Supreme Court of India
MOOL CHAND ETC. ETC.versusJAGDISH SINGH BEDI AND ORS. ETC. ETC.
- Citation
- 1992 INSC 100
- Decided
- 31 March 1992
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- S RATNAVEL PANDIAN
Holding
The prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, and the High Court's acquittal of the accused was correct.
Summary
The case arose from a violent incident during a wedding procession on 17 November 1972 in which Ramesh Chand was shot dead and several others injured. The accused—Kashmiri Lal, Madan Lal, Babu Ram, Jagdish Singh Bedi and Prem Pal—were convicted by a Sessions Court for conspiracy to murder, murder, attempt to murder and related offences under the IPC. On appeal, the Allahabad High Court acquitted them, holding that the prosecution evidence, especially the unexplained gunshot injuries to Madan Lal, was unreliable and created reasonable doubt. The State appealed to the Supreme Court, contending that the High Court had misappreciated the eye‑witness testimony and the forensic evidence. The Supreme Court examined the evidentiary record, emphasized that appellate courts should not disturb a factual finding unless it is perverse or illegal, and concluded that the prosecution had indeed failed to prove the conspiracy and murder beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeals and upheld the High Court’s acquittal.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court erred in its appreciation of the evidence and thus in acquitting the accused.
- Whether the prosecution proved the conspiracy and murder charges beyond reasonable doubt under the Indian Penal Code.
- Whether the unexplained gunshot injuries to Madan Lal create reasonable doubt sufficient to overturn the convictions.
- Standard of review for appellate courts in assessing factual findings of lower courts under Article 136 of the Constitution.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 120, s. 120B, s. 147, s. 148, s. 149, s. 302, s. 307, s. 324
Subjects
criminal conspiracymurderevidence appraisalreasonable doubtacquittalhigh court reviewunlawful assemblyburden of proof
Judgment
MOOL CHAND ETC. ETC. A
v.
JAGDISH SINGH BEDI AND ORS. ETC. ETC.
MARCH 31, 1992
[S. ~TNAVEL PANDIAN AND M. FATHIMA BEEVI, JJ.)
B
Indian Penal Code:
Sections 120B, 302, 307, 324-fligh Court meticulously examining
evidence--Recording its own finding on credibility of witnesses-R.easonable C
doubt as to circumstances under which victim received fatal shot-Held no
interference with High Court order called for.
Kashmiri Lal, Madan Lal, Babu Ram, Jagdish Singh Bedi and Prem
Pal were tried by the Additional Sessions Judge on charges under sections
120(8), 302, 307 and 324 read with sections 147 and 149 I.P.C. on the D
ground'that they entered into criminal conspiracy on 17.11.1972 to commit
the murder to Ramesh Chand and others.
The prosecution case was that Kasturi Lal and Madan Lal were
brothers, that the three others Jagdish Singh Bedi, Prem Pal and Babu E
~m were friends and associates of these brothe1·s. Mool Chand and
Jagdish Chand were brothers. Ramesh Chand, the deceased was the son
of Jagdish Chand. Kashmiri Lal on the one hand and Mool Chand on the ·
other hand were enemies and there had been complaints and counter-com-
- plaints and other litigations between these two g1·oups. Kashmiri Lal was F
provided with a bodyguard Jaipal Singh, PW-17.
Kiran Prabha, daughter of Kewal Kishore, another brother of Mool
Chand was getting married ~n 17.11.72 and the marriage party had come
from Delhi. Mool Chand, Amrit lal, Subhash Chand, Ramesh Chand and
Agya Ram were accompanying the party. Ramesh Chand and Amrit Lal G
were heading the marriage procession.
When the barat party reached the tonga stand near the residence of
Dharamvir Singh Sehrawat, an Advocate, Prem Pal and Jagdish Singh
Bedi came there on a motorcycle driven by Prem Pal and stopped the H
425
426 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992] 2 S.C.R.
A motorcycle on the roadside in front of the marriage procession. Simul-
taneously, an ambassador car in which Kashmiri Lal, Babu Ram and
Madan Lal were sitting also stopped behind the motorcycle. Kashmiri Lal
and Babu Ram were ar~ed with guns while Jagdish Singh Bedi was armed
with cudgel. The accused got down from the car and the motorcycle.
