Siddique & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
EmailAppeal: Criminal Appeal No. 690 of 1998.
(From the Judgment and Order dated 23.12.97 of the Allahabad High Court in Crl.A.No. 1504 of 1980)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 23.12.97 of the Allahabad High Court in Crl.A.No. 1504 of 1980)
Petitioner: Siddique & Ors.
Respondent: State of U.P.
Apeal: Criminal Appeal No. 690 of 1998.
(From the Judgment and Order dated 23.12.97 of the Allahabad High Court in Crl.A.No. 1504 of 1980)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 23.12.97 of the Allahabad High Court in Crl.A.No. 1504 of 1980)
Judges: S.S.Mohammed Quadri & D.P.Mohapatra, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Apr 15, 1999
Appearances:
Salman Khurshid, Sr.Adv., (Imtiaz Ahmed) Adv. for A. Sharan, Adv. with him for the appellants.
Prashant Choudhary (Praneet Ranjan) Adv. for A.S.Pundir, Advs. for the Respondent
Prashant Choudhary (Praneet Ranjan) Adv. for A.S.Pundir, Advs. for the Respondent
Head Note:
CRIMINAL LAW
Evidence Act, 1872
Sec. 9,3-Identity – Accused having been seen in torch light – PWs and assailants known to each other – PWs lighting torch on hearing cries of victims – Deceased identified by assailants among others – Assailants seen in torch light – Identification, if defective. Held that evidence has established the identity.
Evidence Act, 1872
Sec. 9,3-Identity – Accused having been seen in torch light – PWs and assailants known to each other – PWs lighting torch on hearing cries of victims – Deceased identified by assailants among others – Assailants seen in torch light – Identification, if defective. Held that evidence has established the identity.
Held:
In the beginning while being beaten by the appellants when the deceased was coming towards PW 4 crying for his help stating that they were beating him, PW 4 lighted the torch and saw the appellants who were following the deceased duly armed with the weapons noted above. It is also clear that when PW 4 & 2 were being beaten by the appellants they were unable to light the torch and that the torch of PW 4 slipped out of his hand and became defective. In that night when the accused persons were able to single out the de-ceased from among various persons sleeping in the Mango grove and dealt blows to him, followed him giving blows with the wea-pons carried by them, the version of the injured eye witnesses that the accused were identified with the help of the torch held by them has to be given due credence. Further the appellants, the deceased and injured witnesses were not strangers to each other as they belonged to the same village. They knew each other very well as they were competitors in the business
(Para 7)
(Para 7)
JUDGEMENT:
Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri,J.
1. The six appellants in this appeal challenged the judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dismis-sing the appeal, Criminal Appeal No.1504 of 1980, on 23.12.97 and confirming their conviction and sentence awarded by the Additional District & Sessions Judge – VII, Farrukhabad at Fate-hgarh.
2. The gravamen of the charge against the appellants is that in the intervening night of 25th and 26th June, 1979, one Sayeed his father, Waheed Bux (PW 4), his servants Lalla Ram (PW 2) and Shri Krishna (not examined) were sleeping in the mango grove of Rame-shwar Dayal in village Barua Bagat, P.S. Kamal Gunj, District Farrukhabad. The appellants A-1, A-4 and A-6 were armed with lathi, A-2 and A-3 were armed with kanta and A-4 was armed with knife attacked and killed Sayeed by causing injuries with theweapons they were carrying. When his father Waheed Bux (PW 4) tried to save him, he was also given blows causing as many as a dozen injuries to him. When his servant Lalla Ram (PW 2), tried to intervene he was also beaten up causing simple injuries to him. Dr. Arjun Kumar (PW 3) who examined PWs. 2 and 4 on the next day of the incident, found that two injuries inflicted on PW 2 were simple and were caused by blunt object, he opined that three of the eleven injuries inflicted on PW 4 were cased by blunt object.
3. Dr.A.C.Goyal (PM 5) conducted autopsy of the dead body of the deceased (Sayeed). He found as may as twelve injuries in the body of the deceased. He opined that all the injuries were ante-mortem and that he died due to shock and haemorrhage.
4. The appellants were tried for various offences by the learned VII Additional District & Sessions Judge, Farrukhabad, who by his judgment dated June 12, 1980 convicted all of them under Sections 302 and 149 I.P.C. and sentenced them to undergo life imprisonment and pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each ; further he convicted A-1, A-4 and A-6 under Section 147 and 323 read with Section 149 I.P.C. and sentenced them to undergo rigorous impris-onment for one year, and six month under Sections 323/149 I.P.C.; and he also convicted A-2, A-3 and A-5 under Sections 148 I.P.C. and Section 324/149 I.P.C. and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years under Section 148 I.P.C. and one year’s rigorous imprisonment under Section 324/149 I.P.C. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
5. Against the said judgment of the Trial Court, the appellants had preferred Criminal Appeal No. 1504 of 1980 before the High Court of Allahabad. The High Court having considered the deposi-tions of the injured eye witnesses, PWs. 2 and 4, and the state-ment of the complainant, PW 1, recorded the findings that PWs. 4 and 2 were fully corroborated by medical evidence and by no stretch of imagination presence of those witnesses could be doubted. The High Court also held that the statement of Dulhey Miyan (PW 1), who was the brother of the deceased and had come running from the grove of Brij Bahadur, which was at a distance of 300 yards from the scene of occurrence, was quite natural and probable and was rightly believed by the Trial Court. The High Court also noted that PW 1 had taken the injured witnesses, PWs 2 and 4 in a tonga to the Police Station which was about two miles from the scene of occurrence and that on their way they got the complaint drafted by Ramesh and lodged the FIR promptly. In that view of the matter the High Court confirmed the conviction and sentences awarded to the appellants by the Trial Court for the offences noted above.
