JUDGMENT M.C. Jain, J.
1. Six accused appellants were tried before V Additional Sessions Judge, Meerut in S.T. No. 430 of 1983. They were 1. Abdul Gaffar, 2. Abdul Jabbar, 3. Abdul Rub 4. Abdul Wahab, 5. Aas Mohdammad and 6. Mohd. Iliyas is their Bahnoi and Aas Mohd. is the son of Mohd Iliyas. They came to be convicted under Sections 147, 148 and 302 read with Section 149 I.P.C. with the sentence of one year's rigorous imprisonment under Section 147 I.P.C., one year's rigorous imprisonment under Section 148 I.P.C. and life imprisonment under Section 302 I.P.C. read with Section 149 I.P.C. with the direction of running of all the sentences concurrently.
2. Broad features of the case as surfacing during trial may be noted for appreciation of the succeeding discussion. The incident took place on 9.6.1983 at about 3.45 P.M. at Hapur bus stand inside bus No. UHD 238. One Satpal was murdered in the incident. He was real brother of the informant and eye-witness Vijai Pal Singh PW 1 who lodged the F.I.R. the same day at 4.15 P.M. The distance of the Police Station from the scene was about tow furlongs. Abdul Gaffar, Abdul Jabbar, Abdul Rub and Mohd. Iliyas were allegedly armed with knives. Remaining two accused appellants Abdul Wahab and Aas Mohd. were armed with knives and hockeys. The deceased was conductor on the above bus which belonged to one Chaudhary Latafat and at the fateful time, the bus was at Hapur bus stand Meerut waiting for its turn. Vijai Pal Singh PW 1 and the deceased Satpal were sitting inside the bus stand Meerut waiting for its turn. Vijai Pal Singh PW 1 and the deceased Satpal were sitting inside the bus and were taking about their household affairs. The accused-appellants named above entered the said bus through the front side door with weapons as detailed earlier. Abdul Gaffar shouted abusing Satpal that he posed to be a big don (Bara Dada) and he would be taught a lesson for demanding expenses of litigation. Satpal retorted back that litigation was contested for both the sides and instead of bearing the expenses of litigation himself, he would realize his (Abdul Gaffar's) share from him.
3. The previous background was that about a month before the incident, a quarrel had taken place between Satpal on the one hand and accused Abdul Gaffar on the other on the question of sharing expenses of a criminal case.
4. To pick up the thread, all the accused started assaulting Satpal by means of knives. Vijai Pal Singh and Satpal shouted, attracting the witnesses Rakesh PW 2. Nawab PW 3, Harendra and several others, but the accused continued their attack on Satpal. After committing his murder, they came out of the bus with knives in their hands and threatening others of similar consequences and made their escape good towards Nauchandi side.
5. Vijai Pal Singh dictated the F.I.R. to Rakesh and lodged the same at the Police Station. The investigation was started by S.I.D.S. Yadav PW 7 to be concluded by S.O. A.R. Bhatt PW 8. The first Investigating Officer reached the spot, prepared inquest report of the dead body of the deceased and other related papers. The site plan of the place of occurrence was also prepared by him. Blood-stained and simple earth as also a lid (cap) of the gear box of the bus were taken in possession. The dead body after being seared was sent for post mortem. The post mortem was conducted on 10.6.1983 at 4.00 P.M. by Dr. V.K. Bhargava PW 4. The following ante mortem injuries were found on the person of the deceased who was aged about 28 years:-
1. Incised wound 4 cm x 1 cm x muscle deep on left side of neck upper part obliquely placed, 2.5 cm below the left ear.
2. Incised wound 8 cm x 1.5 x trachea cut (neck cavity deep) on left side neck, 1 cm below left angle of jaw obliquely placed.
3. Incised would 2 cm x 0.5 cm x muscle deep on left side of neck, 1 cm below injury No. (2) obliquely placed.
4. Incised wound 3 cm x 0.5 cm x muscle deep on left side of neck, 1 cm below and behind injury No. (3).
5. Incised wound 9 cm x 2 cm x bone deep on left side of neck, 1 cm below injury No. (4) extending from middle of left side of neck obliquely placed.
