LawforAll

advocatemmmohan

My photo
since 1985 practicing as advocate in both civil & criminal laws

WELCOME TO LEGAL WORLD

WELCOME TO MY LEGAL WORLD - SHARE THE KNOWLEDGE

Saturday, September 8, 2012

the Limitation Act, 1963 does not apply to criminal proceedings unless there is express and specific provision to that effect. It is also settled law that a criminal offence is considered as a wrong against the State and the Society even though it is committed against an individual. - the final judgment and order dated 13.01.2006 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Government Appeal No. 159 of 1981 whereby the Division Bench of the High Court allowed the appeal filed by the State and set aside the order of acquittal of accused persons dated 08.09.1980 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Etawah in Sessions Trial No. 77 of 1979.In the case on hand, merely because the High Court had taken nearly 25 years to dispose of the appeal, the present appellant cannot be exonerated on the ground of delay. As stated earlier, it is not a case of single murder but due to firing and gunshot, five persons died and one injured. Accordingly, we reject the said contention. 19) In the light of the above discussion, we are unable to accept the reasoning of the trial Court and submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant. On the other hand, we fully agree with the conclusion arrived at by the High Court. Consequently, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed.


                                     REPORTABLE


                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION


                      1 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 434 OF 2006




Shyam Babu                                        .... Appellant(s)

            Versus

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


                                      2



                               J U D G M E N T


P.Sathasivam,J.

1)    This appeal has been preferred against the final  judgment  and  order
dated 13.01.2006 passed by the High Court  of  Judicature  at  Allahabad  in
Government Appeal No. 159 of 1981 whereby the Division  Bench  of  the  High
Court allowed the appeal filed by the State  and  set  aside  the  order  of
acquittal  of  accused  persons  dated  08.09.1980  passed  by   the   First
Additional Sessions Judge, Etawah in Sessions Trial No. 77 of 1979.