B Kashmiri Lal fired with his gun and Ramesh Chand got injured. Babu
Ram fired simultaneously causing injury to Amrit Lal. Both Ramesh
Chand and Amrit Lal fell down, and injury was caused to Subhash Chand
and Mool Chand. Ramesh Chand died in the hospital on 18.11.1972 and
Mool chand and Subhash Chand were treated at the District Hospital.
C The police party on receiving telephonic message from P.W.5 Balbir
Singh reached the scene. They recovered the motorcycle with a bag hang-
ing on its handle, a bag of cartridges and two empty cartridges lying on
-
the ground. Investigation took place and the accused were arrested and
sent for trial.
-y --
D
At the trial, 20 witnesses were examined by the Prosecution. Mool
Chand (PW.I) Subhash Chand (PW.4), Agya Ram (PW.6) and Jai Pal
Singh (PW.7) were examined as eye witnesses. They supported the
prosecution and narrated the prosecution version.
E The accused set up their version on the incident in their state-
ment. According to them Madan Lal was going in a rickshaw at 9.00 P.M.
and when he reached near the house of the Advocate, Ramesh Chand
abused him and fired a number of shots at him. Kashmiri Lal happened
F
to reach there at that time. The deceased and others tried to assault him
with a danda. He fired at them in the exercise of the right of private
defence.
-
The trial court accepted tlw prosecutioa mdetlce, rejected the
defence version and recorded conviction. f
G The accused appealed to the High Court, which set aside the find-
ings of the Trial Court and acquitted the accused. The High Court was
not prepared to believe that Madan Lal would have been accidentally hit
by as many as two or three shots fired by two of his companions as it
appears to be highly unnatural and improbable. It held that if the accused
H had conspired to commit the murder and all of them had proceeded to
MOOL CHAND v. J.S. BEDI 427
~ the place of occurrence from the house of Kashmiri Lal, it is difficult to A
understand why Kashmiri Lal and Babu Ram who were armed with gun
did not immediately fire at Ramesh Chand who was admittedly in front
of the marriage procession.
The State aggrieved by the order of acquittal preferred three ap-
B
peals, to this Court, and the complainant, Mool Chand filed an appeal by
Special Leave.
In the appeals it was contended : (1) The eye witness account of the
incident was fully corroborated by the medical evidence on record and that
their evidence had been discarded on the bald ground that they did not C
give satisfactory explanation of the fire arm injuries on accused Madan
~ ~ Lal. (2) The explanation of the fire-arm injuries of accused Madan Lal
was contained even in the first information report which was promptly
lodged by PW.l Mool Chand. (3) The incident took place in a barat
procession consisting of over 100 persons on account of melee and con- D
fusion, no one can be expected to give a graphic account of the encounter
as well as the exact number of shots fired. (4) The three eye witnesses are
natural witnesses, and they have given a consistent account which had
received corroboration from other materials in evidence, and that the
evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction. (5) The High Court
E
proceeded on conjectures having lost sight of the normal human conduct
especially when it found that the accused had come to the place of
occurrence on a car and a motorcycle before the incident and four of them
were arrested soon after the incident.
On the question: Whether the approach of the High Court was F
wrong or the view taken by the High Court was unreasonable.
Dismissing the appeals, this Court,
HELD: 1. The prosecution has not proved the case beyond G
rtasonable doubt. The High Court has rightly acquitted these accusP.d.
[438FJ
2. The High Court had very meticulously examined the evidence and
recorded its own finding as to the credibility of the same. It is rather a
matter of appreciation of evidence. If the evidence is of such a nature that H
428 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992) 2 S.C.R.
