Reserved CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 500 of 1982 1.Karua @ Tej Pal @ Rajendra 2.Mahipal Singh Appellants Versus State of U.P. Respondent Hon'ble Yatindra Singh,J.
Hon’ble Surendra Singh,J.
(Delivered by Hon’ble Surendra Singh, J)
1. The challenge in this appeal is the judgment and order dated 30.1.1982 passed
by 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Mathura, in ST No.43 of 1981 and ST No.140 of
1981 convicting and sentencing the appellants under Section 396 IPC for the life
imprisonment.
2. Shorn of unnecessary details, briefly stated facts of the case are as follows:
• According to the prosecution on 16.12.1980, at abut 9.10pm, at police
station Sahpau, Mathura situated at a distance of one and a half
miles to the north of village Nagla Sewa of Dhandhau where the
dacoity is alleged to have taken place at about 6.45pm in late
morning on the same day, the Informant Lakshman Singh lodged a
written report (Ex Ka-1) purported to have been scribed by one,
Phulwar Singh of Nagla Sewa, P.S. Sahpau, District Mathura.
• As gleaned from the FIR, on the date of incident in the evening, at
about 6.45pm, said Lakshman Singh, his father (Sugreev Singh), Dal
Chand S/o Than Singh, Ramvir S/o Ram Prasad, Satyavir S/o Pyare
Lal and Bachchi S/o Shobha Ram were sitting around the fire in front
of the exit of their house, then about seven or eight persons came
from the side of the village Dhandhau and surrounded them at once
2and opened fire in order to frighten them thereupon
the Informant caught hold appellant no.2 who had
fired the shot with a Pauna, knocked him on the
ground and at the same time appellant Karua gave a
lathi blow on the head of the Informant so that
appellant no.2 (Mahipal Singh) was able to free
himself from the clutches of the Informant. After
having been free, said Mahipal Singh fired another
shot at him but unfortunately it struck to Dal Chand in
his stomach.
• During this incident, it is alleged that the third
miscreant struck his father on the latter’s head with
the Pharsa while the remaining miscreants entered
into the house and started looting whereupon the
Informant and others raised alarm on which one
Kaptan Singh S/o Siya Ram ignited the fire behind
the house and Ram Swaroop S/o Shobha Ram also
ignited the fire below the Neem tree in front of the
house and thus the sufficient light including the
lantern light was provided.
• It is further alleged that one Juginder Singh S/o Lal
Singh of the village climbed to the roof of the house
and started indiscriminate firing from his licensed gun
towards the miscreants with the consequence that
miscreants lost courage and fled away towards
village Dhandhau and during the course of escape
from the spot, they fired again causing injury to one
3
Virendra S/o Hukum Singh.
• It is further specified that appellant no.1, Karua was
wearing pant and coat and had a lathi in his hand
and others had country made pistols and guns at the
time of incident and that Mahipal Singh was wearing
a black coat, a white Pajama and had a tie on and a
muffler around his neck. It has been given out that
the miscreants were seen and recognized well in light
provided by fire and lantern. It has also been given
out that the dacoity lasted for about 20 minutes.
3. On the basis of the said written report, a formal FIR (Ex Ka-16)
was prepared by the then head moharrir Mewa Ram and
consequently an entry was made in G.D. at serial no.28, both
contained signatures of Radhey Shyam (PW-8). On the basis of
formal FIR (Ex Ka-16), a case under Sections 395/397 IPC vide
crime No.192 of 1980 was registered. The injuries sustained by
Dal Chand, Virendra, Sugreev Singh and Lakshman Singh were
noted and they were sent for treatment and medical examination
alongwith concerned ‘chiththi majrubi’ accompanied with
Constable, Shripal Singh to PHC Sahpau, Mathura. Injured, Dal
Chand lost the battle of his life in the mid night of 17.12.1980.
