Ramji Singh & Ors. vs The State of Uttar Pradesh

HELD : 1. The main question which arises for consideration is whether reliance should be placed on the statement of the eyewitnesses (PW-1 and PW-2). As far as the statements of these witnesses recorded in the case are concerned, they are almost identical and there are no major contradictions between them. A lot of emphasis has been placed by the appellants on the fact that many things stated by PW-1 in his examination in court have not been mentioned in the FIR. As far as this aspect is concerned, according to PW-1, he was present at the place of incidence itself and immediately after the occurrence dictated the complaint to PW-4, who states that Exh.P.1 is in his handwriting and he had written whatever was dictated to him by PW-1. Thereafter, he and PW-1 had both signed the said complaint (Exh.P.1). From the signature of PW-1 appearing on Exh.P.1 it is apparent that he is barely literate and cannot write. PW-4 is a teacher and the suggestion put to him in cross examination was that there is some litigation between his uncle and some persons connected with the accused, but he said that he was not aware of the same. He clearly states that he is not a party to any party politics. With regard to the complaint the only suggestion put to him was that he had not prepared any complaint in the village and that the complaint was written at the police station. There was no examination with regard to the contents of the complaint. Even with regard to time this witness clearly states that he reached the spot at about 12.45 PM and wrote the complaint and, thereafter, PW-1 was sent to the police station. He further states that the investigating officer reached the place of occurrence at about 3 and 3.45 PM. According to him he remained at the place of occurrence for about 4½ hours and the panchayatnama of the dead body was prepared in his presence and he has signed on the same. This means that the complaint was written immediately after the occurrence. The FIR is based only on this complaint and it does not contain anything more or less than the complaint. If this complaint was scribed by this witness at 12.45 PM and sent along with PW-1 to the police station then the contents of the FIR is nothing more than the contents of the complaint and hence cannot be said to be interpolated. [Para 8] [260-G-H; 261-A-F]

2. On careful analysis of the medical evidence this Court finds that it fully corroborates the prosecution story. According to both the eyewitnesses PW-1 and PW-2 accused A-2 and A-3, had fired three times each. There are corresponding 6 firearm entry wounds which are mentioned at serial no.(viii), (ix), (xv), (xvi), (xvii) and (xviii) in the medical report. As far as the exit wounds are concerned, there are more than 6 exit wounds which is possible since one of the firearms used was a 12-bore gun having pellets. The doctor has opined that long barrel guns were also used and according to him the death occurred between 12 and 12.30 PM on 17.06.1982 which also supports the prosecution version. It is important to mention that the other injuries described by the doctor are all relatable and could have been caused by axe or by pitchfork, which were the weapons carried by 3 of the accused. [Para 14] [265-G-H; 266-A]

3. In fact, the medical evidence fully supports the ocular evidence and there is virtually no contradiction. The version of the two eyewitnesses with regard to the injuries caused by the firearms and sharp-edged weapons, find corroboration from the medical report. Direction, as pointed out above cannot be specifically ascertained from a site plan. The occurrence took place in a small area. The deceased was sitting on a cot which could at best be 6’ in length. He was surrounded by six accused out of whom two used firearms. It would not be possible for any witness to exactly state who was at which place. Even PWs 1 and

2 have not stated the exact place from where the firing took place, except that according to both of them the firing took place from the entrance of the house and if that is so then the points D and D1 in the site plan showing the points where the accused carrying the firearms were standing, may not be strictly correct. [Para 16] [266-H; 267-A-B]

4. It has been urged that the statements of the two witnesses PWs 1 and 2 should not be relied upon since they are closely related to the deceased and there was enmity between both the sides. It has been urged that PW-2 had a dispute with A-3 and his brother had litigation with A-1. These facts are assumed to be true. There is no manner of doubt as stated in the complaint itself that the relationship between the two sides was strained. They belonged to different groups and obviously there was enmity between them. As is often said enmity is a doubleedged sword. It can be both the motive for a crime and it can also be a motive to falsely implicate some other people. However, each case has to be decided on its own evidence. In this case this Court has come to the conclusion that the written complaint was recorded immediately after the occurrence. There was no time to concoct a false case implicating those who were not involved. The fact that the victim was murdered is not disputed. The only question is whether it was the accused persons who murdered him or somebody else. Once it is believe that PWs 1 and 2 are eye-witnesses, then there is no reason to hold that the appellants were falsely implicated. They are all named in the written complaint as well as in the FIR which was recorded at the earliest. Their version is corroborated by the version of PW-4, who though not an eye-witness reached the spot at about 12.45 PM and then scribed the complaint. This complaint depicts what actually happened. [Para 17] [267-C-F]

5. True it is that there are some minor variations and contradictions in the statement of the two witnesses, especially PW-2. PW-2 may have improved his version slightly while appearing in court but the core of his evidence remains intact. The essence of his evidence is that he had gone to pray in a temple which is close to the house where occurrence took place, and he heard a noise and saw all the accused armed as stated hereinabove at the door of the house. A-1 pointed towards the victim and said, “kill this goonda immediately.” On this, accused A-3 and A-2 fired three shots each from their guns upon victim. They were standing at the entrance of the house where occurrence took place. Though he has been cross examined at length, nothing material has come out of cross examination. His statement supports the statement of PW-1, who has virtually repeated what has happened, in the complaint. The main effort of the defence appears to have been to bring out the fact that there was enmity between the two parties. That by itself is not sufficient to discredit the witness. [Para 18] [267-G-H; 268-A-C]