CHET RAM Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Instant appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellant Chet Ram against the judgment and order dated 18.7.1995 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge Special Judge, Bareilly. whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced in Sessions Trial No. 421 of 1994, under Section 302/ 34, I.P.C. for life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 2, 000 and in default of payment to serve out an additional sentence of six months. Further the appellant was convicted and sentenced in Sessions Trial No. 422 of 1994 under Section 25(1)(A) of Arms Act to undergo rigorous imprisonment of one year. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. The genesis of the prosecution case narrated in a nut shell is that Arvind Kumar lodged a first information report on 19.10.1993 at 1.30 p.m. vide Case Crime No. 433 of 1994, under Section 302, I.P.C. against the appellant Chet Ram and co -accused Natthu Lal with respect to the incident of the same day at 10.30 a.m. that the appellant Chet Ram and his father Natthu Lal had committed the murder of his father Chheda Lal (who is brother of co -accused Natthu Lal) by causing injury with knife. The appellant was armed with a country made pistol and the co -accused Natthu Lal was armed with knife. They were already nurturing a grudge and animus against the victim on account of property dispute. The accused persons intercepted the father of the complainant and demanded half of the sugar cane which was being carried away on a Dunlop to sell as the crusher. The father of the complainant refused to give half of the sugar cane to the accused persons which caused great annoyance and infuriation as a result of which co -accused Chet Ram who is the son of the appellant caught the collar of the victim and the appellant started to stab him with knife on the vital parts of his body. The victim could not bear the blows of the knife as a result of which he fainted and fell down. Hearing the shriek and alarm of the victim, a number of persons ran towards the place of occurrence and the appellant and co -accused looking to the gathering of people tried to disappear from the place of occurrence. In the meantime some police constable came on the spot and chased the accused persons. The accused persons were caught on the same day at about 11.45 a.m. The victim was taken to the hospital where he was declared brought dead. Co -accused Natthu Lal had earlier committed murder of the uncle (Tau) and he was convicted and sentenced. Against his conviction, the appeal is still pending before this High Court and the accused Natthu Lal is on bail. The motive behind the commission of the said crime as divulged by the prosecution is that Chheda Lal. the father of the complainant had acquired the land of his brother Ram Nath who was living in Beejamau. The co -accused his brother Natthu Lal (the appellant) was demanding half share of that property which was not accepted by the father of the complainant, on account of which the appellant and Natthu Lal were in search of eliminating him for ever. On 19.10.1993 at about 11.30 a.m.. when the father of the complainant was bringing sugar cane to sell at the crusher, the accused persons who had pre -meditation of mind to kill the victim intercepted him and caused his death by stabbing with knife. The accused persons were arrested on the same day and the memo of the recovered knife and pistol were prepared which was Exhibited as Ext. Ka -7. The corpus of the deceased was taken into custody and inquest report was prepared by the Investigating Officer. Thereafter the dead body was sent to the mortuary for post -mortem along with photo lash, challan lash, sample of seal etc. with the report of the Chief Medical Officer. After conducting all the formalities, the dead body was handed over to constable Raj veer Singh and constable Narendra Singh. The Investigating Officer after recording the statements of the witnesses and the accused persons prepared the site plan and collected the plain and blood stained earth. The post -mortem of the victim was conducted on 20.10.1993 at 3.00 p.m. by doctor A. K. Srivastava who found the following injuries :

(2.) THE Investigating Officer proceeded with the investigation and submitted charge -sheet against the accused persons under Section 302. I.P.C. After arrest of the appellant alongwith the weapon used in the commission of the said crime, blood stained knife and the clothes were sent for chemical analysis. Human blood was found on the knife which was used by the appellant. On other articles the blood was disintegrated. The report of the forensic lab Exhibited as Ka -16 was proved by the Investigating Officer. The sanction was obtained from the Additional District Magistrate for prosecution under Section 25 Arms Act. After grant of sanction by the Additional District Magistrate, charge -sheet was also submitted against the appellant under Section 25(4), Arms Act and against the co -accused Chet Ram under Section 25, Arms Act. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions and the charges were framed against the' appellant under Section 302 read with Section 34, I.P.C. and under Section 25(4), Arms Act. Charges were also framed against the co -accused Natthu Lal. The appellant denied the charges and claimed to be tried as he was falsely implicated in the present case.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant stressed that no independent witness was examined. The manner of assault as divulged in the first information report is highly improbable as the appellant Chet Ram who has been attributed the role of catching the collar of the victim had not received any injury while the co -accused Natthu Lal was inflicting blows of knife. The appellant and the complainant are hailing from the same family. No independent witness of the locality was examined. The motive attributed for commission of the said offence is very weak. The first information report has been lodged after consultation and deliberation. The Incident is alleged to have taken place on 19.10.1993 at 11.30 a.m. and the first information was lodged on the same day at about 1.30 p.m. There is no convincing explanation for explaining the delay in lodging the first information report. There are material contradictions in the statement of the complainant and the witnesses. The victim was indulged In the business of flesh trading. He was a man of shady and shoddy character. The victim had earned a bad reputation on account of trafficking in women. The witnesses examined by the prosecution are partisan and interested. The court below committed manifest error by relying upon the statement of the witnesses and awarded them conviction with the aid of Section 34, I.P.C. while Section 34, I.P.C. had no application to the facts of the present case. The evidence of the P.W.1 Arvind Kumar and P.W.2 Bansi Lal who are said to be the eyewitness of the occurrence are not in consonance with the prosecution version.