Consequently, the offence was altered to Section 396 IPC from
395/397 IPC vide G.D. entry (Ex Ka-18).
4. Sri Durga Prasad Sharma (S.I.) was entrusted to prepare
inquest of the dead body of Dal Chand. S.O. , Radhey Shyam
4
was given a list of looted articles (Ex Ka-2) by the Informant,
Lakshman Singh on the spot on the same day in the morning i.e.
17.12.1980. He recorded the statement of witnesses Lakshman
Singh (PW-1), Sugreev Singh (PW-3), Satyavir (PW-4) and Om
Pkash (PW-5) on 17.12.1980. He made a spot inspection and
prepared site plan (Ex Ka-19). He collected samples of ash from
two different places material Ex-I from behind the house and
material Ex-II from the other places and prepared memo (Ex Ka-
20). He collected 14 blank cartridges and 7 wads from the spot
and prepared memo (Ex Ka-21) and sealed them (Ex-III to Ex-XVI
and XVII to XXIII). He further examined lantern of Sugreev S/o
Nihal Singh and found it in order and prepared memo cum
supurdginama (Ex Ka-22) and handed it over back to Sugreev. He
recognized writing and signatures of S.I. Sri D.P. Sharma on
papers concerning inquest report of the dead body of Dal Chand
(Ex Ka-7 to Ka-13). Exts. Ka-6 and Ka-14, copy of written FIR
apparently sent alongwith other papers at the time of dispatching
the dead body for post mortem examination which were duly
received by the medical officer concerned and the genuineness
whereof has been admitted.
5. On completion of investigation and the usual formalities
associated therewith, S.O. Sri Radhey Shyam (PW-8), the I.O. of
the case, submitted the charge sheets (Ex Ka-25 and Ex Ka-26)
against both the appellants, Karua and Mahipal Singh on
31.12.1980 and 1.3.1981 respectively.
5
6. Autopsy on the dead body of the Deceased, Dal Chand, was
conducted on 17.12.1980 at 4.45pm by Dr SP Bhatnagar (PW-7)
who proved the autopsy report as (Ex Ka-10). In his opinion the
Deceased was about 40 years of age, having an average built
body and had died about one day earlier. As per opinion of the
Doctor, rigor mortis was present all over the body of the Deceased.
The following ante mortem injury was found on the dead body:
(i). Gun shot wound of entrance multiple 33 in number
varying in size from 1/2cm x 1/2cm to 1/4cm x 1/4cm soft
tissue and abdominal cavity deep spread over an area
19cm x 18cm front of abdomen including lower part of chest
right side;
(ii). No charring and tattooing present;
(iii). Round metallic pellets recovered from soft tissue.
In the opinion of the autopsy surgeon the death of the deceased
was caused due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of injury
mentioned above.
7. On internal examination, the Doctor found 14 pellets from the
dead body. Both the chambers of the Deceased were found empty
and liver, kidney and intestines were punctured and clotted blood
was found. Four ozs semi digested food with blood was found in
the stomach in fluid state and its wall was punctured at places
through and through. Both small and large intestines were also
found punctured.
8. Dr Hari Babu Sharma (PW-2) is the doctor who has medically
6
examined Virendra, Sugreev Singh and Lakshman Singh.
9. Relevant and material details of injury reports are mentioned
below:
• Injury report (Ex Ka-3) of Virendra, aged about 25 years,
S/o Hukam Singh, resident of Nagla Sewa, P.S. Sahpau,
District Mathura, examined on 16.12.1980, at 9.30pm;
(1). Multiple gun shot wounds (about 9) in area 13cm x 8cm
left side of forehead of scalp in left half of forehead and
upper part of left cheek and left parietal region, size ¼ cm x
¼ cm approximately of each;
(2). Gun shot wound size ¼ cm x ¼cm on posterior surface
of upper 1/3rd of left arm;
(3). Gun shot wound size ¼ cm x ¼ cm in supra sternal
region.
