Ummed Singh & Others v. State of Madhya Pradesh (Now State of Chhattisgarh)

CORAhfl: Hon'bleShrLRaieevGupta.C.J. & Hon'ble Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha, J. Crinninal Afipeal No. 1922 of 1996 APPELLAN TS RESPONDENT 1 2 3 4 Ummed Singh, aged about 30 years, soh of Puransingh Gond Sant Lal alias Santkumar alias Mandal, son of Dhgni Ram, aged about 23 Dhan Kumar alias Dewan, aged about 25 years, son of Ghuran Singh Basant Lal, aged about 25 years,son of Dhani Ram Gond Bhukbhuki, All R/o Village Chirmiri, District Sarguja, M.P. C.G.) P.S. (Now Versus State otMadhya Pradesh (Now State of Chhattisgarh), Through P.S. Chirmiri, District Sarguja (Criminal Ap&eal under Section 374 (2) of The Code of Criminal Procedure) Appearance: Mrs. Meena Shastri, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. J.A. Lohani, Panel Lawyer for the State. h) 1 :. JUDGMENT (10,07.2012) Following judgment of the Court was delivered by Sunil Kurinar Sinha^J. '. / (1) This appeal is directed ag^inst the judgment dated 18 of October, 1996 passed in Sessions Trial No. 345/95 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Manendragarh. By the impugned judgment, the appellants have been convicted y/ss 148 & 302/149 IPC and sentenced to undergo R.l. Cr.A. NosJ922 of 1996 for 2 years and imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- with default sentence of additional imprisonment for 2 years. (2) The facts, briefly stated, are as under:- 17 accused persons (A-1 to A-17) were tried for commission of offences punishable u/ss 148, 307/149 & 302/149 IPC. The prosecution came with the case that on 14.7.95 at about 12.30 the accused persons' formed an unlawful assembly, Noon, participated in rioting with deadly weapons and in furtherance of the common object of the said assembly committed murder "f deceased- Anuroop Singh and attempted to the lives of Mandev (PW-10) and Deosingh (PW-11). The case of the prosecution was based on eye-witness account of Ram Singh (PW-2 - father of the deceased), Mandev (PW-10) and Deosingh (PW-11). Mandev (PW- 10) and Deosingh (PW-11) turned hostile. Though they deposed that they were assaulted by.the villagers by lathi, but they could not depose as to who were present Therefore, all the accused persons were acquitted of the charges framed u/ss 307/149 IPC. The learned Sessions Judge, however, there and who assault them. relying on the sole testimony of Ram Singh (PW-2), held that it was proved that the above 4 appellants (A-1, A-5, A-12 & A-14) and other villagers who could not be identified, were members of the unlawful assembly, they participated in rioting and in furtherance of the common object of the said assembly, they committedmurder of deceased Anuroop Singh. Therefore, the above 4 appellants (A-1, A-5, A-12 & A-14) were sentenced convicted aforementioned. However, other accused persons were acquitted of all the/charges framed against them, • - / ' (3) Mrs. Meena Shastri, leSfried counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, has argued that Ram Singh (PW-2) is father of the deceased; he is an interested witness being close relation of the deceased; his presence at.the place of occurrence is doubtful; he adopted the method .-s- CrANos. 1922 of 1996 of "pick and choose"; therefore, conviction based on the solitary evidence of Ram Singh (PW-2) can not be sustained. (4) On the other hand, Mr. J.A. Lohani, learned Panel Lawyer appearing on behalf of the State, opposed these arguments and supported the judgment passed by the Sessions Court. (5) We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the records ofthe sessions case. (6) Relationship is not a factor to affect the credibility of a witness. There is no hard-and-fast rule that family members can never be true witnesses to the occurrence..and they will always depose falsely before the Court. A close relative of the deceased does not, per-se become an interested witness. An interested witness is one who is interested in securing conviction of a person out of vengeance or enmity or due to disputes and deposes before the Court only with that intention and not to further cause of justice. The Supreme Court has reiterated the principte that version of interested witnesses cannot be thrown overboard, but has to be examined carefully before accepting the same. [Vide- Namdev Vs. Stete of Maharashtra, 2007 AIR SCW 1835: Sonelal Vs. State of MP.. 2008 AIR SCW 7988: and Dharnldhar Vs. State of UttarPradesh and Others^, other connected appeafe. f2010) 7 SCC 759). Therefore, argument of learned couns^for the appellants that Ram Singh (PW-2) should not be relied on because he is father of the deceased, cannot be accepted. However, his evidence is.to be scrutinized with due care and caution before placing reliance on him. 8::!l I? • i.