A two views are possible and the view in favour of the accused weighed with
the High Court in acquitting them, this Court will be slow to interfere with
the order of acquittal. [434D]
3. Only when the High Court has committed grave error in the
appreciation of the evidence and misdirected itself by ignoring legal
B
principles or misreading the evidence and arrived at the conclusion, the
decision can be characterised as perverse or illegal requiring the inter-
ference by this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. The
judgment of the High Court if supported by cogent reasons has to be
sustained. [434E-F]
c
4. Even though the eye witnesses corroborated each other on /
material particulars and the presence of Moot Chand, Agya Ram and
Suhhash Chand was quite probable and PW-7 could be considered as
independent eye witness, the intrinsic worth of their version has been
D carefully weighed. In the light of the inherent infirmity in that gun shot
injuries sustained by one of the accused has not been properly explained
and the explanation offered by the prosecution is unacceptable, the High
Court entertained ser!ous doubt regarding the truth and credibility of the
prosecution case. [437H-438B]
E
5. Amrit Lal one of the injured persons has not been examined. The
account given by Subhash Chand is inconsistent with the narration
given by Mool Chand and Agya Ram and cuts at the root of the prosecu-
tion case. The prosecution version is wholly unbelievable. There is sup-
F pression of material evidence. The prosecution case has therefore been
rightly discarded by the High Court and no interference is called for.
[438D-E]
6. The testimony of PW. 7 appea:rs to be highly artificial and does
f.
not fit in with human probabilities. The eye-witness account of the incident.
G as rightly pointed out by the High Court does not reveal the truth and the
genesis of the incident which is shrouded in mystery. Material part of the
incident relating to the attack of the accused person is twisted or sup-
pressed and reasonable doubt arises as to the circumstances under which
the victim received the fatal shot. No interference with the judgment of
H the High Court is therefore called for. [438G-439A]
MOOL CHAND v. J.S. BEDI (FATHIMA BEEVI, J.] 429
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal A
Nos. 688- 691/1979.
From the Judgment and Order dated 20.4.1979 of the Allahabad
High Court in Crl. Appeals Nos. 1850, 1851 and 1852 of 1974.
K.G. Bhagat, Pramod Swarup, R.K. Singh, Anil Kumar Sangal, A.S. B
Pundir and Prashant Chaudhary for the Appellants.
R.K. Garg, U.R. Lalit, V.J. Francis, N.M. Popli and Dr. B.S.
Chauhan for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
c
FATHIMA BEEVI, J. These appeals by special leave are directed
against the judgment and order dated 20.4.1979 of the Allahabad High
Court passed in Criminal Appeals No. 1851 of 1974, 1850 of 1974 and 1852
of 1974 whereby the High Court allowed the appeals and set aside the
conviction of the respondents.
D
Kashmiri Lal, Madan Lal, Babu Ram and Jagdish Singh Bedi and
Prem Pal were tried in Sessions Trial No. 133 of 1973 by the 1st Addl.
Sessions Judge on the charges under sections 120-B, 302, 307, 324 read with
section 149, I.P.C., Babu Ram and Kashmiri Lal were separately charged
under section 147, I.P.C., as well.
E
The charges are that the accused persons on 17.11.1972 entered into
a criminal conspiracy to· commit murder of Ramesh Chand and others.
Babu Ram and Kashmiri Lal armed with guns along with the other three
..... formed themselves into an unlawful assembly with a common object of
murdering Ramesh Chand, Amrit Lal and Subhash Chand and causing
injuries to them. In prosecution of the common object of the assembly, they F
committed the murder of Ramesh Chai1d caused gunshot injuries to Amrit
Lal and Subhash Chand at about 9.30 P.M. on 17.11.1972 at Bhopa Tonga
Stand in front of the house of Shri Dharamvir Singh Sehrawat, Advocate,
Muzaffarnagar, and thereby committed the aforesaid offences.
G
The learned Addi. Sessions Judge by judgment dated 29.7.1974 con-
victed Kashrniri Lal and Babu Ram under Sections 148, 120-B, 302, 307
and 324, I.P.C., all read with Section 149, I.P.C., and sentenced them to
undergo imprisonment for life under Section 302, R.I. for 7 years. under
Section 307, R.l. for 2 years under Section 148. Learned Judge also
convicted Jagdish Singh Bedi, Prem Pal and Madan Lal under Sections H
430 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992] 2 S.C.R.
