GOYAL, J. - (1.) IN the double murder case, accused appellants, five in number, were placed on trial before the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Bharatpur. The Trial Court vide its judgment dated 18. 10. 2001, in sessions case No. 120/2001 convicted and sentenced each of the accused appellants as under :- (1) Hambir (2) Mahendra (3) Govinda (4) Jeet Singh (5) Balram @ Balla : Under Section 302/149 IPC :-Life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine, one month's rigorous imprisonment. Under Section 435 IPC :-Five years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 250/-, in default of payment of fine, fifteen days rigorous imprisonment. Under Section 147 IPC :-One year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default of payment of fine, ten days rigorous imprisonment. The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
(2.) A written report (Ex. P11) was submitted by Nahar Singh (PW6) (father of the deceased Rajvir) at Police Station Bayana, District Bharatpur on 14. 3. 1999 at 9:45 am with the averments that on 13. 3. 1999 at about 9:30 pm his son went to Brahmbad by Jeep. Thereafter at about 11:00 pm he came to know that Hambir Singh, Govind Singh, Jeet Singh, Mahendra Singh, Balla Singh, Polu Singh with his brother Mahendra Singh along with some other persons armed with Lathies and Pharsas followed his son. On account of fear he (Nahar Singh) remained in his house. On 14. 3. 1999 at 6 a. m. he came to know that the dead bodies of his son Rajvir Singh and one girl are lying in burnt condition in his Jeep in between Brahmbad and his village. On the basis of this information, F. I. R. No. 147/1999 was registered for the offences under Sections 147, 148 & 302 IPC and the investigation commenced. Police seized dead bodies of Veervati and Rajveer in a burnt condition from the place of occurrence and inquest reports respectively Ex. P1 & Ex. P2 were prepared. Site plan with its description (Ex. P3) was also prepared. Jeep which was in burnt condition was seized vide Ex. P4. Autopsy on the dead bodies of Veervati and Rajveer were conducted by Dr. Ravi Kumar Gupta (PW21) who prepared postmortem reports Ex. P25 & Ex. P26 respectively. Accused persons were arrested and on their information under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, weapons used in the offence and other articles were recovered. Surendra (PW2) who was in the company of two deceased persons at the time of occurrence was also medically examined by Dr. Ravi Kumar Gupta (PW21 ). Other articles were also seized during investigation. After usual investigation, charge-sheet was filed and in due course the case came up for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bayana. Charges under Sections 147, 435 & 302 IPC and in alternate under Section 302 read with Section 147 IPC were framed against the accused appellants, who denied the charges and claimed trial. Lateron, this sessions case was transferred for trial to the court of Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Bharatpur. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 26 witnesses. After completion of prosecution evidence, the statements of accused persons under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were recorded. The appellants claimed to be innocent. In defence, nine witnesses were examined. After hearing final submissions, learned Judge convicted and sentenced the accused appellants as indicated here-in-before. We have heard the submissions and carefully gone through the evidence adduced at the trial. So far as the cause of death of deceased Veervati and Rajveer is concerned, it is not disputed that their death was not natural one but was homicidal. Dr. Ravi Kumar Gupta (PW21), who was a member of the medical board, along with two other doctors, Ram Kumar Gupta and Madhu Mittal conducted the autopsy on the dead bodies of deceased Veervati and Rajveer on 14. 3. 1999 at the spot. According to the postmortem report of Veervati (Ex. P25) and the statement of Dr. Ravi Kumar Gupta, it was found that her chest and abdomen were burst, intestines coming out from abdomen, eyes burnt, both upper and lower limbs were also found burnt, external organs of generation, skull bones, hair of scalp were also burnt completely, peritoneum was congested and burnt, fracture of the left parietal bone was also found. In the opinion of the medical board, Veervati died due to antemortem injuries to brain and extensive burn leading to shock and death. On conducting the autopsy on the dead body of Rajveer, postmortem report Ex. P26 was prepared by the medical board. According to the postmortem report and the statement of the Dr. Ravi Kumar Gupta (PW21) it was found that upper and lower limbs burnt completely, fracture of right parietal and temporal, various parts of the body were also found burnt, chest and abdomen burst, intestine coming out from the body (abdomen) liver charred coming out from burst wound. As per the opinion of the medical board, Rajveer died due to antemortem injuries to brain and extensive burns leading to shock and death.
(3.) THE prosecution in its endeavour to secure conviction against the appellants relied on the testimony of Surendra (PW2), Noori @ Damo (PW1), Hukam Singh (PW11) and Shyam Singh (PW12) who were examined to provide ocular version of the events. Firstly, it is contended by learned counsel for the appellants that the testimony of Surendra (PW2), Noori @ Damo (PW1), Hukam Singh (PW11) and Shyam Singh (PW12) examined as eye- witnesses by the prosecution is untrustworthy; that Noori @ Damo (PW1), Hukam Singh (PW11) and Shyam Singh (PW12) are the chance witnesses who were interrogated after a lapse of about more than 20 days despite of the fact that one of them was always present in the village and participated in the inquest report of the deceased persons but did not utter anything to the police as well as to other relatives of the deceased persons. Reliance has been placed on the judgment delivered in the case of Surinder Singh vs. State of Punjab, reported in 1989 Supp (2) Supreme Court Cases 21 wherein eye-witness after seeing the occurrence did not go to inform to parents and relatives of deceased but went to his own house and after sometime informed some other persons. Under the facts and circumstances of that case, conduct of eye-witness was held to be suspicious. In another judgment Din Dayal vs. Raj Kumar alias Raju and Others, reported in A. I. R. 1999 Supreme Court 537 the eye-witnesses closely connected with the deceased did not accompany deceased to hospital nor had informed police about incidence. In these circumstances, their conduct was found unnatural. It was further held that eye-witness who was the close relative of deceased and who had accompanied deceased to hospital also did not disclosing name of accused to police, creates serious doubt regarding truthfulness of evidence of such eye- witnesses. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that statements of these eye-witnesses were recorded after an inordinate delay, thus, their testimony cannot be relied upon. Reliance has been placed on Balakrushna Swain vs. The State of Orissa, reported in A. I. R. 1971 Supreme Court 804 wherein it was held that unjustified and unexplained long delay on part of investigating officer in recording statement of material eye- witness during investigation of murder case will render evidence of such witness unreliable. In the case of Ganesh Bhavan Patel and Another vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in A. I. R. 1979 Supreme Court 135, it was held that if there are concomitant circumstances to suggest that the investigator was deliberately marking time with a view to decide about the shape to be given to the case and the eye-witnesses to be introduced. In these circumstances, delay in recording the statements of the material witnesses casts a cloud of suspicion on the credibility of the entire warp and woof of the prosecution story. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant supported the impugned judgment and submitted that surendra (PW2) was the eye-witness of stoneworth who went along with Rajveer and Veervati at Bayana by jeep and when they were returning after midnight to their village Purabai Kheda, about 2 km ahead from Brahmbad the accused appellants firstly sustained the injuries on Rajveer and Veervati and thereafter pushing both of them in the jeep and after pouring the fuel both of them were put to fire which caused the death of both the deceased persons at the spot. It is also submitted that Noori @ Damo (PW1), Hukam Singh (PW11) & Shyam Singh (PW12) are also the ocular witnesses who saw the incident while they were coming from Brahmnad. Their statements further find corroboration from the other witnesses and evidence adduced by the prosecution. ;