2)    The facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are as under:
(a)   Moolu Singh and Kunji were real brothers.  Prayag Singh, Pahunchi  Lal
and Lalta Prasad were sons of Moolu Singh.    Badan Singh  and  Gaya  Prasad
were sons of Kunji.  Ratan Singh is the son of Prayag Singh  and  Nathu  Ram
and Rajendra Singh were sons of Pahunchi Lal.  Jaswant Singh was the son  of
Badan Singh and Ujagar Singh was the son of Gaya Prasad.
(b)   On 21.12.1978, at about 9.00 a.m. one Nathu  Ram-the  Complainant  and
his father Pahunchi Lal were ploughing their field situated at  Har  Balapur
P.S. Bharthana.  At that time, the Complainant’s uncle - Gaya  Prasad  along
with his son Ujagar Singh were sowing their field which was  nearer  to  the
field of the Complainant.  At some distance, his uncle - Prayag Singh  along
with his son Ratan Singh were also ploughing their field.
(c)   There was a water channel passing towards north of  their  fields  and
Mahipal Singh-the accused was irrigating his  field  through  that  channel.
Since water was overflowing in the  channel  and  entering  into  the  sowed
field of the Complainant’s uncle-Gaya Prasad,  he  asked  Mahipal  Singh  to
repair the same.  On this issue, an altercation took place  between  Mahipal
Singh and Gaya Prasad.  The accused Mahipal  Singh  left  the  place  saying
that he would see him.
(d)   In the meanwhile, Lalta Prasad, first cousin of Gaya  Prasad  and  his
nephew Jaswant Singh also reached there.  At about  11.00  a.m.,  Nathu  Ram
and his father Pahunchi Lal resumed ploughing their field.   At  that  time,
accused Mahipal Singh and his brothers Shyam Babu and  Tej  Ram  armed  with
guns, Indal having rifle and Bhabhooti with lathi along  with  their  father
Ramjit with spear and Babu Ram – son of Bhabhooti  with  countrymade  pistol
reached  there.   Mahipal  Singh,  standing  near  Gaya  Prasad,  told   his
associates that he was behaving in an arrogant  manner  and  asked  them  to
make an assault on him.  Thereupon, Shyam Babu and Mahipal  Singh  fired  at
Gaya Prasad with their respective guns thereby causing injuries to him.   On
seeing this, Ujagar Singh– son of Gaya Prasad, rushed  to  save  his  father
and he also sustained pellet injuries by Tej  Ram.   At  that  time,  Prayag
Singh, Pahunchi Lal, Lalta Prasad and Jaswant Singh rushed to the  scene  of
occurrence.  Then Ramjit and Bhabhooti shouted  that  they  should  also  be
killed and immediately Indal fired at Jaswant Singh and Prayag  Singh  using
rifle and Babu Ram and Mahipal Singh fired at Pahunchi Lal and Lalta  Prasad
with country made pistol and gun respectively.  All of  them  fell  down  in
the field of Badan Singh except Prayag Singh,  who  received  injuries.   On
hearing the hue and cry, Rajendra Singh brother of  Nathu  Ram  and  several
other persons rushed to the spot and challenged  the  accused  persons.   On
seeing them, all the accused persons fled  away.   Due  to  fatal  injuries,
Ujagar Singh, Jaswant Singh, Gaya Prasad,  Pahunchi  Lal  and  Lalta  Prasad
died on the spot and Prayag Singh received grievous injuries.
(e)   On the same day, i.e.,  on  21.12.1978,  an  FIR  was  lodged  by  the
Complainant - Nathu Ram, son of Pahunchi  Lal,  at  P.S.  Bharthana,  Etawah
against the above-mentioned 7 persons under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307  and
302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short ‘the IPC’).
(f)   On 06.03.1979, after filing of charge sheet, the  case  was  committed
to the Court of Sessions and numbered as Sessions  Trial  No.  77  of  1979.
The First Additional Sessions Judge, Etawah, by judgment  dated  08.09.1980,
acquitted all the 7 accused persons holding that the prosecution has  failed
to prove beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the  accused  persons  in  the
case against them.
(g)   Being aggrieved, the State filed Government Appeal  No.  159  of  1981
before the High  Court.   Pending  appeal  in  the  High  Court,  4  accused
persons, viz., Ramjit, Mahipal  Singh,  Indal  and  Bhabhooti  died  due  to
natural death and the case against them stood abated.
(h)   On 13.01.2006, the High Court allowed the appeal filed  by  the  State
and convicted the remaining 3 accused persons, viz., Shyam  Babu,  Babu  Ram
and Tej Ram under Sections 148, 307 and 302 read with  Section  149  of  IPC
and sentenced them to undergo  rigorous  imprisonment  under  various  heads
mentioned above including life sentence and all the sentences  were  to  run
concurrently.
(i)   Being aggrieved by the judgment of the High  Court,  the  remaining  3
accused persons preferred an appeal before this Court under Section  379  of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973  (in  short  ‘the  Code’).  During  the
pendency of the appeal, 2 accused persons, viz., Tej Ram and Babu  Ram  died
and appeal against them stood abated and only one  accused,  Shyam  Babu  is
before this Court facing conviction and sentence.
3)    Heard Mr. V.K. Shukla, learned counsel for the  appellant-accused  and