A 147, 120-B, 302, 307 and 324, I.P.C., read with section 149, l.P.C., and
sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 302, R.I.
for 2 years under Section 147 and no separate sentence was imposed on
any of the accused under Sections 120-B and 324, I.P.C.
The prosecution case relevant for the purpose of the appeals briefly
B stated thus:- Kashmiri Lal and Madan Lal are real brothers. The other
three i.e. Jagdish Singh Bedi, Prem Pal and Babu Ram are friends and
associates of these brothers. Mool Chand and Jagdish Chand are brothers.
Ramesh Chand, the deceased, was the son of Jagdish Chand. Subhash
Chand (PW-4) and Amrit Lal, injured, are the sons of Mool Chand. The
C famjly of Moo! Chand and the accused had strained relationship, since
there had been complaints and counter-complaints and other litigation
between these two groups, Kashmiri Lal accused was provided with a
shadow of Jaipal Singh (PW-17).
D Kiran Prabha, daughter of Kewal Kishore, another brother of Mool
Chand was getting married on 17.11.1972. The marriage party had come
from Delhi and was staying at Baral House in Gandhi Colony. The party
started for the bride's house at about 9.00 P.M. Moo! Chand, Amrit Lal,
Subhash Chand, Ramesh Chand and Agya Ram were accompanying the
E party. Ramesh Chand and Amrit Lal were heading the marriage proces-
sion. At about 9.30 P.M. when the barat party reached Bhopa Tonga Stand
near the residence of Shri Dharamvir Singh Sehrawat, Advocate, adjacent
to police lines, Prem Pal and Jagdish Singh Bedi came there on a motor-
cycle driven by Prem Pal and stopped the motorcycle on the roadside in
front' of the marriage procession. Simultaneously, an ambassador car in
F which Kashmiri Lal, Babu Ram and Madan Lal were sitting also stopped
behind the motorcycle. Kashmiri Lal and Babu Ram were armed with guns
while Jagdish Singh Bedi was armed with cudgel. The accused got down
from the car and the motorcycle. Prem Pal, Madan Lal and Jagdish Singh t-
Bedi went near Subhash, Amrit Lal and Ramesh Chand and started
G abusing them. Jagdish Singh Bedi gave blows to them with his cudgel.
Madan Lal excited Babu Ram to fire. Kashmiri Lal fired with his gun and
Ramesh Chand got inj1ired. Babu Ram fired simultaneously causing injury
to Amrit Lal. Both Ramesh Chand and Arnrit Lal fell down. Kashmiri Lal
and Babu Ram each fired another round causing injury to Subhash Chand
H and Madan Lal accused, and all the accused escaped leaving. the motor-
MOOL CHAND v. J.S. HEDI [FATHIMA BEEVI, J.] 431
cycle and the car on the spot. A
Ramesh Chand died in the hospital on 18.11.1972. Mool Chand and
Subhash Chand were treated at the District Hospital.
The police party on receiving telephonic message from P.W.-5 Balbir
Singh reached the scene. They recovered the motorcycle with a bag hang- B
~ ing on its handle, a bag of cartridges and two empty cartridges lying on the
ground. Sub-Inspector arrested accused Kashmiri Lal, Madan Lal, Babu
Ram and Prem Pal at about 10.00 P.M. at the Roorkey Octroi Post while
- :.. they were boarding the truck. Two guns were recovered from the posses-
sion of Kashmiri Lal and Babu Ram. From Kashmiri Lal empty cartridges
and gun licenses were also recovered .
c
..,,.. Written report given by Mool Chand at the police station Kotwali at
10.25 P.M. was treated as the first information and the investigation was
carried on.
D
Amrit Lal was examined by Dr. Manocha at 10.15 P.M. He had six
injuries on his person including a gunshot wound. Subhash Chand had
besides the gunshot wound two abrasions. Ramesh Chand was first ex-
amined by Dr. Jai Deo Sharma (PW-11) at 11.00 P.M. He had multiple
gun pellet. wounds 25 in number in an area of 17 cm x 12 cm with alacerated E
wound 3 cm x 0.5 cm (depth not probed) in the centre and lower part of
chest as recorded in Ex. Ka-14 medical report. The post-mortem examina-
tion on the dead-body of Ramesh Chand was conducted by Dr. R.N.
