Bhupal Singh v. State of U.P (Now State of Uttarakhand)

Heard learned counsel for the appellants, and learned counsel for the State, and perused the lower court record. (3) Prosecution story, in brief, is that 31.10.1996, in Village Haira Khan, the election campaigning for the post of Village Pradhan was in progress. At about 8.00 P.M., on said date PW1 Ram Lal was campaigning for election for one of the 3 candidates. He had gone to Village Haira Khan, where accused/appellants Pan Singh, Tula Singh, Jiwan Singh and Bhupal Singh along with Inder Singh surrounded him, assaulted with the rods, and insulted him for being member of Scheduled Caste by hurling abuses at him. He (PW1) Ram Lal suffered injuries on his person, which includes grievous hurt. Witnesses PW2 Ramesh Chandra Singh and PW3 Nandan Singh said to have witnessed the incident. On the next day

01.11.1996, due to the election, vehicular traffic was not available, as such, only on 02.11.1996, the injured Ram Lal could reach Soban Singh Jeena Hospital, Haldwani, for treatment. He gave First Information Report on that day at the Police Station. Investigation was taken up by Circle Officer R.K. Jolly, who interrogated the witnesses, collected the medical injury report and submitted charge sheet against the four accused/appellants namely Bhupal Singh, Jiwan Singh, Inder Singh and Tula Singh, for their trial in respect of offences punishable under section 147, 325, 504 I.P.C., and one punishable under section 3 (1) (x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. A separate 4 charge sheet was filed against accused Pan Singh in respect of same offences. (4) The Chief Judicial Magistrate, on receipt of the charge sheet, after giving necessary copies to the accused, appears to have committed the case to the competent court on 06.04.1998. Learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge, after hearing the parties, framed charge of offences punishable under section 147, 325 read with section 149 of I.P.C., and one punishable under section 3 (1) (x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, to which all the five accused namely Bhupal Singh, Jiwan Singh, Tula Singh, Inder Singh and Pan Singh pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. On this prosecution got examined PW1 Ram Lal (injured), PW2 Ramesh Chandra Singh, PW3 Nandan Singh, PW4 Dr. S.P. Ojha (who medically examined the injured) and PW5 Dr. P.C. Kapri (Radiologist). (5) The oral and documentary evidence was put to the accused under section 313 of Cr.P.C., in reply to which the accused/appellants pleaded that they have been falsely implicated due to 5 enmity. However, no evidence in defence was adduced. The trial court after hearing the parties, found that the prosecution has successfully proved charge of offences punishable under section 147, 325 read with Section 149 I.P.C. and one punishable under section 3 (1) (x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, against accused/appellants Bhupal Singh, Jiwan Singh, Tula Singh and Pan Singh. The fifth accused Inder Singh was acquitted of the charge. After hearing on sentence, each one of the four convicts was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year, under section 147 I.P.C, rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and directed to pay fine of ` 1000/- under section 325/149 I.P.C., and rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year under section 3 (1) (x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,