^;- <s" Cr.A.Nos. 1922 of 1996 (7) Now we shall examine the evidence of Ram Singh (PW-2) on the above principles. (8) Ram Singh (PW-2) is father of the deceased. He deposed that, on the fateful day, he along with his son- Gajroop and grand-son- Devnarayan, had gone to work as labour in the field of Tulsiprasad (PW- 13). They were ploughing his fields. -At about 12.00 Noon, they untied the cattle from plough. When he returned to his house, he saw that all the accused persons had surrounded the house of his son- Anurrop Singh (deceased). When he asked the accused persons as to why they have surrounded his house, they told that his son has abused them, therefore, they will assault him. He was residing separately from his son in a different house. At that tiffie, Anuroop Singh (deceased) was inside his house. On a call given by accused Sant Lal (A-5), his son came out. Thereafter Sant Lal (A-5), Ummed'Singh (A-1), Basant Lal (A-14) and Dewan @ Dhan Kumar (A-12) assaulted him by lathi. When his son fell down, Gaya Prasad (A-8), Ramdev (A-4), Bhim Singh (A-11), Bhandari Singh (A-13), Ujit (A-2), Dhani Ram (A-16) and Karan Sai (A-3) ran away from the place of occurrence. Other accused persons, who were standing there, also ran away seeing that his son (deceased) was being assaulted by jbe above 4 persons. Ha went to his son and saw tfrat he was breathing. Aftec soTnetime, Basaht Lal (A-14), Dewan (A-12), Sant Lal (A- -./.-. . .. ;. . .- 5) and Ummed Singh (A-1) again cafne there and assaulted his son by N>^ lathi. In cross-examination,. Para-7, he admitted that after releasing the cattle from plough, he had gone to the yillage tank and after taking bath in the village tank, he along with Gajroop and Devnarayan had gone to the houseof Tylsiprasad (PW-13) for taking their meals and after taking .;,<?.: :!:i "iE1 CrANos. 1922 of 1996 meals in the house of Tulsiprasad (PW-13), they returned to their houses at about 1.30 p.m. h4e had denied the suggestion that the incident had already taken place before he returned to his house. (9) F.I.R. (Ex.-P/2) was lodged by Ram Singh (PW-2). In the F.I.R. (Ex.-P/2) he had taken the names of all the accused persons and had mentioned that all the accused per&ons had assaulted the deceased. When the contents of the F.I.R. (Ex.-P/2) were put to him in cross- examination, in Para-9, he could not explain the above omission and asserted that only Basant Lal (A-14), Sant Lal (A-5), Ummed Singh (A-1) and Dewan (A-12) had assaulted his son (deceased). He deposed in clear words that if the specifiQ names of the above accused persons (appellants) are not there in the F.I.R. (Ex.-P/2) as the assailants of the deceased, and the F.1.R. (Ex.-P/2) contains that all the accused persons had assaulted the deceased, he cannot tell reason for the same. (10) The contents of the F.I.R. (Ex.-P/2) would show that Ram Singh (PW-2) lodged it against 1 5 accused persons only. He added the names of 2 more accused persons as the assailants in his 161 Cr.P.C. statement. However, in his court version he selected to take the names of only 4 appellants (A-1, A-5.A-12 & A-14). In fact, he adopted the method of "pick and chooge". His such conduct of firstly taking the names of 15 assaitants i^i the F.I.R. (Ex.-P/2), th,?n, adding the names of 2 assailants '^*h more in his 161 Cr.P.C. statement, and then finally taking the names of orily 4 appellants (A-1, A-5, A-12 & A-14) in trial makes his statement shaky. On account;of the above conduct of Ram Singh (PW-2), argument assumes importance that he being the father of the deceased <;. ^. Cr.A. Nos.1922 of 1996 was interested and was deliberately deposing against the 4 selected persons (appellants herein), leaving the names of other accused persons against whom he made allegations in the F.1.R. (Ex.-P/2) as also 161 Cr.P.C. statement. (11) Tulsiprasad (PW-13) is the person who had engaged Ram Singh (PW-2) and his other two relatives a?. labour in his field. He deposed that Ram Singh (PW-2), Gajroop ahd Devnarayan, after working in the field in first half, had reached to his house for meals at about 1.00 p.m. They had consumed about 1-1 % hours in his house in taking meals. Devnarayan left his house at about 2.30 p.m. Thereafter Gajroop also left his house and went to his neighbour's house where chhathi was being celebrated. He very categorically deposed that Ram Singh (PW-2) had stayed in his house. He was sleeping in his house. In Para-5 of his cross-examination, he admitted that Ram Singh (PW-2) was sleeping in his house till 3-3.30 p.m., and he got up at the instance of this witness (PW-13) at about 3-

3.30 p.m. This also creates doubton the testimony of Ram Singh (PW-2) who claims that he was present at the place of occurrence at about 12.30 Noon. (12) Though it is open to the Court to convict the accused on the basis i of evidence of single witness, but the evidence ofsuch witness should be wholly reliable. Section 134 of the.Evidence Act also provides that no particular number of witness^s shatl in any case be required for proof of any fact. Therefore, what is important is the quality of evidence and not its quantity. v' Cr.A. Nos. 1922 of 1996 (13) In the instant case, the 2 eye-witness namely- Mandev (PW-10), Deosingh (PW-11), whp were injured witnesses, have turned hostile. The Sessions Judge has relied on the solitary testimony of Ram Singh (PW- 2). We are of the view that.on account of the above conduct of Ram Singh (PW-2) and the contents ofthe F.1.R. (Ex.-P/2) and the evidence of Tulsiprasad (PW-13), it was not safe to rely on the solitary testimony of Ram Singh (PW-2) for convicting the ap'pellants. (14) Therefore, conviction based on the sole testimony of Ram Singh (PW-2) cannot be sustained and the appellants are entitled to benefit of doubt. (15) For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentences awarded tothe appellants u/ss 148 & 302/149 IPC are set-aside. The appellants are acquitted of the charges framed against them. It is stated that the appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds are cancelled and sureties stand discharged. Sd/- ChiefJustice Sd/- Sunii Kusiar Sinha Judse '. / '^,