Pathak (PW-15) on 19.11.1972 and that revealed about the presence of
about 86 gun-shot wounds on the right side of the abdomen and extending
F
to back upper part of the abdomen. On internal examination, the doctor
found pellets present in the abdominal wall. Eight pellets were recovered.
The death had occurred due to haemorrhage and shock as a result of
gun-shot in injury.
Kashmiri Lal, Madan Lal, Babu Ram, and Pram Pal were medically G
examined by the Jail Doctor. Dr. K.C. Pandey, on 18.11.1.972. As per injury
reports Ex. Ka-4 to 7, Kashmiri Lal and multiple contusion on right hand,
left hand small finger, right shoulder and back upper third caused by some
>- blunt weapon about a day before. Madan Lal and multiple SD'all gun pellet
wounds scattered in different parts caused about a day before. Prem ·Pal H
432 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1992] 2 S.C.R.
A had two small scabbed abrasions caused by friction against hard substance ,.4_
about a day old and Babu Ram had four simple injuries of blunt weapon
with traumatic swelling on left hand fingers, duration could not be ascer-
tained.
Twenty witnesses were examined by the prosecution. Mool Chand
B (PW-1), Subhash Chand (PW-4), Agya Ram (PW-6) and Jai Pal Singh
(PW-7) were examined as eye-witnesses. They supported the prosecution
~
and narrated the prosecution version.
c
The accused had set up their version of the incident in their state-
ment. According to them Madan Lal was going on a rickshaw from Gandhi
Colony to City at 9.00'p.M. on 17.11.1972. When he reached near the house
..... -
of Dharamvir Singh Sehrawat, Advocate, Ramesh Chand abused him and
fired a number of shots at him. Kashmiri Lal happened to reach there at
...,,
that time. The deceased and others tried to assault him with a danda. He
D fired at them in the exercise of the right of private defence.
Jagdish Singh Bedi and Prem Pal stated that they were returning
from village on a motorcycle at the time of the incident and when they
reached near the police lines, they found a crowd and barat procession.
Prem Pal who was driving the motorcycle attempted to ~lear·the-crowd.
E Some persons attacked him and both ran away leaving the motorcycle.
Prem Pal claimed that he went to the police station to lodge a report but
he was arrested.
PW-17, Radhey Shyam Mishra, the ballistic expert, affirmed that the .._
F two cartridges were fired from the two guns recovered from the possessions
of Kashmiri Lal and Babu Ram. The trial court accepted the prosecution
evidence, rejected the defence version and recorded conviction. The High
Court on appeal by the convicted persons set aside the findings and
acquitted them.
G The State being aggrieved by the order of acquittal has preferred
three appeals. Mool Chand, the defacto complainant, has on special leave
granted filed separate Criminal Appeal No. 688 of 1979. The grounds
urged are these:-
-{
H The eye-witness account of the incident was fully corroborated
MOOL CHAND v. J.S. BEDI [FATHIMA BEEVI, J.] 433
-"'- by the medical evidence on record. The evidence of the eye- A
. witnesses have been discarded on the bald ground that it was
difficult to accept their evidence as they did not give satisfactory
explanation of the fire-arm injuries on Madan La.I, accused.
The explanation of the fire-arm injuries of accused Madan Lal
was contained even in the first information report which was B
promptly lodged by PW-1, Mool Chand, one of the eye-wit-
nesses. The injuries are skin deep.
I
--- The incident tpok place in a barat procession consisting of over
c
..
.> 100 persons on account of melee and confusion no one can be
expected to give a graphic account of the encounter as well as
the exact number of shot fired. It was impossible for the eye-
T witnesses to notice every detail in a graphic manner.
The three eye-witnesses are natural witnesses. Subhash Chand
is an injured person. When deceased, Ramesh Chand, was D
undoubtedly in the marriage procession, the presence of these
witnesses is also established. They have a consistent account
and received corroboration from other materials in evidence.
The evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction.