Mr. Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad, learned counsel for the respondent-State.
Discussion
4)    The incident relates to death of 5 persons and  causing  injury  to  1
person.  According to the prosecution, all the 5 persons were shot dead  and
one person sustained injuries due to firing by the accused persons.   It  is
revealed from the post mortem reports and the evidence of  the  Doctor,  who
conducted autopsy on the dead bodies that death was caused due to shock  and
hemorrhage as a result of ante mortem injuries about one day ago.
5)    On receipt of the complaint, the Investigating Officer rushed  to  the
spot and collected the blood stained clothes of all the 5 deceased and  also
collected the samples of blood stained  earth  near  the  place  where  dead
bodies of all the 5 were lying and the same were sent  to  Forensic  Science
Laboratory (FSL) for opinion which opined that the samples were found to  be
containing human blood.
6)    After filing of charge-sheet against all the accused, the  prosecution
examined several witnesses.  Among them, Nathu  Ram  (PW-1),  Prayag  Singh,
injured witness (PW-3) and Mukut Singh (PW-6) were the persons who  actually
witnessed the occurrence.  In other words, PWs-1, 3 and 6 are  eye-witnesses
to the occurrence.  The trial Judge, after noting certain discrepancies  and
their relationship with the  deceased  persons,  disbelieved  their  version
and, ultimately, acquitted all the accused persons.  On the other hand,  the
High Court, being the appellate Court,  analysed  all  the  materials,  more
particularly, the evidence of eye witnesses, medical  evidence,  FSL  Report
etc.,  and arrived at a categorical  conclusion  that  the  prosecution  has
established the case against all the accused persons.
7)    Inasmuch as 4 accused died during the pendency of  the  appeal  before
the High Court, the High Court convicted the remaining  3  accused,  namely,
Shyam Babu, Tej Ram and Babu Ram.  Even during the pendency of  the  present
appeal, 2 accused persons died, namely, Tej Ram  and  Babu  Ram  and  as  on
date, we are concerned with only one  accused,  namely,  Shyam  Babu  –  the
present appellant.
Power of the High Court in an appeal against acquittal :
8)    Mr. V.K. Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that  in
view of the acquittal of the accused persons by the trial  Court,  the  High
Court was not justified in interfering with the decision of the trial  Court
and modifying the acquittal into conviction.
9)    It is true that it would not be possible for the  appellate  Court  to
interfere with the order of acquittal passed  by  the  trial  Court  without
rendering specific finding, namely, that the decision of the trial Court  is
perverse or unreasonable resulting in miscarriage of justice.  At  the  same
time, it cannot be denied that the appellate  Court  while  entertaining  an
appeal against the judgment of acquittal by the trial Court is  entitled  to
re-appreciate the evidence and come to an independent  conclusion.   We  are
conscious of the fact that in doing so, the appellate Court should  consider
every material on record and  the  reasons  given  by  the  trial  Court  in
support of its order  of  acquittal  and  should  interfere  only  on  being
satisfied  that  the  view  taken  by  the  trial  Court  is  perverse   and
unreasonable resulting in miscarriage of justice.  We  also  reiterate  that
if two views are possible on a set of evidence,  then  the  appellate  Court
need not substitute its own view in preference to  the  view  of  the  trial
Court which has recorded an order of acquittal.
Reasoning on merits
10)   Keeping the above principles in mind, let  us  consider  the  evidence
led by the prosecution and the ultimate decision  of  the  High  Court.   We
have already mentioned that Nathu Ram (PW-1), Prayag Singh (PW-3) and  Mukut
Singh (PW-6) have appeared as eye-witnesses to the  occurrence.   PW-1,  son
of deceased Pahunchi Lal, has categorically narrated all the  facts  of  the
occurrence.  According to him, at about 9 or 9.30 a.m., on the fateful  day,
he and his father were ploughing the field of Badan  Singh  which  they  had
taken on ‘batai’ and his uncle Gaya Prasad and his  son  Ujagar  Singh  were
sowing crop in their field. He further deposed that his uncle  Prayag  Singh
and his son Ratan Singh were ploughing their field situated  at  a  distance
of 40-50 footsteps from the field  in  which  they  were  working.   Mahipal
Singh was irrigating his field through water channel abutting the  field  of
Gaya Prasad and since the water was overflowing and entering into the  filed
of Gaya Prasad, he asked Mahipal Singh to repair the same which resulted  in
an altercation between them and, thereafter, Mahipal Singh went away  saying
that he would teach him a lesson.  By that time, Lalta  Prasad  and  Jaswant
Singh also reached there and all of them were sitting in the field of  Badan
Singh.  He further narrated that at about 11 a.m., when he  and  his  father
