JUDGMENT M.C. Jain, J.
1. This appeal has been preferred by six appellants, namely, Bhurey Singh, Sardar son of Nanhu Singh, Badri, Kishori alias Khacheru, Liladhar and Sardar son of of Nanhu Jatav. The judgment assailed is one dated 30.9.1981 passed by Sri B.N. Sinha, the then V Additional Sessions Judge, Budaun in S.T. No. 133 of 1981. He has convicted all of them under Section 302 read with Section 149 I.P.C. sentencing each to life imprisonment. Badri and Kishori have further been convicted under Section 147 I.P.C. with 1 1/2 years rigorous imprisonment awarded to each of them. The remaining four have be convicted under Section 148 I.P.C. with two years rigorous imprisonment to each of them.
2. Amongst the appellants, Bhurey Singh and Sardar son of Nanhu Singh are real brothers and Badri is son of Bhurey. The remaining three accused allegedly belong to the party of these three. The incident occurred on 23.9.1980 at about 11 A.M. in village Singhadalpur, P.S. Rajpura, District Budaun and the F.I.R. was lodged by an eyewitness Raja Ram P.W. 1 the same day at 1 P.M. The distance of Police Station from the place of occurrence was about 6 Kms. The deceased was one Ram Prasad alias. Parsadi who was also the resident of the same village Singhdalpur.
3. The prosecution case was that there was enmity and litigation between the deceased and appellant Bhurey Singh Pradhan for the last several years. Out of fear, the deceased left the village with his family 6-7 years hack and went to District Nainital. In his absence, Bhurey Singh Pradhan got his house demolished and removed off its contents and belongings. When the deceased came to know of it, he instituted a civil suit for. damages against Bhurey Singh and his. partymen. Three months before this incident, the deceased had returned to his village along with his family members and had constructed a new house, starting living therein. He also purchased about 10 Bighas of land. It was not relished by Bhurey Singh. He instituted a false theft case against the deceased who got himself bailed out in that case. It was detested by Bhurey Singh. The date in civil suit was fixed two days ahead of the incident. On the day of occurrence, the deceased had gone to plough his fields along with bullocks and plough. His son Raja Ram PW 1 took his meals there at about 8.30 A.M. and then joined him in agricultural operations. His collateral Ram Gulam alias Kam Gupai PW 2 a child of about 12 years also went to the same field for scrapping grass. At about 11 A.M. the deceased was returning back from his held with the plough and an aluminium container meant for taking water. His son Raja Ram PW 1 followed him with bullocks and his collateral Ram Gulam alias Ram Gopal PW 2 also followed him with the heap of grass collected by him. The deceased was going from north to south towards the village. When he reached the road crossing, all the six appellants emerged from the millet filed of Murari where they had ambushed themselves. They surrounded the deceased. Bhurey Singh and Liladhar were armed with countrymade pistols. Sardar - brother of Bhurey had a Pharsa. Sardar son of Nanhu Jatav was armed with a spear. Badri and Khacheru alias Kishori had lathis with them. Bhurey Singh held out that he would teach him (deceased) a lesson for the litigation indicated by him. Raja Ram And Ram Gulam raised alarm. Throwing his plough and aluminium container on the ground, the deceased tried to run away, but Bhurey Singh fired at him from the back. Leeladhar fired at him from the front. The deceased fell down on the ground whereafter the remaining accused persons started beating him with their respective weapons, i.e. Pharsa, spear and lathis. Babu PW 3, Itwari and Mishri also reached the spot and challenged the appellants. They then took away to their heels. The deceased died at the spot.
4. Leaving the dead body of the deceased in the care of others, Raja Ram PW 1 went to the Police Station on foot and lodged the F.I.R. by oral narration. A case was registered and investigation started by S.I. Balbhan Singh Yadav PW 4. He recorded the statement of the informant and proceeded to the spot. Inquest report was prepared and other formalities were completed. The dead body was sealed and sent for post mortem. He took in possession blood stained and simple earth from the spot. He also recovered pellets, wads etc. therefrom.