Jai Pal Singh (PW-7) was admittedly the own shadow of Kash- E
miri Lal. He has given a detailed account of the movements of
the accused. It is fully corroborated by the. various recoveries
apart from the eye-witnesses account. No reason whatsoever
has been given to discard the evidence.
F
The High Court has proceeded on conjectures having lost sight
of the normal human conduct. The High Court has found that
\ the accused have come to the place of occurrence on a car and
a motorcycle before the incident and four of them were ar-
rested soon after the incident, and both Babu Ram and Kash-
miri Lal had fired at the complainants party but this cannot G
lead to the inference that the prosecution version of the inci-
dent is correct as it is quite possible that a sudden quarrel took
)- place at the place of the occurrence and the appellants were
fired at first by the complainants' party as a result of which
Madan Lal, appellants, received gun-shot injuries. It is argued H
434 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992) 2 ·s.c.R.
A that no one will spoil his own marriage procession by indulging
in shooting at such a time on his enemy whereas an enemy
would indulge in shooting to spoil the marriage of his enemy.
The inference was irresistible from the appearance of the
accused at the spot in a car and a motorcycle that they intended
to spoil the marriage procession and to indulge in violence. The
B arrest of the accused and the recovery immediately after the
occurrence lend assurance to the truth of the prosecution
vers~on ~nd there is no scope for any dpubt that the prosecution
c
vers10n 1s true.
.Shri Bhagat, the senior counsel, elaborated these grounds referring
to the evidence on record.
-
In these appeals against the order of acquittal by the High Court, we
have to consider whether the approach by the High Court is wrong or the
D view taken by the High Court is unreasonable. The High Court had very
meticulously examined the evidence and recorded its own finding as to the
credibility of the same. It is rather a matter of appreciation of evidence. If
the evidence is of such a nature that two views are possible and the view
in favour of the accused weighed with the High Court in acquitting them,
this Court will be slow to interfere with the order of acquittal. If only the
E
High Court has committed grave error in the appreciation of the evidence
and misdirected itself by ignoring legal principles or misreading the
evidence and arrived at the conclusion, the decision can be characterised
as perverse or illegal requiring the interference by this Court under Article
136 of the Constitution of India. The judgn1ent of the High Court if
F supported by cogent reasons has to be sustained.
To appreciate the arguments, it may be necessary to briefly outline j"
the gist of the prosecution evidence. The case projected by the prosecution
is that Kashmiri Lal on the one hand and Mool Chand on the other were
G arch enemies. The accused had conspired to commit the murder of
Ramesh Chand and all of them had proceeded on the car and motorcycle
from the house of Kashmiri Lal and Madan Lal to the place of occurrence.
Jai Pal Singh (PW-7) has assumed charge of shadow only the previous day.
He was in the car along with the accused and he was asked to get down
H when they reached near the scene. Jai Pal Singh got down from the car
MOOL CHAND v. J.S. BEDI [FATIIIMABEEVI, J.] 435
about fifty paces from the place of occurrence from where he witnessed A
the encounter. The other three eye-witnesses were heading the procession.
There had been lantern street lights. The genesis of the incident as spoken
by these witnesses is that the assault was started by the accused and Madan
Lal sustained the gun shot injury when the accused themselves fired. The
High Court has said that the most damaging feature of the prosecution B
case is the unsatisfactory explanation of the gun shot injuries found on the
person of Madan Lal. The High Court pointed out that Mool Chand and
Jai Pal Singh have offered no explanation regarding the gun shot injuries
found on the person of Madan Lal. Agya Ram (PW- 6) only stated that he
heard Madan Lal had also received injuries. He does not depose as to how C
the gun shot injuries were received by him. Subhash Chand depose that
only three shots were fired by the accused at the time of the incident. The
first shot was fired by Kashmiri Lal at Ramesh Chand; the second shot was
fired by Babu Ram at Amrit Lal; and the third shot was fired by Kashmiri
Lal at Subhash Chand and this also caused gun shot injuries to Madan Lal
who was near Subhash Chand. D
Dr. K.C. Pandey who examined the injuries of Madan Lal has stated
that the injuries found on his person were caused by more than one shot.