6. Incised would 9 cm x 2.5 cm x bone deep on left side of neck 1.5 cm below and parallel to injury No. (5).
7. Incised wound 3 cm x 1 cm x bone deep just outer to injury No. (6).
8. Incised wound 8 cm x 4 cm x muscle deep or upper part of left shoulder, 6 cm underneath top of left shoulder.
9. Incised would 2.5 cm x 1 cm x bone deep on outer and upper part of left upper arm.
10. Incised would 10 cm x 4 cm x bone deep on left side of chest on mid axillary bone, 11 cm below axilla.
11. Incised would 6 cm x 2 cm x muscle deep on left side back of chest, 2 cm below the inferior angle of scapula.
12. Incised would 5 cm x 2 cm x chest cavity deep on back of left side of chest, 3.5 cm below injury No. (11).
13. Incised wound 6 cm x 1 cm x muscle deep on back and lower part of right forearm.
14. Incised wound 10 cm x 2 cm x muscle deep on back of right hand and wrist.
15. Abrastion 1 cm x 1 cm on outer side of left elbow.
6. It would be noted that ante mortem injuries Nos. 2, 5, 6, 7, 10 and 12 were fatal. The internal examination also revealed extensive damage. There was cut mark of six cervical vertebrae of left side. All blood vessels, trachea, nerves and soft issue of the left side of neck were cut and clotted blood was present in cut area. 7th rib of the left side was also cut. Pleura was lacerated. Left lung was punctured on the lower lobe.
7. As opined by the Doctor the death had occurred as a result a result of the ante mortem injuries.
8. The defence was of denial and false implication.
9. To bring home the guilt to the accused, the prosecution in all examined 7 witnesses. Out of them Vijai Pal Singh PW 1, Rakesh PW 2 and Nawab Ahmad PW 3 were eyewitnesses. Dr. V.K. Bhargava PW 4 had conducted autopsy an the dead body of the deceased, the details of which have been related above. Head Constable Chandra Dutt PW 5 had accompanied the Investigating Officer to the spot after the lodging of the F.I.R. and with another constable Hasan Abbas had taken the dead body of the deceased to the mortuary. Head Constable Jai Pal Singh PW 6 had scribed the F.I.R. and made entries in the G.D. The remaining two witnesses were Investigating Officers. The accused appellants also examined as many as seven witnesses in their defence. The accused appellant Mohd. Iliyas died during the pendency of the appeal and the same abated in respect of him under order dated 25.2.2005. The Court is now concerned with the remaining five accused appellants.
10. We have heard Sri S.P.S. Raghav, learned counsel for the accused-appellants, Sri K.P. Shukla, learned A.G.A. and Sri G.S. Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the complainant. The record of the case has been summoned which we have carefully perused.
11. The submission from the side of the accused-appellants is that the conviction is based against the weight of evidence on record. Learned counsel for the accused appellants argued that the prosecution could not prove any motive on the part of the accused-appellants to commit murder of Satpal. The F.I.R. has been termed to be concocted and ant timed. The learned counsel for the accused-appellants also questioned the manner of the incident as put-forth by the prosecution to be unnatural. It has been urged that Vijai Pal Singh PW 1 and Rakesh PW 2 could not reach the place of incident and they have falsely posed themselves to be eye-witnesses. Nawab PW 3 is also said to have come as prosecution witness owing to enmity. He has also been castigated as a habitual liar. It has been vehemently argued that the murder of Satpal took place at some other time and at some other place, but was falsely shown to have taken place inside the bus in question on the date and time alleged by the prosecution.
12. On the other hand, the learned A.G.A. and the learned counsel for the complainant have supported the conviction recorded by the trial judge. We propose to examine the worth of the arguments advanced at the bar in the succeeding discussion one by one.
