Sohan Lal Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
EmailAppeal: Criminal Appeal No. 70 of 1997
Petitioner: Sohan Lal
Respondent: State of Uttar Pradesh
Apeal: Criminal Appeal No. 70 of 1997
Judges: D.P. MOHAPATRA & Y.K. SABHARWAL, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Jul 30, 2002
Head Note:
Criminal Law
Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 302 with Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 3 – Murder case – Evidence – Appreciation – One constable going to crowded locality to serve process – Met another constable – Both seeing accused and his companions, who started running away – One of the companion apprehended – Attempts made to set him free – Accused ultimately taking out pistol and firing shot at other constable – First constable/ informant only eyewitness as none other supported – Informant not knowing the accused and his companion – No papers produced – Two independent witness not supporting – Probability of the apprehended companion being hit by shot fired – High Court on appeal against acquittal, not considering the reasons of trial court – Acquittal of companions not disturbed – Acquittal of accused under section 225 IPC also not disturbed – Genesis of case that companion was apprehended and accused could not secure his release, not accepted. Held that the other part of the prosecution version of accused firing shot could not be accepted. Acquittal by trial court upheld. (Paras 6, 11)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. This appeal filed by accused Sohan Lal is directed against the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in criminal appeal no. 2918 of 1979 in which the High Court set aside the judgment of the sessions judge, Agra in sessions trial no. 3/1979 and convicted the appellant under section 302 IPC and sentenced him to imprisonment for life. The trial court on consideration of the case had acquitted the appellant and the other two co-accused Sabu and Munna of all the charges.
2. The case of the prosecution shortly stated is that on 14.7.1978 Omvir Singh (PW 1), a constable attached to police station, Shahganj, in the city of Agra, had gone for service of certain processes, summons and warrants on parties. When he reached mohalla Namak-ki-Mandi, a crowded locality of the city, another constable Arvind Kumar (deceased) met him, When the two constables were talking to each other they found the three accused persons Sohan Lal, Sabu and Munna and another stranger coming towards them. Their movements aroused suspicion in the minds of the constables. On seeing the constables the three accused persons and the stranger started running. Constable Arvind Kumar (deceased) caught hold of Sabu. At that stage the other accused persons tried to get Sabu released from the clutches of Arvind Kumar (deceased). When they failed in their attempt Sabu whipped a knife and tried to get himself released. That attempt was also unsuccessful. On seeing this the appellant took out his revolver and threatened to shoot Arvind Kumar (deceased) if Sabu was not released immediately. When Arvind Kumar (deceased) did not pay any heed to such threat the appellant fired a shot which hit him. He fired a second shot aimed at constable Omvir Singh that missed him. Arvind Kumar (deceased) fell down injured. On hearing the ‘halla’ other persons including Puran (PW 2) and Tara Chand (PW 3) reached the spot. The accused persons escaped from the place.
3. Constable Omvir Singh immediately rushed to the Shahganj police station and informed S.I. Rajendra Singh Solanki (PW 5). The S.I. accompanied by Omvir Singh rushed to the spot, found injured Arvind Kumar (deceased) lying there. Arvind Kumar succumbed to the injuries on the same day.
4. S.I. Rajendra Singh Solanki conducted the initial investigation in the case, recorded the statements of eye-witnesses, received the post-mortem report from Dr. J.K. Aggarwal (PW 6). On completion of the investigation charge-sheet was filed against the three accused persons under section 302, 307/34 and section 225 IPC. Accused Sabu was also charged under section 4/25 of the Arms Act.
5. The accused persons denied any involvement in the incident. They alleged false implication in the case since the appellant had not given a pair of shoes to the I.O. PW 5 on his demand.
6. In course of trial prosecution examined Omvir Singh (PW 1), Puran (PW 2) and Tara Chand (PW 3) as eye witnesses and some other witnesses including Dr. J.K. Aggarwal (PW 6) and I.O. Rajendra Singh Solanki as PW 5, PW 2 and PW 3 did not support the prosecution case. They denied to have seen the incident or the accused persons at the time of incident. They were declared hostile and cross-examined by the prosecution. Therefore, the prosecution was left with the sole eye-witness Omvir Singh (PW 1) in support of its case. The learned sessions judge in his judgment discussed in detail the evidence of PW 1 since the entire prosecution case rested solely on his testimony. Sifting the evidence in the light of the contentions raised on behalf of the defence that the testimony of PW 1 is neither believable nor acceptable the learned trial judge took note of the statements made by the witnesses to the effect that he had no acquaintance with the accused Sohan Lal and Munna; he had not seen the houses of these accused persons; that he had no personal knowledge that the accused persons were residing in Namak-ki-Mandi; that he had only heard from his colleagues that they were residents of Namak-ki-Mandi. Considering the evidence of the witnesses the learned sessions judge observed that it was doubtful whether Omvir Singh had any occasion to know the two persons from before at all and the defence argument that he did not know these persons from before and may have named them in the FIR at the behest of some others cannot be lightly brushed aside. The learned sessions judge also took note of the fact that no papers giving details of the processes, summons and warrants taken by the PW 1 from the police station for service on the parties was filed from the side of the prosecution. Such documents would have corroborated the evidence of PW 1. He also took note of the fact that the two independent eye-witnesses, Puran and Tara Chand had not supported the prosecution case. The learned sessions judge also took the inherent improbability in the prosecution story that Sohan Lal would have fired the shot when Sabu was still in the clutches of Arvind Kumar (deceased) taking the grave risk if shot hitting Sabu himself. For these reasons the learned sessions judge held that the evidence of Omvir Singh (PW 1) could not inspire implicit confidence to base any conviction upon his solitary testimony, and therefore, the accused persons were entitled to benefit of doubt and acquittal.
