead to failure of justice. No hard and fast rule can be laid down as to how much evidence should be appreciated. Judicial approach has to be cautious in dealing with such evidence; but the plea that such evidence should be rejected because it is partisan cannot be accepted as correct.
27. To the same effect is the decision of State of Punjab v. Jagir Singh ,
Lehna v. Stale of Haryana 2002 (45) ACC 566 (SC), and Gangadhar Bahera and Ors. v. State of Orissa 2002 (Suppl.) ACC 387 (SC). Therefore, having regard to the observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the aforesaid cases, the testimony of the witnesses Dharamdeo and Gangaram could not be discarded on the ground that they being the nephews of the injured Lovkush Chaudhary are partisan witnesses. Hence, the findings recorded by learned Trial Judge in this regard in para 11 of the judgment are unsustainable being perverse.
28. The testimony of the witness Jagdish Lal (P.W. 7) has been discarded by the learned Trial Judge vide his findings recorded in para 11 of the impugned judgment on the ground that he cares for Lovkush Chaudhary and Lovkush Chaudhary also cares for him. Regarding this finding, if is stated by learned Trial Judge that witness Jagdish Lal (P.W.7) is also not an independent witness. This finding of the learned Trial Judge is absolutely perverse. The testimony of the witness Jagdish Lal (P.W.7) is wholly reliable and on the basis of his testimony, if is fully proved that the injured Lovkush Chaudhary along with Ramesar (P.W.8) had come to hold the
Panchayat in his hamlet to settle the dispute between him and Somai. The witness Jagdish Lal cannot be said to be a partisan witness merely because he cares for Lovkush Chaudhary and Lovkush Chaudhary also cares for him. Therefore, the finding recorded by learned Trial Judge for disbelieving the testimony of the witness Jagdish Lal (P.W.7) cannot be sustained being perverse.
29. Regarding the witness Ramesar, it is observed by the learned Trial Judge in para 11 of the impugned Judgment that Ramesar (P.W.8) is obviously a man of Lovkush Chaudhary since he had accompanied to the hamlet of Jagdish Lal and hence, he must be n man of Lovkush Chaudhary’s confidence. It is further stated by learned Trial Judge that Ram Das, father of Jagdish Lal had appeared us witness in a case against the accused Hari Ram and hence, he is also not an independent witness. We find no substance in this finding of the learned Trial Judge. The testimony of P.W.8, Ramesar is also worth relying and his testimony cannot be discarded merely because he had gone to hold
Panchayat with the injured Lovkush Chaudhary and his father Ram Das had appeared as witness in some case against the accused Hari Ram. The finding recorded by the learned Trial Judge for disbelieving the testimony of Ramesar is also unreasonable, which cannot be approved.
30. The testimony of the witness Lallu alias Lal Bihari has also been disbelieved by learned Trial Judge on the ground that he is not an independent witness and reasoning given in para 12 of the impugned judgment is that accused Ram Milan had appeared as witness against this witness in a case under Section 379 I.P.C. before this incident. The testimony of the witness Lallu alias Lal Bihari is also convincing and worth relying. If for the sake of argument, the testimony of this witness is not taken into consideration on the ground that the accused Ram Milan had appeared as witness against him in a case under Section 379 I.P.C. before this incident, oven then on the basis of testimony of Lovkush Chaudhary and other witnesses, the case of the prosecution is fully proved beyond reasonable doubt.