Injuries are kept under observation, caused by gun shot.
Duration fresh.
Pt. is referred to District Hospital Mathura for X-ray left side of
scalp and eft arm and neck A.P. And lateral view and also for
treatment.
• Injury report (Ex Ka-4) of Sugreev Singh, aged about 50
years, S/o Nihal Singh, resident of Nagla Sewa, P.S.
Sahpau, District Mathura, District Mathura on 16.12.1980,
at 10pm;
(1). I.W. 5.5cm x ½ cm x scalp muscle deep on right side of
scalp about 8cms above the right ear.
7
• Injury report (Ex Ka-5) of Lakshman Singh, aged about
28 years, S/o Sugreev Singh, resident of Nagla Sewa
(Mauza Dhandhau), P.S. Sahpau, District Mathura
examined on 27.12.1980, at 6.30pm;
(1). Scabbed wound 1½cm x ½ cm on left side of scalp
about 12 cm above the left ear.
10. On the basis of charge sheets (Ex Ka-25 and Ex Ka-26), Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Mathura summoned the appellants and
committed the case to the court of sessions where it was
registered as ST No.43 of 1981 and ST No.140 of 1981
respectively. Since both the session cases have arisen out of the
same incident as such both of them were consolidated and tried
together, in accordance with law.
11. Additional Sessions Judge, Mathura, on 13.3.1981 and
6.7.1981 charged the appellants for the offence under Section 396
IPC. Since the appellants abjured the charge, therefore, the trial
proceeded against them.
12. In order to cement the charge and establish appellants’ guilt to
the hilt, the prosecution in all examined 8 witnesses out of whom,
witnesses, Lakshman Singh (PW-1), Sugreev Singh (PW-3),
Satyavir (PW-4) and Om Prakash (PW-5) were fact witnesses and
rest were formal witnesses who included Dr Hari Babu (PW-2)
(examined the injured persons), Dr SP Bhatnagar (PW-7), Radhey
Shyam Singh, S.O. (PW-8) and Constable Shreepal (PW-6), (who
8
carried the dead body. Surendra Singh (DW-1) of village Nagla
Sewa and Vinod Kumar (DW-2) of village Nagla Mani were also
examined by the witness.
13. The defence of the accused appellant was that of denial and
and false implication in connivance between the police and the
Informant. The trial court vide its impugned judgment and order
after scrutiny of evidence of the witnesses and other material on
record, was satisfied that both the accused had committed dacoity
with the murder of an innocent person, Dal Chand the Deceased
and the charge was proved beyond doubt and, therefore, held the
appellants guilty for the offence under Section 396 IPC and
convicted them to life imprisonment, which has resulted in the
present appeal.
14. Heard Sri Anand Kumar Srivastava, holding brief of Sri J.N.
Chaturvedi, counsel for the appellants and Sri VK Mishra AGA for
the State. We have also gone through the evidence and other
material placed on record.
15. Learned counsel for the appellants has raised following
contentions:
• The Prosecution has not been able to prove the guilt of the
appellants beyond reasonable doubt, thus the appellants
are entitled for acquittal;
• The FIR of the incident was false, fabricated and ante-timed
and lodged in collusion with the police concerned;
9
• The prosecution has not produced any independent witness
of the incident rather independent and uninterested witness
could have been produced. Thus the testimony of such
witnesses produced in support of the prosecution cannot be
relied upon;
• There are certain infirmities in the deposition of the
witnesses which go to root of the matter and shakes the
basic version of the prosecution;
• Informant Lakshman Singh was medically examined on
27.12.1980. Apparently, the prosecution has produced
forged and fabricated evidence to the effect that he
received injury during alleged incident.
• The case has been initiated against the appellants due to
enmity at the instance of one Charan Singh.
• The prosecution has completely failed to consider the
defence set up by the appellants, thus their conviction and
sentence is bad in law.
