Surajpal Singh & Others
v.
State
(Supreme Court Of India)
Criminal Appeal No. 16 Of 1950 | 20-12-1951
(1) This is an appeal against a judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad reversing the decision of the Sessions Judge of Aligarh in a criminal case. The appellants were tried by the Sessions Judge on charges under S. 302 read with S. 149, S. 148, Ss. 325 and 326 read with S. 149, and S. 201, Indian Penal Code, but were acquitted. On appeal by the State Government, the High Court reversed the Sessions Judges decision, and convicted the appellants and sentenced them to transportation for life under S. 302 read with S. 149 to five years rigorous imprisonment under Ss. 325 and 326 read with S. 149, and to two years rigorous imprisonment under S. 147, Indian Penal Code, all the sentences being made to run concurrently. The appellants thereafter applied to the Privy Council for special leave, which was granted on 28/10/1947.
(2) The facts which were put before the Court on behalf of the prosecution may be briefly stated as follows : There is a plot No. 518 in Nagaria Patti Chaharum, village Shahgarh in the district of Aligarh which is about 30 bighas in area and is known as the "teesa" field. This plot was the "sir" land of several landlords including Mt. Bhagwati Kuer and Ratan Singh and had been let out to certain tenants. In 1944, Mt. Bhagwati Kuer, Ratan Singh and their co-sharers filed a suit for the ejectment of the tenants, and the suit was decreed. On 7/6/1945, possession over the plot was delivered by the Amin to Surajpal Singh, appellant 1, who was the mukhtar-i-am of Mt. Bhagwati Kuer. It was contended on behalf of Surajpal Singh that he took possession on behalf of all the co-sharers, but certain statements made by Ratan Singh in his evidence do not support this contention. However that may be, it appears that on 17/6/1945, Ratan Singh reported to the police, that he had sent his labourers to irrigate the "teesa" field, and while they were irrigating it Surajpal Singh and certain other persons came and tried to stop the irrigation and damaged the ploughs of Ratan Singh. On 18th June at about 7 A. M., the occurrence which is the subject-matter of the present trial took place. The prosecution version of the occurrence was that while Ratan Singhs labourers were working in the field under the supervision of one Behari Singh, the appellants with many other persons came armed with guns, spears and lathis, and some of the members of the appellants party entered the field, out off the nosestrings of the bullocks and abused and assaulted the labourers, most of whom ran away. Thereupon, Deva Sukh, who was there to supply water to the labourers, protested and was beaten with lathis. At that point of time, Bihari Singh and 10 to 15 persons came and a fight took place between the parties. During the fight, one of the accused persons, Rajendra Singh, a young lad, fired his gun twice in the air, and thereafter Surajpal Singh took the gun from him and fired two shots hitting Nawab Mewati, who died instantaneously, and Behari Singh, who died later in the date. Three other persons, Zorawar, Rajpal and Lakhan also received gun-shot injuries. Sometime later, Surajpal Singh along with the other three appellants came to the spot and removed the dead body of Nawab in a cart. The body was thrown into a river and was recovered on 20/6/1945. After investigations 26 persons including the appellants were set up for trial.
(3) After hearing the evidence in the case, the Sessions Judge delivered judgement on 20/2/1946. He held that the "teesa" field was in the possession of Surajpal Singh, that Behari Singh and Ratan Singhs men were aggressors and wished to take forcible possession of the field, that when resisted they had attacked the appellants party, that the person who fired the gun had done so in self-defence and not with a view to killing Behari Singh and Nawab Mewati, and that the evidence adduced by the prosecution was so unsatisfactory that it was unsafe to convict the accused upon it. As to the charge of concealing evidence of the offence of murder by the removal of the dead body of Nawab, the Sessions Judge expressed the opinion that in order to convict a person on that charge it must be proved that the offence, the evidence of which the accused is alleged to have caused to disappear, had actually been committed, but since in the present case the charge of murder was not proved the accused could not be convicted for having caused disappearance of evidence connected with it. The Judge also held that the evidence being unreliable the charge under S. 201. Indian Penal Code, had not been established beyond reasonable doubt.