13. Before proceeding further, it would be helpful to record the gist of the material oral evidence on record so as to properly address to the arguments advanced at the bar. Vijai Pal Singh PW 1 (informant) is the brother of the deceased and an eyewitness. He narrated the previous background that about 1-1 1/2 months before the present occurrence, in his presence, the accused Abdul Gaffar and Abdul Jabbar had quarrelled at Hapur Court Compound with his brother Satpal who had gone there in connection with some criminal case relating to some marpeet with college students. The issue was of bearing of expenses of a criminal litigation and adjustment of the same. Satpal wanted Abdul Gaffar and Abdul Jabbar also to bear their share for which they were not ready. The accused Abdul Jabbar had then threatened him (Satpal) of life. It is also gleaned from the testimony of this witness that earlier, murder of one Mubarak had been committed in which Satpal, Rakesh PW 2 and the present accused Abdul Rub alias Pappu, Aas Mohd., etc. were accused. With regard to that murder, the accused Abdul Gaffar had struck a compromise with the family members of Mubark without consulting Satpal. That muder case resulted in acquittal, but a revision was filed against the acquittal before the High Court and the case was remanded to the court of sessions.
13. As to the actual occurrence, Vijai Pal Singh PW 1 deposed that his brother Satpal was a bus conductor at the bus of Chaudhary Latafat. He had come to meet his brother. He and Satpal were sitting in the bus and taking of households affairs. Satpal was on the seat just behind the driver's seat and he himself was on the seat back to that occupied by Satpal. Naming all these accused appellants, he stated that they suddenly entered the bus from the front bus door. Aas Mohd. and Abdul Wahab had knives and hockey sticks and remaining four had knives with them. Abdul Gaffar accosted Satpal hurling abuses that he posed himself to be a Baradada (big don) of the line and he would be taught lesson for demanding expenses of litigation. Satpal retorted that he would realize the expenses of litigation as the same had been incurred for both the sides. Abdul Gaffar then exhorted his companions to assault him (Satpal) and all the accused including himself (Abdul Gaffar) started assaulting Satpal by means of knives. He and Satpal raised shouts attracting Rakesh PW 2, driver Nawab PW 3, Harendra and several others but the accused continued their assault on Satpal and committed his murder. They then left the bus with their weapons threatening the persons present there of dire consequences.
14. Rakesh Kumar PW 2 and Nawab PW 3 are the other two eyewitnesses of fact named in the F.I.R. who have corroborated the version of Vijai Pal Singh PW 1. Rakesh is also the scribe of the F.I.R. He was booking clerk in the office of the bus union/Association and at the time of the incident, he was sitting in the general office of the bus stand. Nawab PW 3 was the driver of the bus UHD 238 in which the incident took place. The bus was to leave for Bulandshahr at 4.25 P.M. He was sitting in the office of the bus stand where Rakesh was also there. They, too, stated that Satpal and Vijai Pal wer inside the bus which was parked near the general office where they were at the moment. Hearing the shouts of Satpal and Vijai Pal, they and others were attracted to the scene and witnessed the incident of assault of Satpal by the six accused persons whom they named. They testified that they and others also raised shouts and tried to intervene but Abdul Gaffar held out a threat that anybody proceeding ahead would be dealt with the same way. The accused then ran away towards Nauchandi ground. It was explained by Nawab PW 3 that when the incident took place. The passengers were boarding another bus No. UTG 9295 whereafter the bus in question bearing No. UHD 238 was to leave for Bulandshahr at 4.25 P.M.
15. Coming to the evidence of the defence, S.I. Tekchandra DW 1 (Radio) City Control Room, Kotwali Meerut appeared with call register in which entries regarding quarrels, riots etc. were entered. He stated that on 9.6.1983 at 16.01 hours information from Police Station Lisadi Gate, Meerut had been received at police control room that murder of a bus conductor had taken place at Hapur bus stand, Meerut and police force was at the spot. A request for sending patrol car No. 1 at the spot was made. Onkar Singh DW 2, Ser Singh DW 3, Daya Chandra DW 4 and Pyare Lal Sharma DW 5 were examined on the point that Harendera named as an eyewitness in the F.I.R. was present at the Weighment Centre of Cane Development Society at Garhmukteshwar on 9.6.1983. The purpose of examining these witnesses seemingly was to show that Harendra could not be present at the spot at Hapur bus stand. Their testimony is wholly irrelevant as Harendra has not been examined by the prosecution as a witness.
