State of Uttar Pradesh v. Om Pal & Ors.

N.V. RAMANA, J. 1. This appeal by way of special leave petition is filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh against the final judgment and order dated 6 th April, 2007 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Appeal No. 2622 of 2005. By the said judgment, the High Court has acquitted the respondents who were accu sed in Sessions Trial No.1090 of 2003 before the District Court, Ghaz iabad, Uttar Pradesh. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 25-3-1993 at about 9.00 a.m. Mahipal (deceased) and his wife Prakashee (PW3) were going to their fields on a buffalo cart and Tej Pal, Ram Swaroop and Dharmendra (PW2) were following them. While they were on their way, the three accused (respondents herein) appeared out of a sugercane filed near the fields of one Alias, while hurling abuses against Mahipal fired at him. The fire opened by Om Pal was missed but the fire opened by Mukhtiar hit Mahipal. Navin assaulted Mahipal with the butt of the Tamancha on his head. On receiving information from Dharmendra (PW2) about the incident, Naresh (PW1) accompanied by Dharmendra took the injured Mahipal to the police station, Babugarh and lodged FIR. Thereafter, on the way to hospital, Mahipal succumbed to the injuries. 3. The Investigating Officer, Sub-Inspector R.K. Chau dhary (PW6) carried the investigation, recorded statements, prepared site plan (Ext. Ka-3), collected plain earth as well as blood stained earth from the place of occurrence and after conducting inquest at the hosp ital, sent the dead body for postmortem. The accused Mukhtiar was arrested on 29.3.1993 near village Bacchrota and from his possession one ill egal pistol of 315 bore and one ammunition cartridge (Ext. K.13) were recovered. On 8 th April, 1993 the I.O. recorded the statements of other accused Omal and Navin. A Tamancha, allegedly used in the crime, was later recovered at the instance of accused Ompal on 14.4.1993. The statement of the wife of deceased (PW3) was recorded on 24.4.199 3. After concluding the investigation, the Judicial Magist rate, Hapur committed the case to the Court of Sessions where charges were framed under Section 302, IPC read with Section 34, IPC against all the thr ee accused and additionally charges were framed against accused Mukhtiar under Section 25 of the Arms Act. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 99 4. At the trial, the prosecution mainly relied on the evidences of complainant—Naresh Pal (PW1) and eyewitnesses Dharmendra (PW2) and Prakashee (PW3), wife of the deceased. The motive for committing the crime was said to be that there was enmity betwe en the parties as about three years before the date of occurrence, accused Mukhtiar was shot at and in that regard a case was in progress at Hap ur Court in which Mahipal (PW1) was accused. P.W. 4—Pratap Sing h was examined as a witness to prove the conspiracy. P.W.5 is Dr. Hari Kishan Agarwal, who had conducted the post mortem of deceased Mahipal. P.W. 6 S.I. R.K. Chaudhary—I.O. and P.W. 7— Paltoo Ram, H ead Constable are the formal witness. At the end of the trial, the Trial Court came to the conclusion that the prosecution has successfully proved the guilt of the accused. Accordingly, the accused were convic ted under Section 302 read with 34, IPC and sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each and in default thereof, t o further suffer six months rigorous imprisonment. 5. The trial Court’s judgment awarding conviction and sentence has been assailed by the accused by way of criminal appeal befo re the High Court. On appreciation of the material placed before it, the Hi gh Court recorded its finding that the prosecution witnesses, on whose evidence the trial Court has relied on, are not reliable. Accordingly, the High Court set aside the judgment of the trial Court and acquitted all the three accused. Dissatisfied with the acquittal order passed by the High Court, the State of Uttar Pradesh has preferred the present appeal before this Court. 6. We have heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and the learned Amicus Curiae appearing on behalf of the respondents. 7. Learned counsel for the State vehemently contended the impugned order and submitted that the High Court has failed to appreciate the factum of presence of two eyewitnesses PWs 2 and 3 at the spot, who deposed in clear terms the way in which the accused carrie d the assault on the deceased resulting in his death. The injuries on the body of the deceased fully corroborates the prosecution case and the medical evidence also supports the case of prosecution, but the High Court has, by setting aside the well reasoned judgment rendered by the trial Court, committed a grave error of law calling for this Court’s interference. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH v. OM PAL & ORS. [N.V. RAMANA, J.] 8. Learned Amicus Curiae, however, supported the view taken by the High Court and submitted that there is no need for this Court to interfere with the order of acquittal passed by the High Court. 