resumed ploughing their field, at that time, Shyam Babu (present  appellant-
accused) and Tej Ram with guns, Indal with rifle and  Bhabhooti  with  lathi
along with their father Ramjit with  spear  (ballam)  and  Babu  Ram-son  of
Bhabhooti with country made pistol reached there.   Mahipal  Singh  pointing
at Gaya Prasad started shouting that he was  speaking  much  and  should  be
killed and, immediately thereafter, Shyam Babu and Mahipal  Singh  fired  at
Gaya Prasad using guns.  When Ujagar Singh  rushed  towards  his  father  to
rescue him, he also received pellet injuries by Tej Ram.  He further  stated
that immediately Pahunchi Lal, Prayag Singh, Lalta Prasad and Jaswant  Singh
also rushed to the  scene  of  occurrence  and  then  Ramjit  and  Bhabhooti
shouted that they should also be killed.  Thereafter,  Indal  and  Babu  Ram
fired at Jaswant Singh and Pahunchi Lal with their respective weapons.   The
accused persons also fired at Lalta  Prasad  and  Prayag  Singh  with  their
weapons.  Ramjit and Bhabhooti also gave blows to  the  injured  with  their
respective weapons.  On sustaining  fatal  injuries,  Pahunchi  Lal,  Ujagar
Singh, Lalta Prasad, Gaya Prasad and Jaswant Singh  died  on  the  spot  and
Prayag Singh received firearm injuries at his back.   He  also  stated  that
thereafter at about 12.00 noon he went  to  the  police  station  Bharthana,
Etawah situated at a distance of  8  miles  from  his  village  and  made  a
written complaint about the occurrence.
11)   The other eye-witnesses relied on by the prosecution and  accepted  by
the High Court were Prayag Singh (PW-3) - injured  person  and  Mukut  Singh
(PW-6), who corroborated the entire statement of Nathu  Ram  (PW-1)  in  all
material aspects.
12)   A perusal  of  the  cross-examination  of  these  three  eye-witnesses
clearly shows that all of them were subjected to  lengthy  cross-examination
but as rightly observed  by  the  High  Court,  nothing  tangible  could  be
brought on record to impair their credibility.  We were also  taken  through
their evidence.  We fully concur with the conclusion arrived at by the  High
Court and hold that the trial Judge committed an  error  in  discarding  the
testimony of all the three eye-witnesses  doubting  their  presence  at  the
scene of occurrence.
Evidentiary value of related witnesses :
13)   Mr. V.K. Shukla, learned counsel  for  the  appellant  submitted  that
since most  of  the  prosecution  witnesses  are  related  to  the  deceased
persons, the same cannot be relied on.  We are unable  to  accept  the  said
contention.
14)   This Court has repeatedly held that  the  version  of  an  eye-witness
cannot be discarded by the Court merely on the ground that such  eye-witness
happened to be a relative or friend of the  deceased.   It  is  also  stated
that where the presence of the eye-witnesses is proved  to  be  natural  and
their statements  are  nothing  but  truthful  disclosure  of  actual  facts
leading to the occurrence, it will not  be  permissible  for  the  Court  to
discard the statement of such related or  friendly  witnesses.   To  put  it
clear, there is no bar in law on  examining  family  members  or  any  other
person as witnesses.  In fact, in cases involving  family  members  of  both
sides, it is a member of the family or a friend  who  comes  to  rescue  the
injured.  If the statement of witnesses, who are relatives or known  to  the
parties affected is credible,  reliable,  trustworthy  and  corroborated  by
other witnesses, there would hardly be any reason for the  court  to  reject
such evidence merely on the ground that the witness was a family  member  or
an interested witness or a person known to  the  affected  party  or  friend
etc.  These principles have been reiterated in Mano  Dutt  and  Another  vs.
State of Uttar Pradesh, (2012) 4 SCC 79  and  Dayal  Singh  and  Others  vs.
State of Uttaranchal, 2012 (7) Scale 165.
15)   In the case on hand, Nathu Ram (PW-1) is closely related  to  all  the
deceased as he is the son  of  the  deceased  Pahunchi  Lal  and  nephew  of
deceased Lalta Prasad.  It is  also  true  that  Prayag  Singh  (PW-3),  the
injured witness, is the real brother of the deceased Pahunchi Lal and  Lalta
Prasad.  Mukut Singh (PW-6) has also admitted in his cross-examination  that
he has some land in joint khata with the victims but their testimony  cannot
be discarded on the ground of relationship alone  as  they  appeared  to  be
honest and truthful witnesses and their testimony has not been  impaired  in
their cross-examination.   We have already referred to  the  lengthy  cross-
examination of all these persons and nothing has come out  to  impair  their
credibility.  We have also observed that among  these  three  eye-witnesses,
PW-3 is an injured witness and  his  evidence  stands  on  higher  pedestal.
There is no reason to either disbelieve his version or his presence  at  the
place of occurrence.  On the other hand, we agree with their  statement  and
hold that the High Court was justified on relying upon their evidence.