6. Mr. Salman Khurshid, the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants, laid stress on the question of the identity of the appellants. He argued that it was a dark night and ac-cording to the prosecution the appellants were identified with help of torch light but the story of the witnesses having torches is highly doubtful. He submitted that no torch was carried by PW 1 to the Police Station and that the torch of PW 4 admitted to be not in working condition, so the existence of the only source of light to identify the appellants not having been proved, the case of the prosecution ought to have been rejected by the Trial Court as well as the High Court.
7. We are afraid, we can not accede to the contention of the learned counsel. We have perused the statement of PW 1 and the FIR. It is mentioned therein that PW 1 was carrying torch with him and that he and other persons have seen and identified clearly the appellants in the torch light. It is not disputed that all the accused were named in the FIR. The FIR also con-tains the recital as to the weapons carried. by each of the appellants. PW 2 stated that when he and PW 4 were being beaten, PW 2 was not able to flash light of the torch and that the torch was left with the other servant Shri Krishna. PW 4 stated that he and Krishna had torches with them and that on hearing the voice of Sayeed he saw that the accused persons with the help of the torch light. They were following Sayeed who was saying that they were beating him and was shouting to save him. PW 4 also started shouting for help and that hearing his voice PW 1 who was nearby came to the spot flashing his torch. He also saw all the appellants with their weapons. It is no doubt true that in his cross examination PW 4 admitted that the night when the occurrence took place was dark and that the torch slipped from his hand and had fallen at a distance of 4-5 steps of the site of West, near Sayeed and that he could not take the torch as it was defective. But in appreciating the evidence of a witness a sentence in cross examination cannot be taken in isolation, it has to be understood in the context in which it was spoken. Though PW 1 has stated that he did not take the torch to the police station, that torch was found with the other servant. A plain reading of the statements of PW 1 2 and 4 makes it clear that in the beginning while being beaten by the appellants when the deceased was coming towards PW 4 crying for his help stating that they were beating him, PW 4 lighted the torch and saw the appellants who were following the deceased duly armed with the weapons noted above. It is also clear that when PW 4 & 2 were being beaten by the appellants they were unable to light the torch and that the torch of PW 4 slipped out of his hand and became defective. Far from making the identification of the appellants doubtful the statements of PWs 1, 2 and 4 establish the identity. Further it may also be pointed out that in that night when the accused persons were able to single out the de-ceased from among various persons sleeping in the Mango grove and dealt blows to him, followed him giving blows with the wea-pons carried by them, the version of the injured eye witnesses that the accused were identified with the help of the torch held by them has to be given due credence. Further the appellants, the deceased and injured witnesses were not strangers to each other as they belonged to the same village. They knew each other very well as they were competitors in the business of obtaining lease of Mango grove and in the business of hides and skins of animals.
8. Having gone through the evidence of PWs 1, 2 and 4 which is corroborated in material particulars by the medical evidence of PWs 3 and 5, we are of the view that the Trial Court as well as the High Court rightly relied upon their testimony to record conviction of the appellants. The sentence awarded to them is also just and proper. The judgment and order under appeal does not warrant any interference.
In the result, we find no merit in the appeal. It is accordingly dismissed.
1. The six appellants in this appeal challenged the judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dismis-sing the appeal, Criminal Appeal No.1504 of 1980, on 23.12.97 and confirming their conviction and sentence awarded by the Additional District & Sessions Judge – VII, Farrukhabad at Fate-hgarh.
2. The gravamen of the charge against the appellants is that in the intervening night of 25th and 26th June, 1979, one Sayeed his father, Waheed Bux (PW 4), his servants Lalla Ram (PW 2) and Shri Krishna (not examined) were sleeping in the mango grove of Rame-shwar Dayal in village Barua Bagat, P.S. Kamal Gunj, District Farrukhabad. The appellants A-1, A-4 and A-6 were armed with lathi, A-2 and A-3 were armed with kanta and A-4 was armed with knife attacked and killed Sayeed by causing injuries with theweapons they were carrying. When his father Waheed Bux (PW 4) tried to save him, he was also given blows causing as many as a dozen injuries to him. When his servant Lalla Ram (PW 2), tried to intervene he was also beaten up causing simple injuries to him. Dr. Arjun Kumar (PW 3) who examined PWs. 2 and 4 on the next day of the incident, found that two injuries inflicted on PW 2 were simple and were caused by blunt object, he opined that three of the eleven injuries inflicted on PW 4 were cased by blunt object.
