http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 10

PETITIONER:

MOOL CHAND ETC. ETC.

Vs.

RESPONDENT:

JAGDISH SINGH BEDI AND ORS. ETC. ETC.

DATE OF JUDGMENT31/03/1992

BENCH:

FATHIMA BEEVI, M. (J)

BENCH:

FATHIMA BEEVI, M. (J)

PANDIAN, S.R. (J)

CITATION:

1992 SCR (2) 425 1993 SCC Supl. (2) 714

JT 1992 (2) 376 1992 SCALE (1)741

ACT:

Indian Penal Code:

Sections 120B, 302, 307, 324-High Court meticulously

examining evidence-Recording its own finding on credibility

of witnesses-Reasonable doubt as to circumstances under

which victim received fatal shot-Held no interference with

High Court order called for.

HEADNOTE:

Kashmiri Lal, Madan Lal, Babu Ram, Jagdish Singh Bedi

and Prem Pal were tried by the Additional Sessions Judge on

charges under sections 120(B), 302, 307 and 324 read with

sections 147 and 149 I.P.C. on the ground that they entered

into criminal conspiracy on 17.11.1972 to commit the murder

to Ramesh Chand and others.

The prosection case was that Kasturi Lal and Madan Lal

were brothers, that the three others Jagdish Singh Bedi,

Prem Pal and Babu Ram were friends and associates of these

brothers. 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-

complaints and other litigations between these two groups.

Kashmiri Lal was provided with a bodyguard Jaipal Singh, PW-

17.

Kiran Prabha, daughter of Kewal Kishore, another

brother of Mool Chand was getting married on 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 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

426

motorcycle on the roadside in front of the marriage

procession. Simultaneously, an ambassador car in which

Kashmiri Lal, Babu Ram and Madan Lal were sitting also

stopped behind the motorcycle. Kashmiri Lal and Babu Ram

fired with his gun and Ramesh Chand got injured. Babu Ram

fired simultaneously causing injury to Amrit Lal. Both

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 10

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.

The police party on receiving telephonic message from

P.W.5 Balbir Singh reached the scene. They recovered the

motorcycle with a bag hanging 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.

At the trial, 20 witnesses were examined by the

Prosecution. Mool Chand (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

prosection version.

The accused set up their version on the incident in

their statement. 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 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 the prosecution evidence,

rejected the defence version and recorded conviction.

The accused appealed to the High Court, which set aside

the findings 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

had conspired to commit the murder and all of them had

proceeded to

427

the place of occurrence from the house of Kashmiri Lal, it

is difficult to 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 appeals, 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 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.1

Mool Chand. (3) The incident took place in a barat

procession consisting of over 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 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 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 wrong or the view taken by the High Court was

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 10

unreasonable.

Dismissing the appeals, this Court,

HELD: 1. The prosecution has not proved the case beyond

reasonable doubt. The High Court has rightly acquitted

these accused.

[438F]

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 two

428

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 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

judgment of the High Court if supported by cogent reasons

has to be sustained. [434E-F]

4. Even though the eye witnesses corroborated each

other on material particulars and the presence of Mool

Chand, Agya Ram and Subhash Chand 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 regarding the truth and credibility of the

prosecution case. [437H-438B]

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 prosecution case. The

prosecution version is wholly unbelievable. There is

suppression 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 appears to be highly

artificial and does not fit in with human probabilities.

The eye-witness account of the incident 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 th

e accused person is twisted or suppressed and reasonable

doubt arises as to the circumstances under which the victim

received the fatal shot. No interference with the judgment

of the High Court is therefore called for. [438G-439A]

429

JUDGMENT:

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal 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. Pundir and Prashant Chaudhary for the

Appellants.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 10

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

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.

Kashmiri Lal, Madan Lal Babu Ram and Jagdish Singh Bedi

and Prem Pal were tried in Sessions Trial No. 133 of 1973 by

the Ist Addl. Session 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.

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 committed the murder of Ramesh Chand

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.

The learned Addl. Sessions Judge by judgment dated

29.7.1974 convicted Kashmiri 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.I. for 2 years under Section 148. Learned Judge also

convicted Jagdish Singh Bedi, Prem Pal and Madan Lal under

Sections

430

147, 120-B, 302, 307 and 324, I.P.C., read with section 149,

I.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 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 family of Mool 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).

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

Barat House in Gandhi Colony. The party started for the

bride's house at about 9.00 P.M. Mool Chand, Amrit Lal,

Subhash Chand, Ramesh Chand And Agya Ram were accompanying

the party. Ramesh Chand and Amrit Lal were heading the

marriage procession. 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

motorcycle driven by Prem Pal and stopped the motorcycle on

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 10

the roadside in front of the marriage procession.