16. All witnesses of fact have unerringly supported the prosecution
case and there is nothing in their statements, which belies the
prosecution version. The testimony of these witnesses is of
unimpeachable character. There is no merit in the appeal as
prosecution has successfully proved the appellants to be guilty of
the murder. The appeal is liable to be dismissed.
17. The prosecution has placed reliance upon the oral evidence of
the prosecution witnesses examined during the course of trial as
10
well as documents and material exhibits and reliance was also
placed upon the circumstances governing the case.
18. For adjudicating the correctness of the submission made and
judging the guilt or of the innocence of the accused, a synopsized
discussion of material evidence of both the prosecution and the
defence is necessary.
19. The harbinger of prosecution evidence were Lakshman Singh
(PW-1), Sugreev Singh (PW-3), Satyavir (PW-4) and Om Pkash
(PW-5). In defence two witnesses have been examined. One was
Surendra Singh (DW-1) and another was Vinod Kumar (DW-2) as
mentioned above.
20. During the trial the Informant/Injured Lakshman Singh (PW-1)
besides narrating his allegations contained in the written report (Ex
Ka-1) further testified giving out entire details of the alleged
occurrence and proved written report (Ex Ka-1) and list of the
property given by him (Ex Ka-2). He has further clearly and
specifically deposed that he knew the appellants from before and
when he caught hold the appellant Mahipal Singh, Karua gave him
lathi blow on his head and soon after Mahipal Singh fired second
shot at him, which hit Dal Chand, who succumbed thereafter to his
injuries. It is observed from his cross-examination that defence
has not been able to prove to shake his testimony. He further
narrated that the report was scribed by one, Phulwar Singh after
the dacoits had left the place and that he had signed the same
11
after it was read over to him and the said report was lodged at
about 9.10pm on the same day.
21. Sugreev Singh (PW-3) is another witness, who was injured in
the incident and who went to the police station alongwith
Lakshman Singh (PW-1), the Informant. He belongs to the family
whose house was looted. His presence was natural and most
likely. The defence from his cross-examination has not been able
to shake his testimony at all and has failed to elicit any material
contradiction in his statement from that of PW-1.
22. Satyavir (PW-4) is another witness of fact. He was an
immediate neighbour named in the FIR and thus the natural and
most probable witness. He has fully supported the couple
witnesses in all material aspects of the incident, thus his testimony
cannot be ignored and discarded.
23. So far as Om Pkash (PW-5) is concerned, he is an
independent witness and belongs to village Gadh Anta, P.S.
Saidabad, District Mathura. He has given out a reason or
explanation for his presence in village Nagla Sewa. Indisputably,
his name was not disclosed in the FIR, although he is a witness of
charge sheet. He has been examined in corroborative support of
the case. He has deposed that he knew the appellants very well
from before and had seen them at the scene of occurrence on the
relevant date and time.
12
24. However, testimony of Vinod Kumar (DW-2) makes to believe
regarding his presence at the scene.
25. Constable Sripal (PW-6) is a formal witness. The then S.O.
Radhey Shyam (PW-8), has stated about the details and manner
of the investigation conducted by him.
26. Sri Hari Babu Sharma (PW-2) has also given medical evidence
in support of prosecution case. He had medically examined
Virendra, Sugreev Singh and Lakshman Singh.
27 All the formal witnesses have given supportive evidence as
referred above. They testified the facts of the prosecution case
and they were cross-examined at length but no material has been
brought on record to make their testimony suspected and
unbelievable.
