2015 (7) TMI 1432 - SC - Indian Laws

Seeking cancellation of sale deed submitting that the deed in question was a sham document - committing of the murder of Brahmadeen by assaulting with lathi - High Court gave benefit of doubt to the accused and allowed their appeal acquitting them of all the charges levelled against them - HELD THAT - It must be stated that PW4 Dr. K.N. Mehrotra in his examination clearly stated that the injuries in question were possible because of crushing by a tractor. In the cross examination all that was suggested was that such injuries could also be possible by a jeep or a truck - the observations seen in the post mortem indicate that on internal examination it was found that all bones of the skull were broken in pieces membrane and brain were burst and that eye ball had come out. Further all bones on the left side of the chest were broken left lung was protruding out. Air pipe trachea lerenex were also broken. The external examination and injuries indicated in the post mortem suggest crushing injuries - In the face of these facts the assessment that the medical evidence belies that the deceased was repeatedly crushed under the wheels of the tractor is completely incorrect. Further the area where the incident occurred is such where a vehicle would not enter by mistake causing an accident but the attempt was definitely deliberate. The complaint Ext.P1 shows that PW1 and the deceased had gone at a distance from the village for easing themselves. Narrative clearly shows that it was at that stage that the tractor was driven straight towards the deceased - the version coming from PW1 to be consistent supported by all relevant circumstances and lodged with promptitude. Having found his presence to be natural and his version getting complete support on material particulars the witness is completely trustworthy. It is well settled that in such circumstances it is open to an appellate court to consider the matter afresh RAMESH BABULAL DOSHI VERSUS STATE OF GUJARAT 1996 (5) TMI 429 - SUPREME COURT . Having undertaken such exercise it is concluded that PW1 is a natural witness whose presence at the time and place of incident is established and is worthy of acceptance. However mindful of the fact that in the original reporting he had attributed lalkara to respondent Basant Lal alone while the tractor was being driven by respondent Om Prakash which meant that the other two accused though sitting on the tractor were not attributed any overt act benefit of doubt granted to the other two accused namely Lalji and Gyan Prakash. It could possibly be put that Brahmadeen an old man of 90 years would normally be accompanied by someone for assistance but would be unaccompanied while easing out and therefore the time and place was so deliberately chosen in which case culpability of every occupant of the tractor would be made out. However in the absence of any material establishing that Lalji and Gyan Prakash are entitled to benefit of doubt. The acquittal of Basant Lal and Om Prakash is set aside - the order of conviction as recorded against them is restored by the trial court for the offences punishable under Section 302 read with 34 IPC - it is not deemed appropriate to restore the sentence of death - the appropriate sentence in the matter ought to be sentence for imprisonment for life is proceeded to impose on said Basant Lal and Om Prakash. Consequently the appeals are partly allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the acquittal of the respondents accused under Sections 302 read with 34 IPC.
2. Assessment of the evidence and testimony provided by witnesses.
3. Evaluation of medical evidence in relation to the alleged crime.
4. Determination of the motive behind the crime.
5. Consideration of the appropriate sentence for the convicted individuals.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Acquittal:
The appeals challenged the High Court's judgment acquitting the respondents accused of murder charges under Sections 302 read with 34 IPC. The High Court had found infirmities in the testimony of the key witness, PW1, and concluded that the medical evidence did not support the prosecution's case of repeated crushing by a tractor.

2. Assessment of the Evidence and Testimony:
The prosecution's case relied heavily on the testimony of PW1, Kamla Kant Dubey, who was an eye witness. He reiterated the assertions made in his complaint, detailing the civil litigation and previous violent incidents involving the accused. The trial court found PW1's testimony consistent and supported by material particulars, leading to the conviction of the accused. However, the High Court noted discrepancies in PW1's testimony, such as the role of exhortation attributed to the accused and the change in the place of occurrence, which led to the acquittal.

3. Evaluation of Medical Evidence:
PW4 Dr. K.N. Mehrotra conducted the post mortem and found injuries consistent with crushing by a tractor. The High Court, however, found the medical evidence conflicting with the prosecution's claim of repeated crushing, particularly noting that injuries were only on one side of the chest. The Supreme Court disagreed, stating that the injuries and the spot panchnama corroborated the prosecution's version of repeated crushing.

4. Determination of the Motive:
The trial court established a strong motive for the crime, citing ongoing civil litigation and previous violent incidents involving the accused and the deceased. The High Court did not contest this finding. The Supreme Court emphasized that the motive provided strong corroboration to PW1's testimony.

5. Consideration of the Appropriate Sentence:
The trial court had imposed the death penalty, which was subject to confirmation by the High Court. The Supreme Court, while restoring the conviction of Basant Lal and Om Prakash, did not deem it appropriate to restore the death sentence. Instead, it imposed a life sentence, considering the circumstances of the case.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court found the High Court's view untenable and reinstated the trial court's conviction of Basant Lal and Om Prakash under Sections 302 read with 34 IPC, sentencing them to life imprisonment. The acquittal of Lalji and Gyan Prakash was affirmed due to the lack of overt acts attributed to them. The appeals were partly allowed, with Basant Lal and Om Prakash directed to be taken into custody to serve their sentences.