Aniruddha Singh & Ors vs State Of M.P

Aniruddha Singh & Ors. .....Appellant(s)

Versus

State of M.P. ....Respondent (s)

JUDGMENT

HARJIT SINGH BEDI, J.

1. This appeal by special arises out of the following facts.

2. On 1st August, 1991 at about 6.00 p.m. Dharmendra

Singh PW 2 and Rajendra Singh, Bhawar Singh, Ram

Chandra Singh, Mandatar Singh, Mahendra Singh and

Krishna Kunwar Bai and her husband Dhyanpal Singh

deceased having taken their buffaloes for grazing were

returning to the village. As they reached near the field 2

known as `Goyrawali Beed', the accused armed with

Dhariyas, Farsis, Swords, and lathies surrounded them.

Anirudha Singh Patwari exhorted the other accused to

kill Dhyanpal Singh and on his exhortation, Pradyumna

Singh inflicted an injury with his sword on Dhyanpal

Singh and Narendra Singh (since acquitted) caused a

Dharia blow on his person whereas Anand Singh caused

an injury with a Farsi whereas all the other accused

Surendra Singh, Balram Singh, Manohar Singh, Pratap

Singh, Krishna Singh caused injuries with lathies.

Dhyanpal Singh fell on the ground bleeding profusely. At

that moment his son, PW 2 Dharmendra Singh, and one

PW 14 Poona Balai also reached the spot and on account

of the noise raised by them PW 5 Mandatar Singh and

Gopal Singh also rushed that side. Dhyanpal Singh was

taken in a tractor belonging to PW 11 Mahendra Singh

towards the hospital but he succumbed on the way. PW

1 Krishna Kunwar Bai, the wife of the deceased,

thereupon went on to the Police Station along with her

son Dharmendra Singh and lodged the First Information 3

Report at 8.45 p.m. The police then reached the place of

occurrence and made the necessary inquiries. The Trial

Court found that Anand Singh, one of the accused was a

Juvenile and his case was accordingly transferred to the

Juvenile Court whereas the other accused were brought

to trial. The Trial Court examined the evidence in

extenso and observed that both the parties i.e. accused

as well as the victims were very close relations of each

other, Dhyanpal Singh deceased being the real brother

of accused Aniruddha Singh. The Trial Court then

assessed the prosecution evidence and observed that

there was no reason to disbelieve the four eye witnesses

who had supported the prosecution version and that

their evidence was also corroborated by the medical

evidence inasmuch as the injuries found on the dead

body could have been caused with the weapons allegedly

used by the accused. The Trial Court further observed

that as the enmity between the parties appeared to have

been long festering as the dispute with regard to the two

bighas of land which Dhaynpal Singh claimed as his own 4

but was disputed by his brother and nephew, it was

appropriate that an assessment be made with regard to

the involvement of each of the accused. The Trial Court,

thereafter, on a minute examination, held that as the

four eye witnesses were not unanimous with respect to

the exact role of the some of the accused, they were

entitled to the benefit of doubt and having so observed

acquitted accused Balram Singh, Krishna Singh,

Narendra Singh and Surindra Singh but convicted the

present appellants for offences under Sections 302/149

IPC and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life

and a fine of Rs.5000/- each and in default of payment of

fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years.

The High Court in appeal confirmed the judgment of the

trial court. It is in these circumstances that the present

appeal has been filed.

3. Mr. S.K. Gambhir, the learned senior counsel for the

accused - appellant has argued that the presence of PW

3 Bhagwan Singh and PW 4 Parkash Kunwar had to be

ruled out as the prosecution case itself revealed that they 5

had been at a distance of about 220 meters when the

incident had happened and as such they could not have

seen the actual assault. He has in this case referred to

the statement of PW9 the Patwari and PW17 the

Investigating Officer. He has also submitted that PW3

had been identified as Bhagwan Singh but the person

mentioned in the FIR was one Gopal and as such the

presence of PW3 was also doubtful for this additional

reason as well. He has also emphasized that a minute

examination of the eye witnesses account revealed that

Aniruddha Singh had been attributed only a Lalkara and

had caused no injury and that the eye witnesses were

discrepant with regard to the individual rolls of the other

accused as well. He has also pointed out that the fatal

injury with a Dharia on the head had been attributed to

Narendra Singh and as he had been acquitted by the

Trial Court, it was apparent that the vicarious liability

under Sections 302/149 of the I.P.C was not made out

as the accused had intended causing only hurt to the

deceased. He has in support of the last argument cited 6 Ishwar Singh vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh AIR

1976 SC 2423, Nadodi Jayaraman & Ors. Vs. State of

Tamil Nadu (1992) Supp 3 SCC 161, Tara Devi vs.

State of U.P. (1990 ) 4 SCC 144, Jaspal Singh vs.

State of Haryana (1976) 4 SCC 303.

4. Dr. N.M. Ghatate, the learned senior counsel has,

however, pointed out that the Trial Court itself had

separated the grain from the chaff and in that process

had given the benefit of doubt to four of the accused and

had held the present appellants guilty on account of the

fact that the eye witnesses' account relating to their

involvement was supportive of each other and was also

corroborated by the medical evidence. He has also

pointed out that the presence of PW1 and PW2, the wife

and son of the deceased, could not be doubted under any

circumstances and that in the background that a melee

had occurred involving a large number of assailants it

would be unreasonable to expect an accurate blow by

blow account of the incident and that the Court was 7

therefore obliged to make an over all assessment of the

evidence.