28. Another argument by the learned counsel for the appellants is
that the FIR was false and fabricated and lodged in collusion with
the police concerned is wholly unappealing. We reject it outrightly
as being wholly unmerited. Ex Ka-16 shows that the report was
lodged at 9.10pm on 16.12.1980 and that the occurrence had
taken place at 6.45pm on the same day. Ex Ka-16 and Ex Ka-17
disclose that the distance between the alleged place of occurrence
and police station Sahpau was only one and half miles. It is not
disputed that a person had lost his life during the alleged
occurrence. The formal FIR (Ex Ka-16) does bear on its top crime
13
No.192, under Sections 395/397 IPC. The said crime of Indian
Penal Code also finds place in the copy of the corresponding entry
made in G.D. (Ex Ka-17). (Ex Ka-17) shows that the Informant,
Lakshman Singh had gone to lodge the report, he was
accompanied with Dal Chand (Deceased) and the injured. Ex Ka-
3 and Ex Ka-4 (Chiththi majrubi) bear Sections 395/397 IPC noted
thereon. The injury reports were prepared at 9.30pm and 10pm on
the date of the incident and and amongst the document prepared
earliest. Crime number is also shown in chiththi majrubi at the
back of Ex Ka-3 and Ex Ka-4. Further Ex Ka-14 shows that copy
of the FIR lodged was sent alongwith papers which reached the
medical officer concerned alongwith the dead body. Recital in post
mortem report (Ex Ka-15) corroborates this fact. Site plan (Ex Ka-
19) also bears crime number and Section 396 IPC. The papers
(Ex Ka-6 to Ex Ka-14) accompanying the dead body are on record.
Inquest report (Ex Ka-7 to Ex Ka-9), challan nash (Ex Ka-10),
photo nash (Ex Ka-11) go to show that crime no.192, under
Section 396 IPC was mentioned therein. The recitals behind the
back of the injury reports (Ex Ka-3 and Ex Ka-4) and copy of First
Information Report, dated 16.12.1980 showing crime no. 192,
under Sections 395/397 IPC was also indicated. Sugreev Singh
(PW-3) was injured whose injury has been shown as Ex Ka-17 and
he accompanied with Lakshman Singh (Informant) reached to the
police station concerned at or about 9.15pm and there was no
good and sufficient reason as to why statement of this witness in
this regard cannot be believed as correct keeping in view of the
entire oral and documentary evidence placed on record.
14
29. There is virtually no worthwhile evidence showing that either
Informant, Lakshman Singh and the police concerned had any
motive or enmity with the appellants due to which they have been
implicated in the present crime. Even there is no iota of evidence
that Charan Singh also reached the police station before or after
the FIR was lodged. Satyavir (PW-4) was an immediate neighbour
named in the FIR and he is natural and most probable witness.
Sugreev Singh (PW-3) is one of the injured witnesses. He went to
the police station alongwith Informant Lakshman Singh as he
belonged to the family whose house was looted. His presence on
the spot cannot be disbelieved. Any omission or minor
contradiction on any unimportant facts by him will not be fatal for
the prosecution. It is settled law that at any rate any minor
inconsistencies regarding details not affecting the real matter in
controversy would be of no avail. As far as production of any
independent witness is concerned, it cannot be expected that in
the late winter evening persons near by villages to reach on the
spot soon after the incident particularly when the firing was
involved. Thus we find that the witnesses cannot be said partial
and interested against the accused or under the thumb of police,
and/or inimical to the accused because nothing material has been
brought and shown on record to warrant any of such inferences
discredited their testimony.
30. To the argument that independent witness and uninterested
witnesses could have been produced but were not examined, we
would like to point out that the case has to be decided on the
15
evidence of witnesses examined only and the prosecution is free
to produce any of the witnesses to whom he thinks fit and proper.
The prosecution cannot be compelled to produce some particular
witness as pointed out earlier in the instant case on the ground
that the witnesses who have been examined, cannot be said to be
independent and uninterested witnesses.
31. So far as the next submission of the learned counsel for the
appellants that there are certain infirmities in the deposition of the
witnesses is concerned only this will be suffice to say that the
witnesses have given graphic account of the incident and is
convincing and acceptable apart from minor discrepancy.
