JUDGMENT
Imtiyaz Murtaza, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 20.3.2001 passed by VI Addl. Sessions Judge, Muzaffarnagar in S.T. No. 258 of 1992 (State v. Narendra and Ors.) whereby the appellants have been convicted under Section 302/34 I.P.C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life.
2. The brief facts of the case, mentioned in the report lodged by Vinay Kumar at police station Kotwali Shahar, Bijnor, are that he lives in Bijnor and is an Advocate by profession. Me has agricultural field in Mauza Suahedi where his Thresher and Tube Well are situated, On 15.6.1992 at about 10.30 – 11 a.m. he alongwith his father Ram Charan Singh Vakeel and brother Ajay Kumar, Advocate were coming from their Village to Bijnor in a Maruti Car. When they reached near their Tube Well, they stopped the Car and went towards the Tube Well to see whether the water was running or some work was going on or not, as it was their regular practice. His father stayed near the car, They heard the cries of his father and they proceeded towards the Car and saw that Narendra son of Kishore, Harveer son of Jaipal Singh, Amit Mohan alias Pinki son of Gyanendra Singh and Kamendra alias Chili son of Vishan Singh, who were residents of their village carrying country made pistols, fired at his father who was about 10-15 steps away from the Car. On raising alarm, Kalloo son of Raghuveer, Sansar son of Raghuveer and Teekam also reached there, the accused persons ran away by firing from their country made pistols. On account of enmity his father was killed. The report was registered at case crime No. 687 of 2002 under Section 302 I.P.C. After the registration of the case S.I. S.K. Sharma commenced the investigation. He recorded the statements of Head Constable Rajendra Kumar Sharma, informant Vinay Kumar and also enquired from Chhotey Singh and Anil Kumar who had accompanied the informant and he reached at the place of occurrence and prepared the site plan, which is Ext. Ka-3. He prepared the inquest memo and also prepared the relevant papers for the post mortem examination. The inquest memo is Ext. Ka-4. Letter to C.M.O., letter to R.I., photo lash, chalan lash were also prepared, which arc Ext. Ka-5 to Ka 8. The dead body was sealed and handed over to constables Virendra Kumar and Vinod Kumar. He had Collected plain and blood stained earth and prepared its recovery memos, which are Ext. Ka-1 and Ka-2. He also collected one empty cartridge of 315 bore and prepared its recovery memo, which is Ext. Ka-10. He had also collected blood stained brick and stones and prepared its recovery memo, which is ext. Ka-11. The recovery memo of Maruti Car No. DL 3C 7424 was also prepared, which is Ext. Ka-12. Thereafter, he had recorded the statement of Ajay Kumar, Kalloo, Sansar Singh, and Teekam. Narendra was arrested on 21.6.1992 and one country made Pistol was also recovered from his possession. On 16.7.1992 he had dispatched the articles for chemical examination and country made pistol for ballistic expert examination. After the conclusion of the investigation he had submitted the charge sheet, which is Ext. Ka-13. He had also proved the chik F.I.R. registered by H.C. Rajendra Sharma, which is Ext. Ka-14. G.D. was also prepared. A copy of G.D. is Ext. Ka-15,
3. The post mortem examination of the deceased Ram Charan Singh was conducted by Dr. Vijay Kumar Goel on 16.6.1992 at 9 a.m. and he noted following ante mortem injuries:
1. Lacerated wound 2.5 cm. x 1/2 cm. x bone deep on skull, occipital part, 12 cm. above left ear;
2. Lacerated wound 4 cm. x 3 cm. x bone deep on post part of skull, 2 cm, above injury No. 1.
3. Lacerated wound 3 cm. x 2 cm. x bone deep on skull, front area, 10 em, above left eye brow,
4. One big lacerated wound of entry 5 cm. x 3 cm. x very deep in soft issue of neck, blackening and tattooing present in lower border of wound on left side 8 cm. below left ear pinna and going upward with much damage of soft tissues of neck left side neck vessels, carotid arteries, nerves and vessels are lacerated and injured on further dissection a big bullet came out from deeper tissues near base of skull. Cranial vertebrae, trachea and oesophagus normal.