31. In the end of para 12 of the impugned judgment, it is observed by learned Trial Judge that if independent witnesses had chance to see the occurrence, the evidence of partisan witnesses should not be believed. Supporting this finding, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents-accused submitted that according to the statements of witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., some other persons also had reached the place of occurrence on hearing the noise of Lovkush Chaudhary and since those neutral and independent witnesses have not been examined, the testimony of the witnesses examined by the prosecution should not be believed. In our considered view, this submission made by learned Counsel for the respondents-accused as well as finding recorded by learned Trial Judge in this regard in para 12 of the impugned judgment have no substance, because it is almost well settled principle of law that the testimony of the witnesses examined by the prosecution, if found reliable, cannot be discarded merely due to non-examination of independent witnesses of locality. In this regard, we may refer the following cases:
1. Malempati Pattabhi Narendra v. Ghattamaneni Maruthi Prasad .
3. State of H.P. v. Mast Ram .
4. Suchn Singh v. State of Punjab .
5. Komal v. State of U.P. .
6. Lehna v. State of Haryana .
7. Kartik Malhar v. State of Bihar .
8. Dalbir Kaur v. State of Punjab .
9. Alla China Apparao v. State of A.P. .
10. Ramanand Yadav v. Prabhu Nath Jha .
32. Having regard to the observations made in the aforesaid cases, the testimony of the injured Lovkush Chaudhary and other witnesses examined by the prosecution in this case cannot be discarded merely due to non-examination of persons, who had reached on the place of occurrence on hearing the noise of injured. As held by this Court and Hon’ble Apex Court in a number of cases, the witnesses, who are related to the victim or deceased, will not spare the real culprits and falsely implicate innocent, persons, It is also settled principle of law that a witness, who is related to deceased or victim in any manner is not necessarily interested witness and his testimony cannot be discarded merely because he is related to the deceased or victim in some manner.
33. The conduct of the witnesses Dharamdeo and Gangaram has been assailed by learned Trial Judge on the ground that they did not make any attempt to save their uncle Lovkush Chaudhnry from the accused persons, Regarding the conduct of the witnesses Dharamdeo and Gangaram, it is observed by learned Trial Judge in para 13 of the impugned Judgment, “….They had seen the whole occurrence. Yet they kept on standing in their fields and did not make any attempt to save their uncle from the deathly assault of the accused. It seems very improbable. They are young man and could not have been passive to the action of the accused. In the normal course of things they should have interfered and tried to save their uncle but they did not.” We find no force in this finding of the learned Trial Judge. Three accused were armed with country made pistols (tamanchas) and they were firing on the injured Lovkush Chaudhary. Other accused having
lathies were also causing marpit with him. Life is dear to all. Therefore, if due to fear of country made pistols and
lathies, the witnesses Dharamdeo and Gangaram did not make any effort to save Lovkush Chaudhary from the assault of accused, their testimony cannot he discarded on this ground and since the testimony of these witnesses has been disbelieved by learned Trial Judge on this ground also, the finding recorded in the impugned judgment in this regard is perverse and unreasonable.
34. After recording the aforesaid findings, the learned Trial Judge recorded the following findings in para 14:
I am of the opinion that the occurrence had taken place at Talri and not in the stretch of land extending from the sugar came field to the Talri as the prosecution wants me to bellove. I am fortified in my conclusion by the fact that blood stains were found only at the Talri and not at that stretch of land on which Lovkush had traversed after being assaulted by the accused. I therefore, find much force In the defence argument that Lovkush had been beaten by unknown enemies at the Talri and ho had implicated them on account of the enmity which had existed between him and many of the accused, Thus the prosecution case is not made out from the evidence on record.
35. For the reasons, which we have mentioned above, the aforesaid opinion of the learned Trial Judge is not sustainable, being unjustified.