16. Sri Anis Ur Rahman DW 6, an Advocate at Meerut, stated that on the instructions of Nawab son of Rafeeq resident of Village Asodha, he got an affidavit typed on 23.7.1983 and identified him. The contents of this affidavit were read over and explained to him who signed it after hearing the contents. Ext. Kha-8 is said to be the said affidavit. The said affidavit purports as if Nawab did not recognize the assailants of Satpal and the police had unnecessarily made him an eyewitness. It should be stated for the sake of clarity that Nawab PW 3 denied to have sworn any such affidavit. Earraj Singh Tomar DW 7, Hand-writing Expert, proving his report, stated that disputed signature of Nawab PW 3 on the said affidavit tallied with his specimen signatures.
17. Above is the summary of the material evidence adduced in the court.
18. On the scrutiny of the evidence on record, we first deal with the case of Aas Mohammad and Abdul Wahab who were allegedly armed with knives as well as hockeys. It is noted that though the deceased sustained a number of incised wounds on different part of his body but he did not sustain any hockey injury. Incised wounds found on his person were 14 in number and there was 1 abrasion of insignificant dimension of 1 cm x 1 cm on outer side of left elbow. It could be due to friction. The eyewitnesses also did not say that these two accused used hockeys in assaulting the deceased. Nawab PW 3 specifically stated that these two accused-appellants. Aas Mohammad and Abdul Wahab did not assault Satpal with hockeys. It is somewhat unnatural that these two accused would have been armed with two types of weapons i.e. knives and hockeys. It renders their participation in the incident to be doubtful. Aas Mohammad is the son of accused Mohd. Iliyas (who has died during the pendency of the appeal) and Bhanja of remaining four accused-appellants. Abdul Wahab is the fourth brother of accused-respondents Abdul Gaffar, Adbul Jabbar and Abdul Rub. The experience shows that there is tendency on the part of the witnesses to exaggerate the guilt of the opposite party. The court has to sift the evidence with care in each case and on full consideration of all relevant material circumstances has to come to a decision as to which part of the witnesses is to be accepted and which is to be rejected. The only safeguard against the risk of connecting the innocent with guilty lies in insisting on acceptable evidence which satisfies the conscience of the court. In such cases, no doubt, the prosecution witnesses claim the participation of all the accused, but it is safe only to convict those who are stated to have taken active part in the occurrence of the assault. To come to the point, the participation of these two accused with two types of weapons i.e. knives and hockeys being unnatural (regard being had to this fact also that hockeys were not at all used in assulting the victim), they deserve to be afforded the benefit of doubt.
19. We now proceed to examine the worth of the arguments referred to earlier. Taking up question of motive first, we should point out that motive is immaterial in a case of direct eyewitness account as is the present one. Motive, shortly stated, is the hidden spring of human action. Different persons act differently in a given situation and background. In the instant case, the prosecution candidly put forth the previous background known to it that there was bad blood between the deceased Satpal on the one hand and the accused Abdul Gaffar and his brothers on the other over sharing and adjustment of expenses of earlier criminal litigation and Abdul Jabbar had issued a serious threat to Satpal over that issue. Therefore, the accused- appellants can not gain any point by complaining the absence of sufficient motive on the part of the accused to liquidate Satpal.