5. Firearm wound of entry 1 cm. x .4 cm. x muscle deep on face, left side, near chin, blackening and tattooing present, 6cm, in front of neck injury No. 4
6. Three vertical lacerated wounds on chin and above area with lower lip cut through and through due to fire arm wounds of entry, blackening and tattooing + under lying lower jaw is fractured and left maxilla base is also fractured, size of wound is 3 cm. x 1/2 cm., 2.5 cm. x 1/2 cm., 1/2 cm. x 2 cm. x through and through.
7. Three small lacerated wound of entry on back of elbow and upper arm left side, in an area of 17 cm. x 4 cm. blackening and tattooing present.
8. Multiple small, rounded, lacerated wounds of entry present on front of chest and upper abdominal area in an area of 24 cm. x 22 cm. fire arm having blackening and tattooing, few pellets came out from subcutaneous tissue, two from right lung and muscles of chest wall.
4. The doctor has also recovered from the body 10 pellets and one bullet.
5. In the opinion of the doctor cause of death was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante mortem injuries.
6. After the submission of charge sheet the case was committed to the court of Session and the Sessions Judge had framed charge under Section 302 I.P.C. The case of Amit Mohan @ Pinki was separated due to his absence.
7. In order to prove its case the prosecution had examined 5 witnesses before the trial court.
8. P.W. 1 Vinay kumar, informant of the case deposed that Ram Charan Singh Vakeel was his father and they lived together in Bijnor. He was Advocate by profession in revenue side. Their agricultural lands were situated in village Suahedi, which is at a distance of 10 and 1/2 kms. from Bijnor, He alongwith his father used to go every morning and every evening to their village to look after their fields. On 15.6.1992 at about 10.30 a.m. they had gone to village Suahedi and stayed for 5 minutes and thereafter they were returning to Bijnor. Their fields were situated at a distance of 1 and a half kms. from their village and a Tube Well was also situated there. They reached near their Tube well from their fields and stopped their Car. He alongwith his brother Ajay Kumar got down from the Maruti Car and proceeded towards their Tube Well at about 11 a.m. When they reached near their Tube Well, they heard the cries of his father and saw that Narendra, Harveer, Amit Mohan alias Pinki and Kamendra alias Chilli were firing at his father from country made pistols. By the time when they reached near their father, he was dead and assailants ran away. Kalloo Singh, Sansar and Teekam Singh also reached there. He prepared the F.I.R. which he had lodged at the police station.
9. P.W. 2 Ajay Kumar deposed that deceased Ram Charan Singh was his father and they were residing in Nai Basti, Bijnor. Their Thresher and Tube Well were situated in village Suahedi which was at a distance of 9 – 10 kms. from Bijnor. He alongwith his brother and father used to go to their field every morning and in the evening. On 15.6.1992 at about 10.30 a.m. they had gone to village Suahedi from Bijnor. They stayed about 5 minutes at their Thresher and thereafter returning to Bijnor, They had covered about 1 1/2 km. from their village towards Bijnor where their fields were situated. There was a Tube Well in the field. They got down from their Car. He alongwith his brother Vinay proceeded towards the Tube Well. His father was standing near the Car. They heard the cries of his father and saw that Narendra, Harveer, Amit Mohan alias Pinki and Kamendra alias Chilli were carrying country made pistols in their hands and were firing at his father. They ran towards their father but accused persons ran away towards eastern side. Kaloo, Teekam and Sansar reached at the place of occurrence and saw that his father was already dead. The report of the occurrence was prepared by Vinay Kumar. He further deposed that Munney, his servant was murdered in the year 1975. The father of Kamendra alias Chilli and Bishan Singh grand father of Amit Mohan were chargesheeted in that case and his father was a witness against them. On that account they were inimical with their family. Narendra and Harveer are their friends. Sansar, a witness of this case has already been murdered,
10. P.W. 3 Constable Devendra Singh deposed that on 15.6.1992 he was posted as a Constable at police station Kotwali. On that day he alongwith Inspector S.K. Sharma had reached at the place of occurrence. The Inspector had prepared the inquest memo on the dead body of Ram Charan and he had also prepared the relevant papers, He had signed the inquest memo, which is Ext. Ka. 2. The dead body was sealed and handed over to him alongwith Constable Vinod Kumar for carrying it to the mortuary alongwith relevant papers.