36. As mentioned herein-above, on the basis of the evidence led by the prosecution in this case, II, is fully proved beyond all reasonable doubt that when Lovkush Choudhary on 02.09.1979 at, about 8.00 a.m. was coming to his house after holding
Panchayat in the hamlet of Village Majhari to settle the dispute between Jagdish Lal and Somani, an attempt to commit his murder was made by the respondents-accused, who after forming an unlawful assembly, caused injuries to him by means of firearms and
lathies. It has come in the statement of Dr. M.J. Hassan (P.W. 1) that injuries sustained by Lovkush Chaudhary were dangerous to life and death was possible from these injuries. All the accused-respondents have actively participated in the incident. Therefore, they all wore liable to be convicted of the charges framed against them, but the learned Trial Judge recording perverse, unreasonable and unfounded findings acquitted the accused-rospondents on insufficient and unjustified grounds. Therefore, we cannot upheld the findings of acquittal recorded by learned Trial Judge in the impugned Judgment. We are conscious that in the appeal against acquittal, scope for interference in the findings recorded by learned Trial Judge in favour of the accused is not as wide as in the appeal against conviction. This principle of law is also not disputed that if two views are possible on the evidence produced in the case, one indicating to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view favourable to the accused is to be accepted by the Appellate Court and if in any case, the Court entertains reasonable doubt regarding the guilt of the accused, the benefit of such doubt should go in favour of the accused, but the following observations made by Hon’ble Apex Court in para 11 of the case of
Harijana Thirupula and Ors. v. Public Prosecutors, High Court of A.P. Hyderabad 2002 S.C.C. (Cri) 1370 cannot be everlooked:
At the same time, the court must not reject the evidence of the prosecution taking it us false, untrustworthy or unreliable on fanciful grounds or on the basis of conjectures and surmises. The case of the prosecution must be judged as a whole having regard to the totality of the evidence. In appreciating the evidence the approach of the court must be integrated not truncated or isolated. In other words, the impact of the evidence in totality on the prosecution case or innocence of the accused has to be kept in mind in coming to the conclusion as to the guilt or otherwise of the accused. In reaching a conclusion about the guilt of the accused, the court has to appreciate, analyse and assess the evidence place before it by the yardstick of probabilities, its intrinsic value and the animus of witnesses. It must be added that ultimately and finally the decision in every case depends upon the facts of each case.
37. In instant case, the learned Trial Judge has not properly appreciated the evidence and the testimony of the witnesses has been discarded without assigning sufficient reasons. Consequently, this Appeal has to be allowed. According to Dn M.J. Hassan, some injuries sustained by the injured were dangerous to life and death was possible. Hence, in our view, the offence punishable under Section 307 I.P.C. is made out in this case. The accused-respondents Bambudeen, Ramdeen and Ram Milan, who had caused injuries to the injured Lovkush Chaudhary by firearms have died and the appeal has abated against them. The accused-respondents Hari Ram, Jankoo @ Janak, Raja Ram and Jhinkan (a) Dhukran worn armed with
lathies and they also had caused injuries to the injured. Hence, with the aid of Section 149, these accused-respondents also have to be convicted under Section 307 I.P.C. in addition to Section 147 I.P.C.
38. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the matter of sentence. Simple injures have been caused by the above named four accused. According to the X-ray report (Ext. Ka-2) prepared by Dr. R.C. Verma (P.W. 2), there was no fracture in any bone of the injured. The incident had occurred in the year 1979 and the accused-respondents are being punished after a gap of more than twenty seven years. Hence, in our view, sending the accused-respondents to jail at this stage will not be justified and sentence of imprisonment for the period already spent in jail by the accused respondents during investigation, enquiry and trial and fine would meet the ends of Justice;.
39. In the result, both the appeals are hereby allowed. The impugned judgment and order are set-aside. The accused-respondents Hari Ram, Jankoo @ Janak, Raja Rani and Jhinkun @) Dukhrnn are hereby convicted and sentenced to under imprisonment for the period already spent by them in jail during investigation, enquiry and trial, and to pay the fine of Rs. 1,000/- each under Section 147 I.P.C. and Rs. 4,000/- each under Section 307 read with Section 149 I.P.C in default of payment of line, the accused-respondents shall undergo imprisonment for one year.
Out of the amount of fine, a sum of Rs. 10,000/-(Rupees ton thousand only) will be paid to the injured Lovkush Chaudhary S/o Ganeshi resident of Village Majhari, P.S. Sohna, District Basti as compensation and if he has died, then this amount will be paid to his legal heirs.
The personal bonds of the respondents-accused and surety bonds of the sureties are cancelled and the sureties are hereby discharged.
The Office is directed to return Trial Court record along with a copy of this judgment expeditiously for further necessary action.