Shri B. Rai, ballistic expert, was examined by the High Court as a court
witness to determine the number of shots which could have caused the E
injuries found on the person of Madan Lal and whether they could have
been caused by the same shot which caused the injuries to Ramesh Chand,
Amrit Lal and Subhash Chand. This witness deposed that the injuriei-
found on the person of Madan Lal could not have been caused by the gun
shots which caused injuries to Ramesh Chand and these appear to have
been caused by three shots. Considering the location and the number of F
injuries found on the person of Madan Lal, the High Court said that they
appear to have been caused by at least two shots if not three. The High
Court was· not prepared to believe that Madan Lal would have ·been
accidentally hit by as many as two or three shots fired by two of his
companions as it appears to be highly unnatural and improbable. The G
number of gun shot injuries found on Madan Lal are very much larger than
the gun short injuries found on Subhash Chand. The possibility of their
being caused by shots fired by the party of complainant in the opinion of
the High Court cannot be excluded. It is quite possible that the sudden
H
436 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992] 2 S.C.R.
A quarrel could have taken place at the place of occurrence when the ~
appellants (accused) were fired at first by the complainant's party as a .Al.
result of which Madan Lal received gun shot injuries. The. High Court said
that the version of the incident given by the four eye-witnesses cannot be
implicitedly relied upon and the possibility of Babu Ram and Kashmiri Lal
B having caused injuries to the deceased, Subhash Chand and Amrit Lal in
the exercise of the right of private defence cannot be excluded.
The story narrated by Jai Pal Singh, a body guard of Kashmiri Lal
as to what t;anspired before actual encounter is uncorroborated. He was
c
appointed his body guard on 16.11.1972. He went to their house the same
evening and remained there till night. At about 9.00 P.M. on 16.lf.1972
_.....
Babu Ram came to the house of Kashmiri Lal with his gun and bandoleer
of cartridges and he stayed there. Jagdish Singh Bedi and Prem Pal came ""'
on a motorcycle. Babu Ram was also present at that time. All the five .....
accused sat inside a room and PW-7 was asked to sit in the varandah. The
D accused talked to each other for about an hour and they came out. Prem
Pal and Jagdish Singh Bedi went away. Kashmiri Lal went to meet some
persons at about 2.00 P.M. Babu 'Ram and Madan Lal went somewhere
else. PW-7 and Kashmiri Lal returned to the house at about 7;00 P.M. Babu
Ram and Madan Lal were present there. At about 8.00 P.M. Jagdish Singh
Bedi and Prem Pal came on the motorcycle. All the five talked to each
E
other inside the room. Jagdish Singh Bedi had a small cudzel with him. At
about 8.30 P.M., Madan Lal left the house and returned in half an hour -It(_
and informed Kashmiri Lal that the barat party had started and all were
present. Kashmiri Lal then directed Jagdish Singh Bedi and Prem Pal to
F
bring a car and they went on their motorcycle from the house of Kashmiri ......
Lal. Kashmiri Lal took his gun and a bag of cartridges. They started in the
car that was brought and when it reached near the soldier board, the
marriage proc.!!ssion was seen coming from the side of the police lines.
Kashmiri Lal stopped the car and PW-7 was asked to get down and take
tea in the nearby shop. PW-7 got down and went towards Bhopa Tonga
:t
G Stand in order fo take tea. Jagdish Singh Bedi and Prem Pal and the others
proceeded towards the marriage procession. When they reached in front
of the kothi of Shri Dharamvir Singh Sehrawat, Advocate, the accused got
down from the car and motorcycle. They began to quarrel and assaulted
three boys of the marriage party. PW-7 rushed towards them but Kashmiri
. H ~-
MOOL CHA.t~D v. J.S. BEDI [FATHIMA BEEVI, J.) 437
Lal and Babu Ram began to fire towards the three boys and all to them A
fell down on receiving gun shot injuries and the third also received gun
shot injuries. This is the narration given by PW-7.