32. It would be of no avail as there is neither any material
contradiction nor any important omission. At any rate any minor
inconsistency regarding details not affecting the real matter in
controversy carries no weight. It is established law that over much
importance cannot be given to minor discrepancies which do not
go to the root of the matter and shake the basic version of the
witnesses, therefore, cannot be annexed with undue importance.
33. Regarding the submission of the learned counsel for the
appellants that the prosecution has produced forged and
fabricated evidence to the effect that Lakshman Singh, the
Informant has received injuries during the alleged incident.
Indisputably, Dal Chand has lost his life during the commission of
the dacoity, moreover, the prosecution had nothing much to gain or
16
loose if he had shown injury to himself. The injury sustained by
the Informant cannot ordinarily be self-inflicted. The fact must not
be lost sight of that Ex Ka-17 copy of corresponding entry made in
G.D. entry shows that Lakshman Singh had blood stained injury on
his head. Moreover, the delay in medical examination of the
Informant Lakshman Singh would not reject his credibility.
34. Apparently, both the appellants have denied the truth and
correctness of the prosecution in their statements recorded under
Section 313 CrPC and both have categorically stated that they
were not at all present at the place given out on the relevant date
and time and have claimed that they have been wrongfully and
falsely implicated in the present case. They further disclosed that
there was enmity between them and some villagers and the report
was lodged in collusion with the police concerned by the Informant
at the instance of one, Charan Singh, resident of village Chobara,
who bears enmity towards them. Each of the accused appellants
stated that earlier to the present case Charan Singh had initiated a
case against them for dacoity but it was converted into a case of
marpeet and they were charge sheeted accordingly and it is still
pending for disposal. They further pointed out that the said
Charan Singh and one, Shiv Charan, both belonged to village
Chobara and they suspected that the appellants had some illicit
relationship with the ladies of their family, and that was the reason
behind their false implication earlier and inasmuch as the
suspicion continued, in order to take revenge from them they have
again got them implicated in the instant case in connivance with
17
the Informant.
35. Apart from this, accused appellant no.1, Karua pleaded that his
plot as well as those of Informant are irrigated from one and the
same Kulaba and on account of that the disputes between them
often take place as such, that was one more reason why they have
been wrongfully and falsely implicated.
36. In defence as many as two witnesses, namely, Surendra Singh
(DW-1) of village Nagla Sewa and Vinod Kumar (DW-2) of village
Nagla Mani, have been examined. Surendra Singh (DW-1) had
deposed that after the commission of alleged dacoity, some
persons from village Chobara, including Charan Singh had
reached on the spot and he had told Sugreev Singh and Informant
Lakshman Singh that on the way he had seen the accused
appellants, Karua and Mahipal Singh going back after committing
dacoity at their house. The deposition of another defence witness,
Vinod Kumar (DW-2) was recorded on 19.6.1981 and deposed
that he was married seven years before and that he was not
married again, and that Om Prakash or Khemchand or any other
person of village Anta Garhi had never gone to his house with the
proposal of his marriage. He further deposed that his wife was
alive and therefore, there was no question of putting any proposal
to him for the marriage.
37. Thus, in a nutshell, the defence put up on behalf of accused
appellants appear to be that aforesaid Charan Singh and others of
18
village Chobara had reached on the spot after the alleged dacoity
and poisoned the minds of the victims of dacoity against accused
appellants, Karua and Mahipal Singh on account of prior strained
relationship between Charan Singh and others of village Chobara.
The accused appellants and the local police, therefore, got
prejudiced and influenced against them at the instance of
aforesaid Charan Singh etc. and acted in collusion with the
victims of dacoity and got the FIR registered against them.