11. P.W. 4, S.I. S.K. Sharma is the investigating officer of this case and he deposed that he investigated the case and submitted charge sheet against the accused.
12. P.W. 5 Dr. V.K. Goel conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased and has proved the post mortem report.
13. The court had examined Abrar Ali S.I. as a court witness and he deposed that on 23.5.2000 he had gone to the house of Amit Mohan for executing the warrant. He was not available in the house. The villagers informed that he had disposed of his properties and absconded. He had executed the non bailable warrant which is Ext. C-1 and Amit Mohan was declared absconder.
14. The Sessions Judge relying upon the prosecution evidence convicted and sentenced the appellants, as aforesaid. Hence this appeal.
15. We have heard Shri P.N. Misra and Smt. Usha Kiran Advocate for the appellants and learned A.G.A. for the State.
16. Learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that there was no immediate motive to commit the crime. According to the prosecution case, earlier one Munney, servant of the deceased was murdered and Bishan Singh, father of the appellant Kamendra alias Chili was accused in that murder case. The deceased was one of the witnesses in that murder case, which was ended in acquittal. This occurrence had taken place much earlier to the present case. Thus there was no immediate motive for committing the day light murder. We have considered the submission of the counsel and also perused the testimony of the witnesses. Nothing infirm has been elicited to cast doubt on the veracity with regard to motive .If the lack of motive as pleaded by the appellants is a factor, at the same time, it can not be lost sight of that there is no reason as to why the witnesses, who are sons of the deceased, would falsely implicate the accused. There was no suggestion of any motive for false implication. If the incident in question as projected by the prosecution is to be accepted then the presence or absence of a motive or strength of the said motive by itself also will not make the prosecution case weak. In the case of State of H.P. v. Jeet Singh the Apex Court had observed “No doubt it is a sound principle to remember that every criminal act was done with a motive but its corollary is not that no criminal offence would have been committed if the prosecution has failed to prove the precise motive of the accused to commit It, When the prosecution succeeded in showing the possibility of some ire for the accused towards the victim, the inability to further put on record the manner in which such ire would have swelled up in the mind of the offender to such a degree as to impel him to commit the offence cannot be construed as a fatal weakness of the prosecution. It is almost an impossibility for the prosecution to unravel the full dimension of the mental disposition of an offender towards the person whom he offended.
17. The counsel for the appellant next submitted that the testimonies of P.W. 1 Vinai Kumar and P.W. 2 Ajai Kumar should not have been relied upon because both are sons of the deceased and they are relative and interested witnesses. The prosecution did not examine other independent witnesses which were available.
18. We have considered the submission and in our opinion there is no substance in this submission. It is a settled position that there is no proposition in law that relatives are to be treated as untruthful witness, just because the witnesses are related to the deceased would be no ground to discard their testimony, if otherwise their testimony inspires confidence. Being relatives, it would be their endeavour to see that the real culprits are punished and normally they would not implicate wrong person in the crime, so as to allow the real culprits to escape unpunished. The submission of the non examination of other witnesses is concerned, mere failure to examine all the witnesses who may have witnessed the occurrence will not result in out right rejection of the prosecution case if the witnesses examined by the prosecution are found to be truthful and reliable. Moreover, we cannot ignore the reality that many eye witnesses shy away from giving evidence for obvious reasons. In the case of Ravi v. State it has been observed that “It is settled by a catena of cases by this Court that the evidence of eyewitnesses cannot be rejected merely because they are related. In such a situation, the evidence of PW 2 in the present case, there is no strong motive or ill will on the part of PW 2 to exonerate the real person who caused the injuries to her son and to implicate the accused.
19. In the case of Appabhal v. State of Gujarat reported in 1988 (supp.) SCC 241 the Apex Court has observed as under:
Experience reminds us that civilized people are generally insensitive when a crime is committed even in their presence. They withdraw both from the victim and the vigilante. They keep themselves away from the court unless it is inevitable. They think that crime like civil dispute is between two Individuals or parties and they should not involve themselves. This kind of apathy of the general public is indeed unfortunate, but it is there everywhere whether in village life, towns or cities. One cannot ignore this handicap with which the Investigating agency has to discharge its duties. The court therefore, instead of doubting the prosecution case for want of independent witness must consider the broad spectrum of the prosecution version and then search for the nugget of truth with due regard to probability, if any, suggested by the accused. The court, however, must bear in mind that witnesses to a serious crime may not react in a normal manner. Nor do they react uniformly. The horror-stricken witnesses at a dastardly crime or an act of egregious nature may react differently. Their course of conduct may not be of ordinary type in the normal circumstances. The court, therefore, cannot reject their evidence merely because they have behaved or reacted in an unusual manner.