(4) The High Court delivered its judgement on 8/5/1947, allowing the appeal of the State Government. Shortly stated, the conclusion arrived at by the High Court was that Ratan Singh had as much right to the possession of the field as Bhagwati-Kuer, that both parties were trying to take exclusive possession of the field, that both parties were prepared for all contingencies to vindicate and enforce their rights, and hence the question of possession was wholly immaterial and no right of private defence could be successfully pleaded by the appellants.
(5) A perusal of the two judgements before us shows that while the Sessions Judge took great pains to discuss all the important aspects of the case and to record his opinion on every material point, the learned Judges of the High Court have reversed his decision without displacing the very substantial reasons given by him in support of his conclusion. The difference in the treatment of the case by the two Courts below is particularly noticeable in the manner in which they have dealt with the prosecution evidence. We find that while the Sessions Judge took up the evidence of each witness and recorded his findings with regard to his credibility after discussing the minutest details of the evidence, all that the learned Judges of the High Court have to say about the prosecution evidence as a whole is as follows : "In Prag Dats case, (20 All. 459), their Lordships observed :
"As usual in cases of this kind the police have found it difficult to secure independent testimony of what did take place. Those of the villagers who were present and looking on would probably by sympathy and bias be so attached to one or other of the disputing parties that it would be hopeless to get disinterested and reliable evidence from them." "This difficulty the police find in most riot cases and this case is not free from it. But as in Prag Dats case in this case there are four witnesses, viz., Deo Sukh, Rori Singh, Ram Singh and Ratan Singh, who could be characterised as independent witnesses and they support the case for the prosecution, in the main. In our judgement their testimony is on the whole worthy of credence and sufficient to justify the conviction of the respondents."
(6) In view of the summary treatment of the evidence by the High Court, we had to read the evidence adduced in the case with great care, and what we find is that the four witnesses, whose evidence has been accepted by the High Court, are just the persons against whom very serious criticism was offered by the Sessions Judge. (His Lordship discussed the evidence of the witnesses and proceeded.)
(7) It is well established that in an appeal under S. 417, Code of Criminal Procedure the High Court has full power to review the evidence upon which the order of acquittal was founded, but it is equally well-settled that the presumption of innocence of the accused is further reinforced by his acquittal by the trial Court, and the findings of the trial Court which had the advantage of seeing the witnesses and hearing their evidence can be reversed only for very substantial and compelling reasons.
(8) On the whole, was are inclined to hold that the Sessions Judge had taken a reasonable view of the facts of the case, and in our opinion there were no good reasons for reversing that view. The assessors with whose aid the trial was held, were unanimously of the opinion that the accused were not guilty, and though 25 persons were placed on trial on identical evidence, the State Government preferred an appeal only against 5 of them on the sole ground that the acquittal was against the weight of evidence of the record.
(9) In the result, we allow the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentences of the appellants and acquit them of all the charges.
Advocates List
For the Appearing Parties G.C. Mathur, K.B. Asthana, P.A. Mehta, Rajender Narain, S.P. Sinha, Advocates.
For Petitioner
- Shekhar Naphade
- Mahesh Agrawal
- Tarun Dua
For Respondent
- S. Vani
- B. Sunita Rao
- Sushil Kumar Pathak
Bench List
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAIYID FAZL ALI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIVIAN BOSE
Eq Citation
1952 CRILJ 331
[1952] 1 SCR 193
AIR 1952 SC 52
(1952) 1 MLJ 426
[1952] SCR 193
1952 SCJ 32
1952 -65-LW 1190
LQ/SC/1951/77
HeadNote
- Criminal Appeal — Murder — Charge under S. 302 read with S. 149, S. 148, Ss. 325 and 326 read with S. 149, and S. 201, Indian Penal Code — Acquittal by Sessions Judge — Reversed by High Court — Appeal to Supreme Court — Held, Sessions Judge had taken a reasonable view of the facts of the case and there were no good reasons for reversing that view — Hence, appeal allowed, conviction and sentences of the appellants set aside and they were acquitted of all the charges. - Presumption of innocence of the accused is further reinforced by his acquittal by the trial Court, and the findings of the trial Court which had the advantage of seeing the witnesses and hearing their evidence can be reversed only for very substantial and compelling reasons.