5. At the very outset, it must be remembered that the

incident had taken place at about 6.00 P.M. leading to

serious injuries to Dhyanpal Singh. An attempt had also

been made to remove him to the hospital in a tractor

belonging to PW Mahendra Singh but he had succumbed

along the way whereafter PW 1 had gone to the Police

Station 10 kms distant to lodge the First Information

Report. It has also come in the evidence of Dr. Anoop

Kumar Kamthan PW 13 that the dead body had been

received in the hospital at 9.00 P.M. the same evening. It

is therefore apparent that the very promptness of the FIR

is a factor which must be kept in mind while evaluating

the prosecution story. It is true that PW 3 and PW 4

were at a distance of 220 meters from the place of

incident. PW 3 Bhagwan Singh is a relative of both the

accused and the deceased whereas PW 4 Prakash

Kunwar is the daughter of Dhyanpal Singh deceased.

Both the witnesses, were unanimous in saying that 8

before the actual assault, they had heard Krishna

Kunwar Bai PW 1 screaming in alarm and calling for help

and on which they had run in that direction and seen the

actual incident. Mr. Gambhir has, however, pointed out

that Bhagwan Singh's name had not figured in the First

Information Report and the story which had been

projected was some what difficult to believe and it

appeared that he had been prevailed upon to become a

false witness. We find that Bhagwan Singh's presence

may be some what doubtful as his statement Ex.D-3 had

been recorded two days after the incident and that too in

the Police Station and his name also did not figure in the

First Information Report, but even assuming that

Bhagwan Singh's presence could be doubted, there is no

doubt whatsoever with regard to the presence of PW 1

Krishna Kunwar Bai, PW 2 Dharmendra Singh and PW 4

Prakash Kunwar. We are also of the opinion that the eye

witnesses account is supported by the medical evidence

which shows the presence of 12 injuries on the dead 9

body caused with several different types of weapons. The

injuries are re-produced as below:

"(1) Incised wound 3 cm x 1 x bone deep, right parietal region, clotted blood all around. On exploration all layer ecchymosis with blood. Fracture of the parietal bone. There was extradural and intracranial haemorrhage seen.

(2) Lacerated wound 2 cm x 1 cm x bone deep with haematoma in area of 6 cm x 4 cm., parieto occipital region.

(3) Haemotoma with swollen 4 cm x 4 cm area, over the left parietal region. Extradural haemorrhage seen.

(4) Diffuse swollen 10" x 6" right lower left thigh.

On exploration compound fracture of femur bone was seen.

(5) Deformity with swelling 6" x 4" area middle of left fore arm. Fracture of radius and ulna shaft.

(6) Deformity with swelling 4" x 4" over the right hand fracture of metacarpal bone of IInd, 3rd and 4th Fingers.

(7) Contusion 10 cm x 2 cm over the right chest.

(8) Incised would 6 cm x 2 cm x one forth finger is amputed form its base and IIIrd finger is attached to skin.

10

(9) Contusion 10 cm x 2 cm Right back below scapula.

(10) Contusion 10 cm x 2 cm over the right back L1, L2, L3 level.

(11) Swelling around the left ankle 6 cm x 6 cm.

(12) Abrasion 4 cm x 4 cm area around right elbow joint.

6. Mr. Gambhir has laid great stress on his submission

that as only injury No.1 was on the head and the others

being on vital parts of the body indicated that there was

no common object of the unlawful assembly to murder

Dhyanpal Singh. We, however, beg to differ as the very

genesis of the incident i.e. the motive for the attack and

the manner in which the complainant party had been

waylaid by several persons armed with lethal weapons

and the fact that a large number of injuries with several

fractures had been caused, show that the accused party

had come with the intention of settling scores with

Dhyanpal Singh.

11

7. Much emphasis has been laid by Mr. Gambhir on the

possibility as to the participation of Aniruddha Singh

accused. He has pointed out that from the evidence, it

appeared that the fatal injury on the head of the

deceased had been caused by Narendra Singh (since

acquitted) with a Dharia and in this view of the matter

the only role which could be attributed to Aniruddha

Singh was that of a Lalkara i.e. an exhortion to the

other accused.

8. It has, however, been pointed out by State Counsel that

as a matter of fact, Aniruddha Singh had caused injury

No.1 and not Narendra Singh and that the trial Court

had dealt with this matter in extenso and after going

through the eye witnesses' account observed that it was

Aniruddha Singh who had caused the said injury to the

deceased with an axe and the mere fact that the First

Information Report was silent on this aspect would not

dislodge the prosecution story in the face of

overwhelming eye witnesses' testimony. Moreover, it

needs to be reiterated that as per the evidence, 12

Aniruddha Singh, was the leader of the accused party

and in the forefront of the land dispute. The judgments

cited by Mr. Gambhir based on their own facts, can thus

have no relevance to the facts of the case.

9. We are, therefore, of the opinion that there is no merit in

this appeal and it is accordingly dismissed.

................................. J. ( S.B. SINHA)

.................................J. (HARJIT SINGH BEDI )

New Delhi

Dated: May 16, 2008