STATE OF U.P.versusRAM BAHADUR SINGH AND ORS.

                       STATE OF U.P.                                   A
                            v.
                RAM BAHADUR SINGH AND ORS.

                           OCTOBER 29, 2003

        [K.G. BALAKRISHNAN AND B.N. AGRAWAL, JJ.]                      B

     Penal Code, I 860 :

      S. 302 read withs. 34-Serious infirmities in prosecution case-Effect
of-Property dispute between complainant party and accused persons- C
Prosecution case that wordy altercation followed by two gun shots fired
by one of the accused hitting one of the complainant party causing his
death on the spot-Trial court convicting the accused who was alleged to
have fired gunshots u/s 302134-Acquittal by High Court noticing serious
infirmities in prosecution case-Held, oral evide11ce inconsistent with D
medical evidence-Serious injuries caused to accused-All these not
satisfactorily explained by prosecution-This creates suspicion-Under
the circumstances, High Court took a plausible view-Not a fit case to
interfere with in exercise of jurisdiction u.'1der Article I 36 of the
Constitution-Constitution of India-Article I 36.
                                                                        E
    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No.
1787 of 1996.

     From the Judgment and Order dated 15.2.96 of the Allahabad High
Court in Crl. A. No. 457 of 1979.
                                                                        F
                                 WITH

     Cr!. A. No. 1358 of 2003.

    R.K. Singh, J.K. Bhatia for Pramod Swamp, P.K. Jain for the G
Appellant.

    S.C. Maheshwari, Ms. Sandhya Goswami and M.P.S. Tomar for the
Respondents.

     The Order of the Court was delivered :                            H
                                1139
    1140                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A          Leave granted in SLP (CRL) No. 1064/1996.

         Criminal Appeal No. 1787/1996 has been preferred by the State of
   U.P. against the judgment of the High Court of Judicature of Allahabad
   at Lucknow in Criminal Appeal No. 457 of 1979. Against the very same
B _judgment one private party has also filed a Criminal Appeal by way of
   Special leave. In both these appeals the acquittal of four accused persons
   is challenged. Accused were tried by the 5th Additional Sessions Judge·,
   Barabanki alleging that they caused the death of Onkar Nath Singh. The
   incident occurred on 6.12.1974 at 4.30 p.m. There was property dispute
   between Onkar Nath Singh on the one hand and the accused persons. On
C the date of the incident, PW-4 Jagdish Baksh Singh was ploughing his field
   with a tractor. The accused persons raised objections to the ploughing of
   the field by Jagdish Baksh Singh. It seems that there was wordy alterc~tion.
   Accused Bhanu Pratap Singh, who was armed with a gun, fired a shot and
   hit on the chest of Onkar Nath Singh. Onkar Nath Singh tried to run away
D from the place, then he was shot again. Onkar Nath Singh fell on the ground
   after running few paces. PW-I Bikram Shah Singh and PW.-4 Jagdish
   Baksh Singh snatched the gun from Bhanu Pratap Singh. Onkar Nath Singh
   died-on the spot. First information statement was given by PW-1 at about
   7.15 P.M. on the same day and PW-8 recorded the same and started
E investigation of the case.
          PW-3 Dr. V.N. Agarwal examined the dead body of Onkar Nath
    Singh and prepared Ext. Ka-3 post-mortem report. There were two injuries
    on the body of deceased Onkar Nath Singh. One gun shot wound of entry
    6 cm. x 4 cm. tissue deep on front of left side chest upper part and other
F   exit injury of I cm. x I cm. tissue deep on right side back lower part with
    direction fmward and upward. Doctor opined death was due to shock and
    haemorrhage. The Sessions Judge found all the four accused persons guilty
    of murder. Bhanu Pratap Singh was convicted for the offence under section
    302 simplicitor and the other tliree accused persons were convicted for the
G   offence under section 302 read with section 34.

          In the appeal preferred by the accused persons, the High Court found
    that there were serious infirmities in the prosecution case. It is found that
    oral evidence given by the eye witnesses was inconsistent with the medical
H   evidence given by PW-3. As per the oral evidence, the accused Bhanu
               STATE v. RAM BAHADUR SINGH AND ORS.                     1141

    Pratap Singh was standing at a distance of 18 to 20 feet away from the A
    deceased Onkar Nath Singh when he fired. Oral evid~nce to the effect that
    tatooning and scorching was present on the adjoining skin, that could have
    been caused only ifthe firing had been done from a distance of four feet.
    Reason given by the High Court cannot be said to be perverse or
    unreasonable. It may also be noted that the accused Bhanu Pratap Singh B
    had sustained serious injuries on his body. He was examined by Dr. PW-
    l A.P. Mahanti. One injury was incised wound on the top of the head in
    intra-parital region scalp deep and there were other lacerated injuries. The
    prosecution could not give any rationale explanation as to how the accused
    Bhanu Pratap Singh sustained these injuries. Moreover, according to C
    prosecution there were two gun shot injuries at the instance of the Bhanu
    Pratap Singh and bot~ of them hit on the deceased whereas the injuries on
    the body or the deceased could only show that Onkar Nath Singh received
    only one gun shot. All these are not satisfactorily explained by the
    prosecution. It naturally creates suspicious and under these circumstances
    we feel that the High Court has taken a plausible view. This is not a fit D
    case where this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 136 can
    interfere with such findings. These two appeals fail and are dismissed .

•   R.P.                                                1Appeals dismissed.