7. In the appeal filed by the State of U.P. the High Court set aside the part of the judgment of the trial court acquitting Sohan Lal of the charge under section 302, and convicted him under section 302 IPC. The High Court further confirmed the judgment of the trial court acquitting Munna and Sabu of all the charges and also confirmed acquittal of Sohan Lal of the charge under section 225 IPC. The High Court differing from the trial court believed the testimony of Omvir Singh (PW 1). The operative portion of the judgment reads as follows:
“In the result, we find that the state appeal in so far as it relates to the accused respondent Sohan Lal succeeds. We hold the accused respondent Sohan Lal guilty of committing murder of constable Arvind Kumar on 14th July, 1978 at about 3.45 p.m. in Namak-ki-Mandi, Agra on the charge under section 302 IPC, and convict him accordingly. The accused respondent Sohan Lal is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life under section 302 IPC. He is on bail. His bail bonds are hereby cancelled. Let a copy of the judgment be sent to the sessions judge concerned to get the respondent Sohan Lal arrested and committed to prison.
The acquittal of respondents Munna and Sabu on various charges framed under sections 302/34, 307 and 225 IPC and under section 4/25 Arms Act is maintained. They are on bail. They need not surrender. Their bail bonds are cancelled and sureties discharged.”
8. The main thrust of the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant was regarding the time of dispatch of the FIR from the police station to the magistrate while in the FIR date was shown as 15th July, 1978, the I.O. in his deposition stated that the FIR was dispatched at about 8.00 p.m. on 14.7.1978 the date of the incident. He further stated that the report was received on the next day i.e. 15th July, 1978 at about 8.45 a.m. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant was that the FIR was ante-timed with a view to rope in the appellant as an accused in the case. He further contended that in the absence of any acceptable explanation for the delay in dispatch of the FIR which was lodged at the police station within 15 minutes of the incident the prosecution case could not be accepted.
9. Learned counsel appearing for the state of U.P. supported the judgment of the High Court. He contended that the sole testimony of Omvir Singh (PW 1) which was accepted by the High Court to be trustworthy and believable could form the basis of the order of conviction. The learned counsel contended that the judgment of the High Court does not suffer from any serious illegality either in approach to the case or appreciation of evidence, and therefore, does not call for interference.
10. Since the entire prosecution case depends on the sole testimony of Omvir Singh (PW 1) which was not accepted by the trial court but was accepted and relied upon by the High Court, we have perused the entire evidence and the relevant portions of the judgment of the trial court and the judgment of the High Court.
11. From the judgment of the High Court it is manifest that the court has not considered the reasons stated in the judgment of the trial court for not placing reliance on the sole testimony of Omvir Singh (PW 1). As noted earlier the trial court on appreciation of the evidence has expressed a doubt about the very presence of the witnesses at the place when the incident took place. It is also manifest from the judgment that the part of the prosecution case relating to the involvement of the other two accused persons Munna and Sabu which was also based on evidence of PW 1 has not been accepted by the High Court and the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial court in favour of the said accused persons has been maintained by the High Court. Further, the judgment of the trial court acquitting Sohan Lal of the charges under section 225 IPC has also not been disturbed by the High Court on the ground that there is no material to show that the two constables had taken Sabu into custody for commission of any particular offence. It is relevant to note here that the genesis of the prosecution case against the appellant was that when Sabu himself and the appellant and co-accused Munna had all failed to get Sabu released from the clutches of Arvind Kumar (deceased), the appellant took out his revolver and shot at Arvind Kumar (deceased). If the said basis of the prosecution case which was spoken to by PW 1 was not accepted then the same witness could not be relied upon in respect of the other part of the prosecution case that the appellant had shot Arvind Kumar (deceased). Further the High Court without referring to any evidence has made the observation that since Omvir Singh (PW 1) was a constable attached to Shahganj police station he must have known the accused persons is a mere conjecture and contrary to the evidence on record. In any view of the matter it could not be said that the sole testimony of Omvir Singh (PW 1) could be safely relied upon to form the basis of conviction of appellant of the charge of murder punishable under section 302 IPC.