20. According to the prosecution case the independent witnesses were available. But they were not examined by the prosecution. It is contended by the counsel for the appellants that only two eye witnesses were examined by the prosecution who are sons of the deceased therefore their evidence is not sufficient to convict the appellants. It is now well settled that the evidence of witness cannot be discarded merely on the ground that he is a related witness or the sole witness, or both, if otherwise the same is found credible. The witness could be a relative but that does not mean to reject his statement in totality. In such a case, it is the paramount duty of the court to be more careful in the matter of scrutiny of evidence of the interested witness. In the case of Seeman v. State the Apex court had observed that The prosecution’s non-production of one independent witness who has been named in the FIR by itself cannot be taken to be a circumstance to discredit the evidence of the interested witness and disbelieve the prosecution case. It is well settled that it is the quality of the evidence and not the quantity of the evidence which is required to be judged by the court to place credence on the statement.
21. Learned Counsel for the appellants further submitted that the occurrence might have taken place early in the morning and not at the alleged time. According to the prosecution case the deceased and the witnesses were in legal profession and they were coming from their house and the deceased was also not found in court dress. We have considered the submission of the counsel for the appellant and there is nothing on the record to suggest that the occurrence had taken place much earlier than what is alleged by the prosecution. The post mortem examination report supports the time alleged by the witnesses. In the post mortem examination report the Doctor had found 5 oz. semi digested liquid type food and nothing abnormal was detected in small and large intestine. According to P.W.5 Dr. V.K. Goyel the injuries are possible between 10.30 and 11 a.m. In the cross examination he did not deny the possibility of death of the deceased between 6 and 7 a.m. But there is nothing on the record to doubt the time alleged by the prosecution. There is nothing in the F.I.R. to show that they used to reside in the village. The village of the deceased was at a distance of 9 km. and it was also explained that they were regular visitors of their fields and after visiting the field they used to come to their house to take lunch and then they go to attend the court because the court starts after about 12 O’clock. Therefore, there was no occasion for wearing the uniform for attending the court. The presence of the informant and his brother was also doubted on the ground that the deceased was their father and they did not try to save the life of their father. We do not find any substance in this submission because the conduct of the witnesses cannot be predicted in a situation like this where the assailants were armed with fire arm. In the case of Hardev Singh v. Harbhej Singh , the Apex Court had observed as under:
Coming to the next ground of acquittal, viz., non-intervention of the relatives of the deceased including the eyewitnesses during the assault on the victims to protect them, in our opinion is wholly unsustainable. Since the respondents (accused) were armed with deadly weapons as against this the victims and his relatives were totally unarmed and in such a situation it was absurd to expect any intervention and if they were to do so it would have led to some more casualties.
22. The presence of the informant and his brother was also challenged on the ground that the case of the prosecution is that the deceased and his two sons were returning from their village in their maruti car but the informant had gone to lodge the report on a bus .If car was available then the informant should have gone to the police station in his car and if the car was not there then the presence of the informant was highly doubtful as his presence at the place of occurrence was only because he was also travelling in the car along with the deceased. We have considered the submission but there is no substance in this submission also because P.W.1 was not given any opportunity to explain as to why he did not go to the police station in his car. He had admitted that he had prepared the report in his car. Without questioning a witness specifically about an omission or a contradiction in his testimony the accused cannot take any advantage of such a contradiction. In this connection the following passage in paragraphs 13 and 14 of State of U.P. v. Nahar Singh may be usefully perused:
13. It may be noted here that that part of the statement of PW 1 was not cross-examined by the accused. In the absence of cross-examination on the explanation of delay, the evidence of PW 1 remained unchallenged and ought to have been believed by the High Court. Section 138 of the Evidence Act confers a valuable right of cross-examining the witness tendered in evidence by the opposite party. The scope of that provision is enlarged by Section 146 of the Evidence Act by allowing a witness to be questioned:
(1) to test his veracity,
(2) to discover who he is and what is his position in life, or
(3) to shake his credit by injuring his character, although the answer to such questions might tend directly or indirectly to incriminate him or might expose or tend directly or indirectly to expose him to a penalty or forfeiture.