Simultaneously, 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 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 Bedi went near Subhash, Amrit

Lal and Ramesh Chand and started 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 injured. Babu Ram fired simultaneously

causing injury to Amrit Lal. Both Ramesh Chand and Amrit

Lal fell down. Kashmiri Lal and Babu Ram each fired another

round causing injury to Subhash Chand and Madan Lal accused,

and all the accused escaped leaving the motor-

431

cycle and the car on the spot.

Ramesh Chand died in the hospital on 18.11.1972. Mool

Chand and Subhash Chand were treated at 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 hanging 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 Lal at about 10.00 P.M. at the Roorkey Octroi

Post while they were boarding the truck. Two guns were

recovered from the possession of Kashmiri Lal and Babu Ram.

From Kashmiri Lal empty cartridges and gun licenses were

also recovered.

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.

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 would two abrasions.

Ramesh Chand was first examined 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 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 examination 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 th abdomen and extending 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 examined by the Jail Doctor. Dr. K.C. Pandey, on

18.11.1972. 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

small gun pellet wounds scattered in different parts caused

about a day before. Prem-Pal

432

had two small scabbed abrasions caused by friction against

hard substance 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 ascertained.

Twenty witnesses were examined by the prosecution.

Mool Chand (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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 10

version.

The accused had set up their version of the incident in

their statement. 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 the others tried to

assault him with a danda. He 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 clear the crowd. 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 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.

The State being aggrieved by the order of acquittal has

preferred three appeals. Mool Chand, the defacto

complainant, has no special leave granted filed separate

Criminal Appeal No. 688 of 1979. The grounds urged ar

these:-

The eye-witness account of th incident was fully

corroborated

433

by the medical evidence on record. The evidence of

the eye-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 Lal,

accused.

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-

1, Mool Chand, one of the eye-witnesses. The

injuries are skin deep.

The incident took place in a barat procession

consisting of over 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-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 undoubtedly in the marriage

procession, the presence of these witnesses is also

established. They have a consistent account and

received corroboration from other materials on

evidence. The evidence was sufficient to sustain

the conviction.

Jai Pal Singh (PW-7) was admittedly the own shadow

of Kashmiri Lal. He has given a detailed account

of 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.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 10

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 arrested

soon after the incident, and both Babu Ram and

Kashmiri Lal had fired at the complainants party

but this cannot lead to the inference that the

prosecution version of the incident 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

434

that on 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 arrest of the accused and

the recovery immediately after the occurrence lend

assurance of the truth of the prosecution version

and there is no scope for any doubt that the

prosecution version is 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 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 a

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 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

judgment of the High Court if supported by cogent reasons

has to be sustained.

To appreciate the arguments, it may be necessary to

briefly outline 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 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 when

they reached near the scene. Jai Pal Singh got down from

the car

435

about fifty paces from the place of occurrence from where he

witnessed 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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 10

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 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 at to how 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.

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 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 injuries 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 injuries found on the person of Madan Lal, the

High Court said that they appear to have been caused by at

least tow 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 number of gun shot injuries found on

Madan Lal are very much larger than the gun shot 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

436

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 result of which Madan Lal received

gun shot injuries. The High Court said that version of the

incident given by the four eye-witnesses cannot be

implicitedly relied upon and the possibility of Babu Ram and

Kashmiri Lal 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 transpired before actual encounter

is uncorroborated. He was 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 16.11.1972

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 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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 10

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 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 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 bring a car and they went on their motorcycle

form 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 procession 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 Stand in order to take

tea. Jagdish Singh Bedi and Prem Pal and the others

proceeded toward 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

437

Lal and Babu Ram began to fire towards the three boys and

all to them 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 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 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:-

"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 appellants as there was a

great risk of causing injuries to the aforesaid

three appellants. It is also difficult to believe

that the appellants would have taken 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 (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,

however, is the unsatisfactory explanation of the

gun shot injuries 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.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 10

Even though the eye-witnesses corroborated each other on all

material particulars and the

438

presence of Mool Chand, Agya Ram and Subhash Chand who was

quite probable and PW-7 could be considered as independent

eye-witnesses, 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 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 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

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 the High Court and no

interference is called for.

We have carefully considered these arguments and we

agree that the prosecution has not proved the case beyond

reasonable doubt. The High Court has rightly acquitted

these accused and no interferences warranted.

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 does not fit in

with human probabilities. The eye-witness account of the

incident as rightly pointed out by the High Court does not

reveal the truth and the genesis of the incident 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 unable to accept the contentions of appellant and

to restore the

439

conviction recorded by the trial court. In our view, no

interference with the judgment of the High Court is called

for.

In the result, the appeals are dismissed.

N.V.K. Appeals dismissed.

440