12. On the foregoing discussions we are of the view that in the facts and circumstances and broad probabilities of the case the trial court was right in acquitting the appellant of the charge under section 302 IPC and the High Court erred in interfering with the judgment of the trial court in that regard. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The judgment of the High Court is set aside and the judgment of the sessions court is restored. The appellant shall be set at liberty forthwith if his detention is not required in any other case.
1. This appeal filed by accused Sohan Lal is directed against the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in criminal appeal no. 2918 of 1979 in which the High Court set aside the judgment of the sessions judge, Agra in sessions trial no. 3/1979 and convicted the appellant under section 302 IPC and sentenced him to imprisonment for life. The trial court on consideration of the case had acquitted the appellant and the other two co-accused Sabu and Munna of all the charges.
2. The case of the prosecution shortly stated is that on 14.7.1978 Omvir Singh (PW 1), a constable attached to police station, Shahganj, in the city of Agra, had gone for service of certain processes, summons and warrants on parties. When he reached mohalla Namak-ki-Mandi, a crowded locality of the city, another constable Arvind Kumar (deceased) met him, When the two constables were talking to each other they found the three accused persons Sohan Lal, Sabu and Munna and another stranger coming towards them. Their movements aroused suspicion in the minds of the constables. On seeing the constables the three accused persons and the stranger started running. Constable Arvind Kumar (deceased) caught hold of Sabu. At that stage the other accused persons tried to get Sabu released from the clutches of Arvind Kumar (deceased). When they failed in their attempt Sabu whipped a knife and tried to get himself released. That attempt was also unsuccessful. On seeing this the appellant took out his revolver and threatened to shoot Arvind Kumar (deceased) if Sabu was not released immediately. When Arvind Kumar (deceased) did not pay any heed to such threat the appellant fired a shot which hit him. He fired a second shot aimed at constable Omvir Singh that missed him. Arvind Kumar (deceased) fell down injured. On hearing the ‘halla’ other persons including Puran (PW 2) and Tara Chand (PW 3) reached the spot. The accused persons escaped from the place.
3. Constable Omvir Singh immediately rushed to the Shahganj police station and informed S.I. Rajendra Singh Solanki (PW 5). The S.I. accompanied by Omvir Singh rushed to the spot, found injured Arvind Kumar (deceased) lying there. Arvind Kumar succumbed to the injuries on the same day.
4. S.I. Rajendra Singh Solanki conducted the initial investigation in the case, recorded the statements of eye-witnesses, received the post-mortem report from Dr. J.K. Aggarwal (PW 6). On completion of the investigation charge-sheet was filed against the three accused persons under section 302, 307/34 and section 225 IPC. Accused Sabu was also charged under section 4/25 of the Arms Act.
5. The accused persons denied any involvement in the incident. They alleged false implication in the case since the appellant had not given a pair of shoes to the I.O. PW 5 on his demand.
6. In course of trial prosecution examined Omvir Singh (PW 1), Puran (PW 2) and Tara Chand (PW 3) as eye witnesses and some other witnesses including Dr. J.K. Aggarwal (PW 6) and I.O. Rajendra Singh Solanki as PW 5, PW 2 and PW 3 did not support the prosecution case. They denied to have seen the incident or the accused persons at the time of incident. They were declared hostile and cross-examined by the prosecution. Therefore, the prosecution was left with the sole eye-witness Omvir Singh (PW 1) in support of its case. The learned sessions judge in his judgment discussed in detail the evidence of PW 1 since the entire prosecution case rested solely on his testimony. Sifting the evidence in the light of the contentions raised on behalf of the defence that the testimony of PW 1 is neither believable nor acceptable the learned trial judge took note of the statements made by the witnesses to the effect that he had no acquaintance with the accused Sohan Lal and Munna; he had not seen the houses of these accused persons; that he had no personal knowledge that the accused persons were residing in Namak-ki-Mandi; that he had only heard from his colleagues that they were residents of Namak-ki-Mandi. Considering the evidence of the witnesses the learned sessions judge observed that it was doubtful whether Omvir Singh had any occasion to know the two persons from before at all and the defence argument that he did not know these persons from before and may have named them in the FIR at the behest of some others cannot be lightly brushed aside. The learned sessions judge also took note of the fact that no papers giving details of the processes, summons and warrants taken by the PW 1 from the police station for service on the parties was filed from the side of the prosecution. Such documents would have corroborated the evidence of PW 1. He also took note of the fact that the two independent eye-witnesses, Puran and Tara Chand had not supported the prosecution case. The learned sessions judge also took the inherent improbability in the prosecution story that Sohan Lal would have fired the shot when Sabu was still in the clutches of Arvind Kumar (deceased) taking the grave risk if shot hitting Sabu himself. For these reasons the learned sessions judge held that the evidence of Omvir Singh (PW 1) could not inspire implicit confidence to base any conviction upon his solitary testimony, and therefore, the accused persons were entitled to benefit of doubt and acquittal.