20. The second argument of alleged ante timing of the F.I.R. was sought to be supported by the learned counsel for the accused-appellants on the reasoning that the F.I.R. purports to have been lodged by Vijai Pal Singh PW 1 on 9.6.18983 at 4.15 P.M. whereas the inquest was started on 9.6.1983 at 4.30 P.M. but the Investigating Officer did not mention herein as to by what weapon(s) the deceased had received injuries. It has also pointed out that on inquest report (Ext. Ka-7) and connected papers Ka-8 to Ka-10 only Section 302 I.P.C. was written. Section 147, 148 and 149 had been written. It has further been pointed out that in inquest report (Ext. Ka-7) initially Crime No. 170 was written which was overwritten as Crime No. 177. He also urged that the investigation had even started before alleged lodging of the F.I.R. because as per the testimony of Tekchandra DW 1, an information had been received from the Police Station concerned at police control room at 16.01 hours on 9.6.1983 that a murder had taken place at Hapur bus stand and force of Police Station had reached there. It has been pointed out that the Investigation Officer denied that any such information had been sent from the Police Station. Our attention was invited to the testimony of Devendra Singh Yadav S.I. PW 7 that he had reached the spot at 4.20 P.M. from the Police Station on motorcycle. We note that Investigating Officer corrected himself by saying that he did not know about the sending of any information from the police station to control room. We are definitely of the opinion that above facts do not and cannot lead to the conclusion that the F.I.R. was ante-timed. As to the overwriting in scribing the crime number in the inquest report and omission of the same in the Fard Exts. Ka 10 and 11, suffice it to say that to err is human. Section 302 I.P.C. was very clearly written in the inquest report and connected papers Ext. Ka-8 to Ka-10. Adding of Sections 147, 148 and 149 I.P.C. thereon with different ink would not mean that interpolation was made subsequently and that the F.I.R. was not in existence at the time of the preparation of these documents. The distance of the Police Station from the place of occurrence was only tow furlongs. Immediately after the incident, Vijai Pal Singh PW 1 got written the report by Rakesh PW 2. Having regard to short distance of the place of occurrence from the Police Station, the F.I.R. could very well be lodged at 4.15 P.M. The time given by the Investigating Officer and 4.20 P.M. of his reaching at the place of incident has not to be taken mathematically. The incident took place in broad day light at a busy place and could not have gone unnoticed. A number of persons must have known of it immediately and anybody could have informed the police of the incident, leading to a massage being sent from the Police Station to the police control room. It has come in the testimony of Nawab PW 3 that there was a road crossing nearby the place of occurrence with a police man on duty. It does not matter at all that police control room had been informed by the Police Station concerned at 16.01 P.M. that a murder had taken place at Hapur bus stand. As for the non-mentioning of the weapons of assault, we should point out that the object of holding inquest is to ascertain the cause of death and to find out whether it is homicidal, suicidal or accidental and to draw up a report of the apparent cause of death, describing such wounds, fractures and other marks of injuries as may be found on the body.
21. We may make reference to a decision of Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. v. Abdul, 1997 SCC (Crl) 804. In that case, while disbelieving the correctness and reliability of the F.I.R., the High Court had heavily placed reliance on the inquest report (Panchayatnama) prepared under Section 174 Cr.P.C. and contrasted it with the recitals made in the F.I.R. The High Court held that in the inquest report and Panchayatnama. was recorded that Shankar Lal was shot dead by firearm but it did not make any reference to the fat that he was also assaulted by Banka. The Investigating Officer had failed to record any injury on the person of Shanker Lal having been caused by Banka. Supreme Court disapproved the approach of the High Court, referring to an earlier decision in the case of Pedda Narain v. State of A.P., 1975 SCC (Crl) 427 to the following effect:
"A perusal of this provision would clearly show that the object of the proceedings under Section 174 is merely to ascertain whether a person has died under suspicious circumstances or an unnatural death and if so what is the apparent cause of the death. The question regarding the details as to how the deceased was assaulted or who assaulted him or under what circumstances he was assaulted appears to us to be foreign to the ambit and scope of the proceedings under Section 174. In these circumstances, therefore, neither in practice nor in law was it necessary for the police to have mentioned these details in the inquest report."
22. In fact the present case stands on better footing than that of State of U.P. v. Abdul (supra) Herein there is no such variance in the form of omission about the weapons of offence in F.I.R. and inquest report. Inquest report does contain the injuries whereas reference of weapons is there in the F.I.R. So, the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants cannot prevail. Nor can the F.I.R. be deemed to be ante-timed. It was specifically stated in the F.I.R. that the victim had been assaulted by knives. The Investigating Officer, namely, D.S. Yadav was not a medical expert and no adverse inference and be draw from the non-mentioning of weapon(s) by him in the inquest report. It cannot be interpreted to mean that the F.I.R. was non-existent at the time of the preparation of inquest report and it was ante timed. The reasoning of the learned counsel for the accused-appellants to attack the F.I.R. as being ante timed cannot be accepted and is accordingly rejected.
