2008 (9) TMI 1008 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Genesis of the occurrence and nature of the fight.
2. Procedure adopted by the trial court.
3. Examination of the Investigating Officer (I.O.).
4. Responsibility and liability of the accused.
5. Benefit of acquittal to non-appealing accused.

Summary:

1. Genesis of the occurrence and nature of the fight:
The incident occurred on 3rd December 1975, where Shekhar Singh was assaulted by some accused. Later, Bhagwati Devi was informed that her sons-in-law, Lakshman Singh and Bacha Singh, and her son Nathuni Singh were surrounded by the accused with an intent to murder. Bhagwati Devi witnessed the accused, armed with various weapons, attacking her relatives. The trial court found that both sides had collected their relatives and supporters from several villages before the alleged occurrence and had clashed with each other, resulting in deaths from both groups. The Supreme Court noted that both parties appeared to be itching for a fight and had made preparations to settle scores.

2. Procedure adopted by the trial court:
The trial court relied on the statements of several prosecution witnesses and convicted nine of the thirteen accused. The trial court also looked into the case diary u/s 172(2) Cr.P.C. to aid in the inquiry or trial, as the Investigating Officer (I.O.) had not been examined. The Supreme Court observed that even if the trial court was not justified in looking into the case diary, it could not be said to be prejudicial to the accused in the peculiar facts of the case.

3. Examination of the Investigating Officer (I.O.):
The I.O. could not be examined as he had migrated to Pakistan and died there. The trial court felt handicapped due to the non-examination of the I.O. and looked into the case diary to test the veracity of the witnesses. The Supreme Court noted that the prosecution witnesses had been confronted with their previous statements, and the non-examination of the I.O. did not prejudice the defense of the accused.

4. Responsibility and liability of the accused:
The trial court convicted the accused for various offences, including u/s 302/149 IPC for committing murders in furtherance of their common object. The High Court acquitted Bashistha Singh of all charges and dismissed the appeals of the other accused with some changes. The Supreme Court held that accused Chirkut Singh and Jang Bahadur Singh were liable for offences punishable u/s 302 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The appeals of Bachan Singh and Sobhu Singh were allowed, and Kailash Singh and Kumar Singh were acquitted.

5. Benefit of acquittal to non-appealing accused:
The Supreme Court extended the benefit of acquittal to non-appealing accused Badri Singh and Briksh Singh, following the judgments in Raja Ram and Ors. v. State of M.P., Arokia Thomas v. State of T.N., and Suresh Chaudhary etc. v. State of Bihar. The Court noted that when no conviction of any accused is possible based on the prosecution case, the benefit of doubt must be extended to similarly situated co-accused, even if they have not appealed.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed Criminal Appeal No. 408 of 2005 filed by Jang Bahadur Singh, maintained the conviction of Chirkut Singh, allowed Criminal Appeal No. 1176/2004 filed by Bachan Singh and Sobhu Singh, and acquitted Kailash Singh and Kumar Singh. The benefit of acquittal was also extended to non-appealing accused Badri Singh and Briksh Singh.