14. The oft-quoted observation of Lord Herschell, L.C. in Browne v. Dunn clearly elucidates the principle underlying those provisions. It reads thus:
I cannot help saying, that it seems to me to be absolutely essential to the proper conduct of a cause, where it is intended to suggest that a witness is not speaking the truth on a particular point, to direct his attention to the fact by some questions put in cross-examination showing that that imputation is intended to be made, and not to take his evidence and pass it by as a matter altogether unchallenged, and then, when it is impossible for him to explain, as perhaps he might have been able to do if such questions had been put to him, the circumstances which, it is suggested, indicate that the story he tells ought not to be believed, to argue that he is a witness unworthy of credit. My Lords, I have always understood that if you intend to impeach a witness, you are bound, whilst he is in the box, to give an opportunity of making any explanation which is open to him; and, as it seems to me, that is not only a rule of professional practice in the conduct of a case, but it is essential to fair play and fair dealing with witnesses.
23. The accused can therefore not take advantage of such a discrepancy in the evidence unless it is put to the witness and he has been given an opportunity to explain the discrepancy. In any case there may be various reasons for not going to the police station in his car and in any case no opportunity was given him to explain the reason.
24. It is further contended that there is conflict in direct and medical evidence. According to the prosecution case the deceased was fired upon by the accused. The post mortem report indicates large number of lacerated wounds for which there is no explanation. It is contended that the prosecution witnesses should not be believed because of this conflict and they were also modulating their statements to suit the prosecution case. In court they stated that the deceased had fallen on the stones and sustained injuries. We have considered the submission of the counsel for the appellant but in our opinion there is no conflict in ocular and medical evidence. There was nothing on record to show that they are deliberately modulating their statements. The dead body was found on the ground and the investigating officer had also collected stones, smeared with blood. The eyewitness account shows that the deceased was fired upon and the cause of death was firearm injuries. In case if the deceased had sustained some injuries due to fall, it was not necessary for the witnesses to notice the same. In our opinion there is no such contradiction to discredit the otherwise reliable testimony of the witnesses.
25. The counsel for the appellant further challenged the time of lodging of the first information report and submitted that the prosecution did not lead any evidence to show when the special report was dispatched. The testimony of investigating officer could not show as to when special report was dispatched. It is further contended that the investigation is also tainted. There are cutting and over writing in the inquest report. The title of the case was also not mentioned in the police papers. In support of this submission, learned Counsel for the appellants has also placed reliance on the decision of this Bench in the case of State of U.P. v. Annes reported in 1992 A.C.C. 598 wherein this Court had doubted the time of lodging of the first information report on the ground that there was delay in sending of the special report. The counsel for the appellant also placed reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. v. Shri Krishna reported in 2005 (1) CAR (SC) 108, wherein the Apex Court doubted the time of lodging of the report on the ground that in the inquest report the name of informant was in a different ink. Another decision cited by the counsel for the appellants was in the case of Jagdeo Singh v. State of U.P. Reported in 1979 Allahabad ACR 377, where the lodging of the F.I.R. was doubted on the ground that there was delay in dispatch of the body and wrong time was noted in the papers of dispatch of the dead body and there were infirmities in police papers.