23. The learned counsel for the accused-appellants also doubted the manner of assault. He pointed out that as per the oral evidence of the prosecution. Satpal was on the back seat of the driver's seat in the bus and Vijai Pal Singh PW 1 himself was on still back seat of that of Satpal while he was allegedly talking with him at the time of the incident. He urged that there could hardly be any space in between the back of the driver's seat and front of Satpal's seat for the operation of as many as six accused-appellants for assaulting him with knives. We should point out that doubting the presence of the accused assailants Aas Mohd. And Abdul Wahab, we have afforded them benefit of doubt. The substratum of the ocular version is that accused appellants had suddenly entered the bus from the front door and had assaulted the victim, sealing the possibility of his escape. It could very well be possible when he was on the back seat of that of the driver's seat. As many as 14 incised wounds had been inflicted on different parts of his body. In an assault like the present on, picturesque description of the assault is not possible from the witnesses. When many persons look at an event, they have their own power, vision or opportunity to reckon with. Everyone cannot select same set of words and the incident is recounted by an individual in his own way. The assault on the victim, who received as many as 14 incised wounds on his body, at the hands of the four accused wielding knives (other than Aas Mohd. And Abdul Wahab) could very well be possible inside the bus when the victim was reclining in leisurely posture on the seat behind the driver's seat, talking with his brother Vijai Pal Singh, who was on the seat back to that occupied by him. The ocular version is very well in the conformity with the medical evidence and we do not find any merit in the argument of the learned counsel for the accused-appellants doubting the manner of the incident.
24. Now, we come to the criticism levelled by the learned counsel for the accused-appellants against the three eyewitnesses. It may be stated at the risk of repletion that Vijai Pal Singh PW 1 is the maker of the F.I.R. which was lodged with promptitude, distance of the Police Station from the place of occurrence being only two furlongs. We have found above that the F.I.R. was lodged at the time as given by the prosecution. It has been urged for the accused-appellants that Vijai Pal Singh PW 1 had no prior appointment to meet his brother Satpal and there was no occasion for him to be there at the time of incident. He invited our attention to this part of his statement that he did not know the place of residence of his brother Satpal in Meerut and it was highly improbable for him to have come to Hapur bus stand. It is not possible to accept this argument. True, Vijai Pal Singh PW 1 did not have any particular work with his brother Satpal. He was an agriculturalist by profession. Time is not the essence of life of persons of his status. He knew that Satpal was the conductor at the bus of Chaudhary Latafat on Meerut - Bulandshar route and he could be very sure to meet him at Hapur bus stand. It was not necessary for him to know Satpal's residential address at Meerut. He could certainly meet him at the Hapur bus stand where he was invariably to be available. It has come in his testimony that Satpal was living in Meerut all alone. There is nothing surprising that he came to meet his brother Satpal and waited for him at Hapur bus stand.
25. It was quite apt that he and his brother Satpal went inside the bus to converse. In our considered opinion, the criticism against the testimony of Vijai Pal Singh PW 1 is wholly unmerited. No doubt, he is the brother of the deceased, but this fact of his relationship does not adversely affect his testimony, he having withstood the test of cross-examination firmly with no ripples whatsoever. His presence at the spot is well explained.
26. We do not find anything to uphold the criticism against other two eyewitnesses either. So far as Rakesh PW 2 is concerned, he is the scribe of the F.I.R. also which he had written immediately after the incident. He well explained his presence at the spot that he was sitting in the office of bus stand when the incident took place. He was the booking clerk and had done booking duty from 11.00 AM. To 2.00 P.M. Thereafter he was in the officer for other work such as making entries of the issued tickets in the register etc. we find that he had no animus against the accused. Rather he was also an accused with the accused Aas Mohd., Abdul Rub etc. in the murder of Mubarak. Abdul Gaffar had even consulted him for striking a compromise with the family of Mubarak concerning the murder. There was nothing to indicate that he was thick with the deceased Satpal or his brother Vijai Pal Singh PW 1. The learned counsel for the accused-appellants argued that his duty had actually ended at 2.00 P.M. and he could not at all be present at the spot. The witness stated that his duty was upto 6.00 P.M. After doing booking duty from 11.00 A.M. to 2.00 P.M., he was on duty in the officer. It does not stand to reason that in private service an employee would be free only after doing three hours duty a day. The testimony of this witness inspires confidence that after office duty he used to work in the general office where he was at the relevant time. He specifically stated that he was not even related to Satpal or Vijai Pal Singh.