3. Dr.A.C.Goyal (PM 5) conducted autopsy of the dead body of the deceased (Sayeed). He found as may as twelve injuries in the body of the deceased. He opined that all the injuries were ante-mortem and that he died due to shock and haemorrhage.
4. The appellants were tried for various offences by the learned VII Additional District & Sessions Judge, Farrukhabad, who by his judgment dated June 12, 1980 convicted all of them under Sections 302 and 149 I.P.C. and sentenced them to undergo life imprisonment and pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each ; further he convicted A-1, A-4 and A-6 under Section 147 and 323 read with Section 149 I.P.C. and sentenced them to undergo rigorous impris-onment for one year, and six month under Sections 323/149 I.P.C.; and he also convicted A-2, A-3 and A-5 under Sections 148 I.P.C. and Section 324/149 I.P.C. and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years under Section 148 I.P.C. and one year’s rigorous imprisonment under Section 324/149 I.P.C. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
5. Against the said judgment of the Trial Court, the appellants had preferred Criminal Appeal No. 1504 of 1980 before the High Court of Allahabad. The High Court having considered the deposi-tions of the injured eye witnesses, PWs. 2 and 4, and the state-ment of the complainant, PW 1, recorded the findings that PWs. 4 and 2 were fully corroborated by medical evidence and by no stretch of imagination presence of those witnesses could be doubted. The High Court also held that the statement of Dulhey Miyan (PW 1), who was the brother of the deceased and had come running from the grove of Brij Bahadur, which was at a distance of 300 yards from the scene of occurrence, was quite natural and probable and was rightly believed by the Trial Court. The High Court also noted that PW 1 had taken the injured witnesses, PWs 2 and 4 in a tonga to the Police Station which was about two miles from the scene of occurrence and that on their way they got the complaint drafted by Ramesh and lodged the FIR promptly. In that view of the matter the High Court confirmed the conviction and sentences awarded to the appellants by the Trial Court for the offences noted above.
6. Mr. Salman Khurshid, the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants, laid stress on the question of the identity of the appellants. He argued that it was a dark night and ac-cording to the prosecution the appellants were identified with help of torch light but the story of the witnesses having torches is highly doubtful. He submitted that no torch was carried by PW 1 to the Police Station and that the torch of PW 4 admitted to be not in working condition, so the existence of the only source of light to identify the appellants not having been proved, the case of the prosecution ought to have been rejected by the Trial Court as well as the High Court.
7. We are afraid, we can not accede to the contention of the learned counsel. We have perused the statement of PW 1 and the FIR. It is mentioned therein that PW 1 was carrying torch with him and that he and other persons have seen and identified clearly the appellants in the torch light. It is not disputed that all the accused were named in the FIR. The FIR also con-tains the recital as to the weapons carried. by each of the appellants. PW 2 stated that when he and PW 4 were being beaten, PW 2 was not able to flash light of the torch and that the torch was left with the other servant Shri Krishna. PW 4 stated that he and Krishna had torches with them and that on hearing the voice of Sayeed he saw that the accused persons with the help of the torch light. They were following Sayeed who was saying that they were beating him and was shouting to save him. PW 4 also started shouting for help and that hearing his voice PW 1 who was nearby came to the spot flashing his torch. He also saw all the appellants with their weapons. It is no doubt true that in his cross examination PW 4 admitted that the night when the occurrence took place was dark and that the torch slipped from his hand and had fallen at a distance of 4-5 steps of the site of West, near Sayeed and that he could not take the torch as it was defective. But in appreciating the evidence of a witness a sentence in cross examination cannot be taken in isolation, it has to be understood in the context in which it was spoken. Though PW 1 has stated that he did not take the torch to the police station, that torch was found with the other servant. A plain reading of the statements of PW 1 2 and 4 makes it clear that in the beginning while being beaten by the appellants when the deceased was coming towards PW 4 crying for his help stating that they were beating him, PW 4 lighted the torch and saw the appellants who were following the deceased duly armed with the weapons noted above. It is also clear that when PW 4 & 2 were being beaten by the appellants they were unable to light the torch and that the torch of PW 4 slipped out of his hand and became defective. Far from making the identification of the appellants doubtful the statements of PWs 1, 2 and 4 establish the identity. Further it may also be pointed out that in that night when the accused persons were able to single out the de-ceased from among various persons sleeping in the Mango grove and dealt blows to him, followed him giving blows with the wea-pons carried by them, the version of the injured eye witnesses that the accused were identified with the help of the torch held by them has to be given due credence. Further the appellants, the deceased and injured witnesses were not strangers to each other as they belonged to the same village. They knew each other very well as they were competitors in the business of obtaining lease of Mango grove and in the business of hides and skins of animals.
8. Having gone through the evidence of PWs 1, 2 and 4 which is corroborated in material particulars by the medical evidence of PWs 3 and 5, we are of the view that the Trial Court as well as the High Court rightly relied upon their testimony to record conviction of the appellants. The sentence awarded to them is also just and proper. The judgment and order under appeal does not warrant any interference.
In the result, we find no merit in the appeal. It is accordingly dismissed.