26. We have considered the submissions of the counsel for the appellants and decisions relied upon.
27. The first information report was one of the enclosures mentioned in the inquest report and it is also not challenged by the defence. The chick report was signed by the C.O. City on 16.6.92, which shows that there was no delay in the dispatch of the special report. Even if the special report is not dispatched forthwith it was only a fault of the investigation and on that ground eye witness account which was otherwise reliable cannot be disbelieved. The Apex Court in the case of Girish Chandra Mahto alias Girish Mahto and Ors. decided on 6.1.2006 in Crl. Appeal No. 3 of 2006 has held as under:
There cannot be any manner of doubt that Section 157 of Code of Criminal Procedure requires sending of an F.I.R. to the Magistrate forthwith which reaches promptly and without undue delay. The reason is obvious to avoid any possibility of improvement in the prosecution story and also to enable the Magistrate to have a watch on the progress of the investigation, At the same time, this lacuna on the part of the prosecution would not be the sole basis for throwing out the entire prosecution case being fabricated if the prosecution had produced the reliable evidence to prove the guilt of the accused persons. The provisions of Section 157 Cr.P.C. are for the purpose of having a fair trial without there being any chance of fabrication or introduction of the fact at subsequent stage of investigation. The cases cited by the learned Counsel for the appellants do not lay down any law that simply because there is a delay in lodging the F.I.R. or sending it to the Magistrate forthwith, the entire case of the prosecution has to be discarded. The decision rendered by this Court and relied upon by the learned Counsel for the appellant would only show that this will be a material circumstance which will be taken into consideration while appreciating the evidence on record.
28. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the crime number and sections in the inquest report was mentioned in different ink and the title of the case was not mentioned in other police papers which were dispatched alongwith the inquest report.
29. We do not find any substance in this submission because on this ground it cannot be said that the first information report was not in existence at the time of preparation of inquest report. The first information report was one of the enclosures mentioned in the inquest report, name of complainant was mentioned in the inquest report and it was also mentioned that death was due to fire arm injuries. There is no provision for mentioning the title of the case in all the police papers. The crime number and sections are already mentioned in all the relevant papers.
30. In the case of Munshi Prasad v. State of Bihar report in it was observed by the Apex Court that “Preparation of an inquest report is a part of the investigation within the meaning of the Criminal Procedure Code and as noticed above, neither the inquest report nor the post-mortem report can be termed to be a basic evidence or substantive evidence and discrepancy occurring therein can neither be termed to be fatal nor even a suspicious circumstance, which would warrant a benefit to the accused and the resultant dismissal of the prosecution case.
31. As regard the submission of learned Counsel for the appellant that title of the case is not mentioned in the police papers, the Apex Court in the case of Malkiat Singh v. State of Punjab it was observed that “As regards the omission of the names of the appellants in the memo sent to the Medical Officer, P.W. 2 under Exhibit D-13 and 14 it is also not evidence except the record of investigation. It is not a rule of law that the memo should bear names with cause title of accused. It is enough if the name of the injured is mentioned in the memo.
32. The evidence on the record fully proves that on the date of occurrence deceased Ram Charan Singh was returning to his house from his village Suhadeeh where his agricultural field and thresher was situated. He was returning in a Maruti Car alongwith his two sons, namely Vinay Kumar and Ajay Kumar. The witnesses have fully explained their presence at the time of occurrence, which fully inspires confidence. The occurrence took place on 15.6.1002 between 10.30 and 11 a.m. The time of occurrence is also corroborated by the testimony of P.W. 5 Dr. Vijay Kumar Goel. The manner of assault as disclosed in the first information report and corroborated by the testimonies of the witnesses is also corroborated by the medical evidence. The place of occurrence is also proved by the recovery of blood collected from the place of occurrence and blood stained stones and also recovery of empty cartridges from the place of occurrence. The prompt report was lodged by Vinay Kumar P.W. 1 at the police station Kotwali Shahar at 12.15, the distance of the police station was 9 km. The testimonies of the witnesses are credible and they were subjected to extensive cross-examination but nothing could be elicited to discredit their testimony. They have described the prosecution case in most natural manner and their testimony docs not suffer from any infirmity. There is no suggestion to the witnesses for false implication of the appellants. The occurrence took place in a broad day light and there is no doubt about the identity of assailants. It is also highly improbable that close relative will falsely implicate innocent persons instead of real culprits for the murder of their father. The Sessions Judge had rightly recorded the findings of conviction and we also concur with the same.
33. For the reasons stated above, the appeal is dismissed. The conviction and sentence of the appellant awarded by the trial court is affirmed. The appellants are on bail. C.J.M. Muzaffarnagar therefore, is directed to take the appellants into custody forthwith on receipt of a copy of this judgment and remand them to judicial custody for serving out the sentences as awarded by the trial court and confirmed by us.
34. A report to this effect be also submitted to this Court.