27. Learned counsel for the accused-appellants argued that as per S.I. Devendra Singh Yadva PW 7, he had tried to search witnesses Rakesh and Nawab and others at the bus stand but they were not available. We should point out that his name was there as witness in the F.I.R. The Investigating Officer was to attend to other important activities relating to investigation of the case such as preparing of inquest report etc. for sending the dead body for post mortem and his casual statement of having not found eyewitnesses at the bus stand cannot be interpreted too meticulously as to cast cloud on the testimony of this witness and for that matter of Nawab PW 3. Naturally, the spot which was a bus stand with a number of persons around would not have remained calm and quiet for some time when the Investigating Officer was busy in preparing inquest report etc. The Investigating Officer could not be expected to be searching the eyewitnesses first, leaving all other important aspects uncared for.
28. So far as Nawab PW 3 was concerned, we think that he was the most natural witness of the incident being the driver of bus No. UHD 238 which was to leave for Bulandshar at 4.25 P.M. At the time of the incident, it was the turn of another bus No. UTG 9295 which was being boarded by the passengers. After that bus, bus No. UHD 238 was scheduled to leave. Therefore, it is probablised that Nawab PW 3 was sitting in the officer nearby the bus where the incident took place. He very well explained that the bus had returned at 1.00 P.M. to Meerut from Bulandshahr. The passengers alighted 20-25 paces before the bus stand near petrol pump as there was some defect in the bus which was to be repaired. He got the bus repaired by Jabbar Mechanic near the petrol pump till about 3.30 P.M. and then brought it to the bus stand with the conductor Satpal, parked it near the officer of the bus stand and was waiting in the officer for the turn of the bus. The accused could not show any animus against him. He explained that after 1-15 minutes of the scribing of the F.I.R. he left for his village. Nothing adverse can be attributed against him for his such conduct. He had already been named in the F.I.R. as an eyewitness and it was not necessary for him to have stayed at the spot after the incident. It was for the Investigating Officer to record his statement in due course as part of the investigation. Naturally, there would have been a ruckus and commotion at the spot after the murder having taken place inside the bus of which he was the driver. It was certain the owing to the dead body lying inside the bus, it was not to leave for Bulandshar at its turn. Therefore, he has to be believed that after the incident and scribing of the F.I.R. out of fear he left for his village.
29. Much ado has been tried to be made on the basis of the affidavit Ext. Kha-8 allegedly sworn by this witness on 23.7.1983 disowning the accused-appellants as being the assailants of the deceased. It has been attempted to be proved by Sri Anis Ur Rahman, Advocate, DW 6. Balraj Singh DW 7 Handwriting Expert has opined that the signatures on the said affidavit tallied with the specimen signatures of this witness Nawab. The witness has emphatically denied to have sworn any such affidavit which purports to bear his signatures. He even stated that he can sign only in Urdu. The testimony of Sri Anis Ur Rahman was of no value because he had not identified Nawab PW 3 in the court as the person who sworn the said affidavit. The testimony of Balaraj Singh Tomar, a private Handwriting Expert, was not at all convincing. Moreover, there is no such procedure of filing of affidavit by a witness before the court to be read as his evidence. Evidence is that which is made before the Court and tested by cross-examination. It also cannot be lost sight of that although the accused stood to gain by production of an affidavit purported to have been filed by an eyewitness disowning them as the assailants of the deceased. In all probabilities, the accused cooked up such affidavit purporting the same to have been sworn by Nabab PW 3, putting up some impostor. In natural course of things, no eyewitness comes forward on his own to file such an affidavit as is attributed to him (Nawab PW 3) by the defence. The said affidavit has to be ignored and is ignored. The truth of the matter is that the testimony of Nawab PW 3, an eyewitness, tested through cross-examination is capable of being accepted as against the accused other than Aas Mohammand and Abdul Wahab to whom we are affording the benefit of doubt for the reasons stated earlier.