The High Court said that if the accused had conspired to commit the
murder and all of them had proceeded to the place of occurrence from the B
house of Kashmiri Lal, it is difficult to understand why Kashmiri ·Lal and
Babu Ram who are armed with gun did not immediately fire at Ramesh
Chand who was admittedly in front of the marriage procession. Instead,
three accused began to push them and Jagdish Singh Bedi assaulted them
with a cudzel. The evidence of the eye-witnesses that Jagdish Singh Bedi
armed with a cudzel wielded at the time of incident was not acceptable as C
- this is not mentioned in the first information report. It was also difficult to
believe that Prem Pal and Madan Lal could have gone to the place of
occurrence empty handed if they were in fact members of an unlawful
assembly the object of which was to commit the murder of Ramesh Chand.
The High Court observed thus:- D
"It is also difficult to believe that Kashmiri Lal and Babu Ram
appellants would have fired at Ramesh Chand (deceased),
Subhash Chand (PW-4), and Amrit Lal, while they being
pushed by Madan Lal, Jagdish Singh Bedi and Prem Pal ap-
pellants as there was a great risk of causing injuries to the E
aforesaid three appellants. It is also difficult to believe that the
appellants would have tak~n ·constable Jai Pal Singh (PW-7)
with them from the house of Kashmiri Lal and Madan Lal
appellants if their common object was to commit the murder
of the deceased. It is also difficult to believe that Jai Pal Singh F
(PW-7) would have got down from the car about fifty paces
from the place of occurrence on being directed by Kashmiri
Lal appellant as his shadow and was thus not expected to leave
him. The most damaging feature of the prosecution case, how-
ever, is the unsatisfactory explanation of the gun shot injuries G
found on the person of Madan Lal appellant which were
admittedly received by him at the time of the incident."
The High Court has thus examined the broad features and the
)- inherent improbabilities in the prosecution version. Even though the eye-
witnesses corroborated each other on all material particulars and the H
438 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992] 2 S.C.R.
A presence of Mool Chand, Agya Ram and Subhash Chand who was quite
probable and PW-7 could be considered as independent eye-witness, the
intrinsic worth of their version has been carefully weighed. In the light of
the inherent infirmity in that gun shot injuries sustained by one of the
accused has not been properly explained and the explanation offered by
the prosecution is unacceptable, the High Court entertained serious doubt
B regarding the truth and credibility of the prosecution case.
The learned counsel appearing for the respondents while supporting
the judgment of the High Court has also referred to several other relevant
features which would support the conclusion that the incident has not
C happened in the manner alleged by the prosecution and that the true and
correct account of what transpired and the circumstances under which the
deceased as well as the injured persons sustained the injuries have not been
clearly established. The learned counsel also referred to the fact that Amrit
Lal, one of the injured persons, has not been examined in the case. The
D account given by Subhash Chand is inconsistent with the narration given
by Mool Chand and Agya Ram and cuts at the root of the prosecution
case. The leaned counsel had laid stress on the evidence of the ballistic
expert which had very much turned the scale and maintained that the
prosecution version is wholly unbelievable that there is suppression of
material evidence and the prosecution case has been rightly discarded by
E
the High Court and no interference is called for.
We have carefully considered these arguments and we agree that the
F
prosecution has not proved the case beyond reasonable doubt. The High
Court has rightly acquitted these 3>cused and no interferences war-
ranted.
-
It is not necessary for us to repeat the various infirmities pointed out
by the High Court. The testimony of PW-7 appears to be highly artificial
and '~.toes not fit in with human probabilities. The eye-witness account of
G the incident as rightly pointed out by the High Court does not reveal the
truth and the genesis of the inciqent is shrouded in mystery. Material part
of the incident relating to the attack of the accused person is twisted or
suppressed and reasonable doubt arises as to the circumstances under
which the victim received the fatal shot. We therefore, find ourselves ~
H unable to accept the contentions of the appellant and to restore the
MOOL CHAND v. J.S. BEDI [FATIIIMA BEEVI, J.) 439
,~ conviction recorded by the trial court. In our view, no interference with the A
judgment of the High Court is called for.
In the result, the appeals are dismissed.
N.V.K. Appeals dismissed.
-
-
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "criminal conspiracy"Sign in to search