Only surviving accused – effect :
16)   Finally, Mr. V.K. Shukla pointed out  that  inasmuch  as  the  present
appellant alone is the remaining accused since out of  7,  other  6  accused
persons died due to natural death, he may be exonerated from the  conviction
and sentence.  In view of the clinching evidence led by the prosecution,  we
are unable to accept his submission.  We  should  not  forget  that  due  to
gruesome incident, 5 persons lost  their  lives  and  one  person  sustained
injuries.  It is also brought in evidence that Shyam Babu, appellant  herein
and Tej Ram used guns and the third one Babu Ram used  country  made  pistol
for the said diabolical act of shooting.   It  is  undisputed  fact  that  5
persons died and 1 person sustained injuries by use of such  weapons.   Even
otherwise, the present appellant along with  others  was  convicted  by  the
High Court under Sections 148, 307 & 302 read with Section  149  IPC,  hence
he cannot be exonerated. Taking note of all these  aspects  and  considering
the gruesome murders, there is no  reason  to  exonerate  the  present  sole
appellant-accused merely because the other co-accused died  due  to  natural
death.
Delay in disposal of appeal
17)    It  was  argued  by  the  learned  counsel  for  the  appellant  that
considering the fact that though the appeal was filed before the High  Court
at Allahabad in the year 1981, the same was disposed of by  the  High  Court
only on 13.01.2006, i.e., after a gap of 25 years and,  the  sole  appellant
be discharged from the commission of offence on the  ground  of  delay.   We
are unable to accept the said  contention.   This  Court,  in  a  series  of
decisions, held that the Limitation Act, 1963 does  not  apply  to  criminal
proceedings unless there is express and specific provision to  that  effect.
It is also settled law that a criminal offence  is  considered  as  a  wrong
against the State and the Society even though it  is  committed  against  an
individual.  After considering various decisions including the  decision  of
the Constitution Bench of this  Court  in  Abdul  Rehman  Antulay  vs.  R.S.
Nayak, (1992) 1 SCC 225 and Kartar Singh vs. State of Punjab  (1994)  3  SCC
569 and  a decision rendered by seven learned Judges of  this  Court  in  P.
Ramachandra Rao vs. State  of  Karnataka  (2002)  4  SCC  578,  recently  on
17.08.2012, a Bench of two Judges of this Court in Ranjan Dwivedi  etc.  vs.
C.B.I., Through the Director General (Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 200 of  2001)
 rejected similar argument based on delay either at the stage  of  trial  or
thereafter.
18)   In the case on hand, merely because the High Court  had  taken  nearly
25 years  to  dispose  of  the  appeal,  the  present  appellant  cannot  be
exonerated on the ground of delay.  As stated earlier, it is not a  case  of
single murder but due to firing and  gunshot,  five  persons  died  and  one
injured.  Accordingly, we reject the said contention.
19)   In the light of the above discussion, we  are  unable  to  accept  the
reasoning of the trial Court and submissions made  by  the  learned  counsel
for the appellant.  On the other hand, we fully agree  with  the  conclusion
arrived at by the High Court.  Consequently, the appeal fails and  the  same
is dismissed.


                                  ………….…………………………J.


                                       (P. SATHASIVAM)










                                    ………….…………………………J.


                                      (DR. B.S.CHAUHAN)
NEW DELHI;
SEPTEMBER 7, 2012.






























|                     |                      |                     |

-----------------------
2