7. In the appeal filed by the State of U.P. the High Court set aside the part of the judgment of the trial court acquitting Sohan Lal of the charge under section 302, and convicted him under section 302 IPC. The High Court further confirmed the judgment of the trial court acquitting Munna and Sabu of all the charges and also confirmed acquittal of Sohan Lal of the charge under section 225 IPC. The High Court differing from the trial court believed the testimony of Omvir Singh (PW 1). The operative portion of the judgment reads as follows:
“In the result, we find that the state appeal in so far as it relates to the accused respondent Sohan Lal succeeds. We hold the accused respondent Sohan Lal guilty of committing murder of constable Arvind Kumar on 14th July, 1978 at about 3.45 p.m. in Namak-ki-Mandi, Agra on the charge under section 302 IPC, and convict him accordingly. The accused respondent Sohan Lal is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life under section 302 IPC. He is on bail. His bail bonds are hereby cancelled. Let a copy of the judgment be sent to the sessions judge concerned to get the respondent Sohan Lal arrested and committed to prison.
The acquittal of respondents Munna and Sabu on various charges framed under sections 302/34, 307 and 225 IPC and under section 4/25 Arms Act is maintained. They are on bail. They need not surrender. Their bail bonds are cancelled and sureties discharged.”
8. The main thrust of the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant was regarding the time of dispatch of the FIR from the police station to the magistrate while in the FIR date was shown as 15th July, 1978, the I.O. in his deposition stated that the FIR was dispatched at about 8.00 p.m. on 14.7.1978 the date of the incident. He further stated that the report was received on the next day i.e. 15th July, 1978 at about 8.45 a.m. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant was that the FIR was ante-timed with a view to rope in the appellant as an accused in the case. He further contended that in the absence of any acceptable explanation for the delay in dispatch of the FIR which was lodged at the police station within 15 minutes of the incident the prosecution case could not be accepted.
9. Learned counsel appearing for the state of U.P. supported the judgment of the High Court. He contended that the sole testimony of Omvir Singh (PW 1) which was accepted by the High Court to be trustworthy and believable could form the basis of the order of conviction. The learned counsel contended that the judgment of the High Court does not suffer from any serious illegality either in approach to the case or appreciation of evidence, and therefore, does not call for interference.
10. Since the entire prosecution case depends on the sole testimony of Omvir Singh (PW 1) which was not accepted by the trial court but was accepted and relied upon by the High Court, we have perused the entire evidence and the relevant portions of the judgment of the trial court and the judgment of the High Court.
11. From the judgment of the High Court it is manifest that the court has not considered the reasons stated in the judgment of the trial court for not placing reliance on the sole testimony of Omvir Singh (PW 1). As noted earlier the trial court on appreciation of the evidence has expressed a doubt about the very presence of the witnesses at the place when the incident took place. It is also manifest from the judgment that the part of the prosecution case relating to the involvement of the other two accused persons Munna and Sabu which was also based on evidence of PW 1 has not been accepted by the High Court and the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial court in favour of the said accused persons has been maintained by the High Court. Further, the judgment of the trial court acquitting Sohan Lal of the charges under section 225 IPC has also not been disturbed by the High Court on the ground that there is no material to show that the two constables had taken Sabu into custody for commission of any particular offence. It is relevant to note here that the genesis of the prosecution case against the appellant was that when Sabu himself and the appellant and co-accused Munna had all failed to get Sabu released from the clutches of Arvind Kumar (deceased), the appellant took out his revolver and shot at Arvind Kumar (deceased). If the said basis of the prosecution case which was spoken to by PW 1 was not accepted then the same witness could not be relied upon in respect of the other part of the prosecution case that the appellant had shot Arvind Kumar (deceased). Further the High Court without referring to any evidence has made the observation that since Omvir Singh (PW 1) was a constable attached to Shahganj police station he must have known the accused persons is a mere conjecture and contrary to the evidence on record. In any view of the matter it could not be said that the sole testimony of Omvir Singh (PW 1) could be safely relied upon to form the basis of conviction of appellant of the charge of murder punishable under section 302 IPC.
12. On the foregoing discussions we are of the view that in the facts and circumstances and broad probabilities of the case the trial court was right in acquitting the appellant of the charge under section 302 IPC and the High Court erred in interfering with the judgment of the trial court in that regard. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The judgment of the High Court is set aside and the judgment of the sessions court is restored. The appellant shall be set at liberty forthwith if his detention is not required in any other case.