#1989. Aggrieved by said judgment and order dated 17.06.1999, passed by IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Nainital, in Special/Sessions Trial No. 554 of 1997, this appeal is preferred by the convicts before Allahabad High Court, from where it is received by transfer under section 35 of U.P. 6 Reorganization Act 2000 (central Act 29 of 2000), for its disposal. (6) Before further discussion this Court thinks it just and proper to mention the ante mortem injuries found on the person of PW1 Ram Lal recorded by PW4 Dr. S.P. Ojha, in injury report (Ex. A2). The injuries found on the person of Ram Lal (PW1) are being reproduced below from Ex. A2:- (i) Traumatic swelling with lacerated wound on right index finger, ½ cm x ½ cm in crescent. (ii) Traumatic swelling over metacarpal bone of left hand index finger. (iii) Contusion 8 cm x 2 cm on the outer side of left thigh, red in color. (iv) Abrasion 1cm x 1cm left leg (mid front). (v) Traumatic swelling with blister formation on the right leg 2 cm below joint. X-ray advised. The Medical Officer (PW4) has opined that the injuries were two days old at the time of examination of 02.11.1996. He further told before 7 the trial court that the patient (injured) was admitted in the Hospital. It is further stated by PW4 Dr. S.P. Ojha that on X-ray it was found that the injured had suffered fractures. Statement as to the grievous injury is supported by PW5 Dr. P.C. Kapri. (7) From the above discussed medical evidence, it is clear that PW1 Ram Lal had suffered injuries on 31.10.1996. The important question is that as to who has caused injuries on the person of Ram Lal (PW1). He (PW1) has stated that on 31.10.1996, he was campaigning in Village Haira Khan, in connection with the Village Punchayat Election, when accused/appellants Pan Singh, Tula Singh, Jiwan Singh, Bhupal Singh and Inder Singh surrounded him and assaulted him with the rods. The witness further stated that abuses were hurled at him by the accused for his being member of scheduled caste. (8) Though, PW2 Ramesh Chandra Singh and PW3 Nandan Singh have attempted to corroborate the statement of PW1 Ram Lal but testimony of these two witnesses does not appear to be reliable. 8 PW3 Nandan Singh is resident of Village Udwa and his presence in Village Haira Khan appear to be not natural at 08.00 P.M. in the night. Apart from this, PW3 Nandan Singh has stated that he contested election in October, 1996, for the post of Village Udwa and defeated accused Inder Singh. As such, it is clear that this witness had political enmity with accused Inder Singh, who is acquitted by the trial court. PW2 Ramesh Chandra Singh also appeared to be interested witness and his testimony is also not reliable. In the cross examination he admits that he is Government servant and was campaigning for a candidate in the election. (9) Though, it is proved on the record, that PW1 Ram Lal was beaten on the day of incident, but it is not proved beyond reasonable doubt that he was beaten in the manner suggested by the prosecution, by the present four accused/appellants namely Bhupal Singh, Pan Singh, Jiwan Singh and Tula Singh. It is alleged by PW1 Ram Lal that they had beaten him with rods. He has not specified role of the accused/appellants as to who was armed with weapon. It is also not specified if all of them 9 assaulted him with rods. PW1 Ram Lal has stated abuses were hurled at him by accused/appellants and Inder Singh for his being member of scheduled caste. Witnesses have nowhere stated that accused/appellants namely Jiwan Singh, Pan Singh, Bhupal Singh and Tula Singh are not the members of scheduled caste. Unless, the evidence is adduced that the accused are not the members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, it cannot be said that the ingredients of offence punishable under Section 3 (1) (x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, are made out. Apart from this, it cannot be said that all the five accused in chorus have hurled abuses against the injured. It is pertinent to mention here that the incident has taken place at 8.00 p.m, in the village. It is not clear as to what was the source of light, in which the accused/appellants were identified by PW1 Ram Lal. It is also relevant to mention here that PW1 Ram Lal is resident of Village Haira Khan, but accused Pan Singh and Tula Singh are residents of Village Tilwadi. (10) For the reasons and discussed above, this 10 Court is of the view that though PW1 Ram Lal has suffered injuries, but it is not proved beyond reasonable doubt that he was assaulted by all accused/appellants Jiwan Singh, Tula Singh, Pan Singh and Bhupal Singh. One of the most important facts which is required to be mentioned in this case is that once the trial court has disbelieved the evidence as against accused Inder Singh and relied the statement of PW2 Remesh Chandra Singh that he saw only four accused, neither the ingredients of offence punishable under section 147 of I.P.C, nor that of one punishable under section 149 read with section 325 of I.P.C., are made out against the four accused/appellants. The minimum number of persons who could have formed an unlawful assembly should have been five. None of the witnesses have stated that anyone else was also involved in the incident. (As to the involvement of accused Inder Singh prosecution story is already disbelieved by the trial court). (11) Therefore, this Court is of the view that this appeal deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and 11 order dated 17.06.1999, passed by IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Nainital, in Special/Sessions Trial No. 554 of 1997, is hereby set aside. The conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court against accused/appellants Bhupal Singh, Jiwan Singh, Tula Singh and Pan Singh under section 147, 325/149 of I.P.C., and one punishable under section 3 (1) (x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, is hereby set aside. The accused/appellants are on bail. They need not surrender. Their bail is cancelled, and sureties are discharged. Lower court record be sent back. Dt.27.09.2012 N.P (Prafulla C. Pant, J.)