30. The crux of the above discussion is that the criticism levelled by the accused-appellants against the three eyewitnesses is wholly unmerited and the three eyewitnesses, namely, Vijai Pal Singh PW 1, Rakesh PW 2 and Nawab PW 3 deserve to be believed against the accused-appellants other than Aas Mohammad and Abdul Wahab.
31. Harendra having not been produced as an eyewitness, any discussion with regard to him would be a futile exercise. Needless to say, the case is decided on the basis of the evidence adduced in the court and not on the basis of surmises based on one who has not been examined as a witness.
32. We note that a suggestion was given to Vijay Pal Singh in his cross-examination that the murder of Satpal took place elsewhere at some other time, meaning thereby that the dead body was planted in the bus in question to make a show that the murder took place there at the hands of the accused. It would be recalled that all the injuries on the accused were found to be an mortem at the time of autopsy. It was simply a suggestion made in desperation.
33. It is not possible to give free flight to imagination. It stood established conclusively by the evidence of the eyewitnesses supported by other circumstances that the accused Abdul Gaffar Jabar, Abdul Rub and Mohd. Illiyas knifed the deceased to death in the bus in question on the given date, time and place. Even the blood stained lid (cap) of the gear box of the bus was taken in possession of by the Investigating Officer.
34. Having dealt with all the arguments of the learned counsel for the accused-appellants in the light of the evidence on record and the attending circumstances, we conclude that the accused, namely. Abdul Gaffar. Abdul Jabbar, Abdul Rub and Mohammad Iliyas are clinchingly established to be the assailants of the deceased Satpal by knifing him to death on the give date, time and place. Out of them, Mohammad Iliyas had died during the pendency of the appeal and the appeal has abated respecting him. Participation of the other two accused-appellants, namely, Aas Mohammad and Abdul Wahab is found to be doubtful and they have to be afforded the benefit of doubt. Leaving them, there were four participants of the crime, namely, Abdul Gaffar, Abdul Jabbar, Abdul Rub and Mohammad Iliyas (who died during the appeal). Although six accused-appellants were charged under Section 302 I.P.C. with the aid of Section 149 I.P.C. as also for rioting, but we find the assailants to be four only. Therefore, surviving accused-appellants, namely, Abudl Gaffar, Abdul Jabbar and Abdul Rub are guilty of having committed the murder of Satpal under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. the offence having been committed by them with previous meeting of minds and in concert. We should make it clear that the Supreme Court has held in the case of Amar Singh v. State of Haryana AIR 1973 SC 2221 that conviction with the aid of Section 34 I.P.C. can be passed on a charge under Section 302 I.P.C. read with Section 149 I.P.C. when the facts proved and the evidence adduced before the court would have been the same if the accused had been charged under Section 302 I.P.C. read with 34 I.P.C. In such a case, failure to charge the accused with aid of Section 34 I.P.C. does not result in any prejudice.
35. We, therefore, partly allow this appeal in the following way:
1) The accused-appellant Mohammad Iliyas has died during the pendency of the appeal and the appeal abates respecting him.
2) The participation of the two accused-appellants Aas Mohammad and Abdul Wabab in the commission of this crime being doubtful, their conviction and sentences are set aside and they are acquitted.
3) The conviction of accused-appellants, namely, Abdul Gaffar, Abdul Jabbar and Abdul Rub is confirmed, but under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. (instead of Sections 147, 148 I.P.C. and Section 302 read with Section 149 I.P.C.) Each of them is sentenced to undergo life imprisonment under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C.
4) The accused-appellants, Abdul Gaffar, Abdul Jabbar and Abdul Rub are on bail. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut is directed to cause them to be arrested and lodged in jail to serve out the sentence passed against them.
36. The judgement be certified to lower court immediately for reporting compliance within tow months from the date of receipt.