9. Having heard learned counsel on either side, we have given our thoughtful consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case in the light of material placed before us. It appears that the trial Court based its judgment mainly relying upon the evidences of three prosecution witness i.e. P.W.1—Naresh Pal, the complainant, PW2—Dharmendra, an eyewitness and PW3—Prakashee, another eyewitness a nd wife of the deceased. However, in the view expressed by the High Cour t, the aforesaid witnesses are not credible. Since the entire pros ecution case hinges on the depositions of these three witnesses, it is imperative for the Court to scrutinize their evidences properly so as to sift the chaff from the grain and find out the truth. In that pursuit, their evidences are to be considered from the point of view of credibility and trustworthiness. Once the same stands satisfied, it ought to inspire confidence in the mind of the Court to accept the stated evidence. 10. Admittedly, the complainant—PW1 has not witnessed the occurrence. He believed whatever Dharmendra (PW2) informed h im and accordingly he lodged the complaint. It is also indisputable that PW1 was inimical with the respondent party. There was also a criminal case pending in Hapur Court relating to an incident of firing at the accused, in which the deceased as well as PW1 were accused and Resp ondent No.3 herein was the victim. It is evident from the recor d that on the aspect of how PW1 came to know about the incident, he made contradictory statements. There was no independent w itness and according to prosecution, despite the efforts made by police t o record statements from the public, no one was ready to give evidence. As per the statement of PW1, besides PWs 2 & 3, two more persons Te j Pal and Ram Swaroop have also witnessed the incident. It is quite unnatural that none of the eyewitnesses has lodged complaint, but on the basis of information provided by Dharmendra (PW2), PW1 lodged the complaint believing the version of Dharmendra. 11. On the other hand, the conduct and statements of PW2 (Dharmendra) who was stated to be an eyewitness do not inspire confidence for the reason that his depositions under Section 161, Cr.P.C. were quite different to what he stated before Court in his examination- 101 in-chief. He could not even give a satisfactory reason for his presence at the time and place of occurrence. Furthermore, he did not choose to lodge complaint with the police by himself even though he had witnessed the occurrence as admittedly the complaint was lodged by PW1 on the information provided by PW2. Apart from that, there were certain conflicting statements in his evidence as regards how the deceased got injuries, and also his conduct of not making a hue and cry and not disclosing to anyone about the occurrence on his way to the house of Naresh Pal, gives rise to suspicion on the credibility and trustworthiness of PW2. When the evidence of PW2 itself is unbelievable and jeopardizing the prosecution case, in no manner the evidence of PW1 could be g iven credence. 12. We are also not inclined to believe the conduct of PW3—wife of the deceased, who was stated to be in a shock and not in consciousness for about a month after the death of her husband. We find no val id documentary or medical evidence on record in support of the claim of prosecution that PW3 was really in such unconscious state for about a month. Looking at the unnatural behavior of eyewitnesses PW s 2 & 3 and their contradictory statements, it cannot be said that their evidences are genuine so as to convict the accused. 13. Also there were some notable flaws in the prosecution ca se which cannot be ignored. According to PW4 (Pratap Singh), on the previous night of the incident, he along with one Jakar (not examined) heard the accused hatching conspiracy to murder the deceased, but the prosecution did not present Jakar as a witness. It is i ncredible on the part of PW4 that despite knowing about the conspiracy, he did not reveal it to the victim party so as to save the life of the dece ased. The trial Court also disbelieved his evidence. 14. The High Court, while appreciating the evidence of the three important witnesses i.e. PWs 1, 2 and 3, rightly disbelieved the presence of PWs 2 and 3 at the place of occurrence and discredited the evidence of P.W.1—complainant. Undoubtedly, the prosecution in its ef fort to establish the case with the support of evidences of PWs 1, 2 and 3, has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasona ble doubt. The High Court has, therefore, committed no illegality or manifest error in acquitting the accused giving them the benefit of doubt, under the circumstances. We express our concurrence with the findings recorded STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH v. OM PAL & ORS. [N.V. RAMANA, J.] by the High Court for acquitting the respondents. For the afor esaid reasoning, we do not find any merit in this appeal ca lling for our interference under Article 136 of the Constitution. 15. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal filed by the appellant – State of U.P. is dismissed. Kalpana K. Tripathy Appeal dismissed.