Indisputably, there is no evidence that aforesaid Charan Singh etc.
reached the police station. A perusal of the FIR shows not only
implication of the accused appellants in the present case under
Section 396 IPC but it also discloses particular roles said to have
been played by them. It is hard to conceive that simply because of
minds of the victims of the dacoity having been prejudiced against
the accused, the Informant would go so far not only to implicate
them falsely but would also be so much prejudiced against them
so as to attribute particular roles to each of them and also describe
in the FIR the clothes worn by them. Even at the instance of the
police the earlier criminal case was initiated against the accused
appellants under Section 395 IPC and later on it was converted
into lesser offence, which transpires that police was not prejudiced
against them and if it was so the argument that the police went so
far in collusion with the Informant while implicating the appellants
in the present case carries no force. However, it is difficult to
accept that the police would go to the extent to implicate the
appellants in heinous offence under Section 396 IPC.
19
38. Now it is necessary to examine whether accused appellants
had any prior enmity with the concerned local police or not. The
record does not show at all that either or both of the accused
appellants had been challaned and got convicted earlier at the
instance of Sahpau police for any serious or heinous offence. The
mere fact that the accused appellants were challaned in some
minor case in the year 1979 would not be any consequence,
particularly when it is not shown that they were convicted therein.
The defence has failed to show that the appellants had any enmity
with any particular police personnel. Even the defence has not at
all put or suggested to any prosecution witnesses regarding any
enmity or strained relationship between the appellants and the
Informant, Lakshman Singh and others, thus no inference or
conclusion that the FIR was lodged later on in consultation or in
collusion with the local police implicating the accused appellants.
39. Hence in the light of the above, the defence set up appears to
be false and unappealable. Apparently, Surendra Singh (DW-1)
has clearly stated that he did not know appellants, Karua or
Mahipal Singh and cannot say whether they were involved or
participated in the dacoity or not. He has stated about the
poisoning or prejudicing of mind by Charan Singh, and he has
further acknowledged that he had never told anything about it to
any one earlier nor had approached higher authorities disclosing
the true case thereof so his statement is of no value in this regard.
Vinod Kumar (DW-2) has been examined to devalue the testimony
of Om Prakash (PW-5), who had given out a reason or explanation
20
behind his presence in village Nagla Sewa where the dacoity took
place but DW-2, Vinod Kumar has not supported his version. The
assertion of DW-2 that he was already married about seven years
back and has not remarried, and he had children and his wife is
alive goes a long way to cast considerable doubt on the value and
credibility of testimony of Om Prakash (PW-5). Moreover, during
the investigation, Sugreev Singh had named Om Prakash while
Lakshman Singh had not disclosed his name. Hence the trial court
has rightly declined to give face value to his testimony.
40. We have cogitated over rival submissions and in that light have
perused the entire record and our findings and conclusions are as
follows:
• On summation of evidence critically on contentious issue,
we find that three fact witnesses PW-1, PW-3 or the
injured witnesses while PW-4 is an independent and
immediate neighbour named in the FIR, have fully
supported the prosecution version;
• All the formal witnesses have given supporting evidence;
•Time, place and date of the incident were not disputed by
the defence and, therefore, those facts are proved beyond
any pale of doubt;
•Inconsistent defence plea does not inspire any confidence.
The trial court has rightly ignored to consider the defence
set up by the accused;
•The accused appellants have not been able to prove any
21enmity with the Informant or witnesses and have failed to
bring on record any material evidence which is indicative of
the fact that the Informant or witnesses have any reason to
implicate them in the instant heinous crime;
•The prosecution has been able to prove and establish the
truthfulness and correctness of the facts and make out guilt
of the accused appellants to the hilt and bring home charge
against them beyond shadow of reasonable doubt.
41. On an over all consideration, the intrinsic merit of the evidence
in the instant case, was clearly indicative of the guilt of the
accused appellants.
42. The appeal lacks merit. It is accordingly dismissed. Both the
appellants, Karua @ Tej Pal @ Rajendra and Mahipal Singh are
on bail. Their bail is cancelled. The CJM Mathura shall cause the
appellants to be arrested and lodged in jail to serve out the
sentence.
16/07/2010
Mt/