5. Post mortem over the dead body of the deceased was conducted by Dr. V.K. Sharma PW 8 on 24.9.1980 at 3 P.M. The deceased was about 50 years of age and one day had passed since he died. The following ante-mortem injuries were found on his person:
1. Incised wound 12 cm x 1 cm x muscle deep on left side, 3 cm hack of the left ear.
2. Incised wound 7 cm x 1.5 cm x muscle deep on left side, 3 cm above injury No. 1.
3. Incised wound 10 cm x 1.5 cm x bone, deep, 2 cm above injury No. 2.
4. Incised wound 10 cm x 1.5 cm x bone deep on the scalp.
5. Contusion 3 cm x 1 cm on the left side of head, 3 cm above the left ear.
6. Contusion 6 cm x 2 cm on the left shoulder joint.
7. Circular 35 abrasions in diameter of 2 mm in an area of 20 cm x 14 cm on left side of the back.
8. Contusion 6 cm x 2 cm on the back obliquely.
9. Contusion 3 cm x 2 cm on the other side in middle of left thigh.
10. Contusion 1 cm x 1 cm on the left knee joint.
11. Conlusion 2 cm x I cm on the outer and middle of left leg.
12. Incised wound 3 on x lent x muscle deep, 6 cm above the right arm.
13. Contusion 5 cm x 2 cm on right shoulder.
14. Abraded contusion 6 cm x 2 cm on the back of left wrist and hand.
15. Lacerated wound 3 cm x .5 cm x 5 cm on the upper outer part of thigh.
16. Contusion 2 cm x 1 cm x 1 cm on the joint of right knee.
17. One gunshot wound of entry in a diameter of 2.5 cm. inverted margins, on left hypochondrium region, abdominal cavity deep with stomach lacerated and in the peritonial cavity, one litre blood mixed with unidentified food was found and 35 pellets were also recovered from the stomach.
6. The cause of death was shock and haemorrhage resulting from ante-mortem injuries which were sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death. Injury No. 17 was caused by firearm; injury No. 1 to 4 and 12 were caused by sharp edged weapons and rest by lathis. As indicated in ante-mortem injury No. 17 above, 35 pellets were recovered by the Doctor from the dead body of the deceased.
7. The prosecution relied upon the testimony of eyewitness Raja Ram PW 1, Ram Gulam alias Ram Gopal PW 2 and Babu PW 3 besides, formal evidence including that of investigation and post mortem.
8. The defence was of denial and false implication owing to enmity. No evidence was adduced by the accused appellants in defence.
9. The trial judge found the case to be proved on the strength of evidence adduced by the prosecution and accordingly convicted and sentenced the accused as stated in the opening part of the judgment. Aggrieved, the accused have preferred this appeal. It was filed through Sri P.C. Jhingan, Advocate. The appeal came on the board for hearing on 3.2.2004. None responded from the side of appellants at the revision of the list despite being represented on record by Sri P.C. Jhingan, Advocate. The appeal was, therefore, ordered to be listed in the next cause list for being heard as provided by the Apex Court in the case of Bani Singh v. State of U.P. (1996) 4 SCC 720. In the said ease, the Apex Court has ruled that when both the appellants and lawyer are absent on the appointed date of hearing, the court is not bound to adjourn the case but should dispose of the appeal on merits by perusing the reasoning of the trial court given in the judgment and cross checking the same with the evidence on record. We, therefore, heard Sri A.K. Dwivedi, learned A.G.A. on the next date 10.2.2004 and perused the record. It may be stated that on this day also, none responded from the side of the appellants at the revision of the list. It is under these, circumstances that we have undertaken to decide this appeal on merits.
10. To begin with, the F.I.R. of this case was prompt one having been lodged by an eyewitness Raja Ram PW 1 within two hours of the happening. As stated earlier also, the distance of the Police Station from the place of occurrence was about 6 Kms. The court was lodged by him by oral narration which indicates its spontaneity and genuineness. It was a broad daylight incident. A look at the post mortem report would also reveal that the deceased sustained injuries of blunt object, sharp edged weapon and firearm. It would be recalled that out of the six appellants, two had allegedly used firearms, two others sharp edged weapons and the remaining two lathis. Therefore, the injuries sustained by the deceased are in conformity with the prosecution version as to the nature of the weapons used by the assailants (appellants). He had in all sustained 17 injuries, out of which, 2 were gunshot wounds of entry, 5 were incised wounds and the rest contusions/ abraded contusions/lacerated wound. The ante-mortem injuries sustained by the deceased are also compatible with the number of the accused appellants.
11. Three eyewitnesses, namely, Raja Ram PW 1, Ram Gulam alias Ram Gopal PW 2 and Dabu PW 3 supported the prosecution case. Raja Ram PW 1 himself was informant whereas the names of other two eyewitnesses found place in the F.I.R.
12. The number of injuries found on the person of the deceased fully established that he was the victim of violence having been assaulted by three types of weapons. The alleged place of incident was fixed from the physical evidence found by the Investigating. Officer on the spot. The dead body itself was found from that spot. Plough and aluminium container were also found nearby. Wads and pellets were recovered by him from that spot. He also recovered blood stained earth from that spot. So, to come to the point, the complained spot of the incident was also beyond the pale of doubt.
13. The three eyewitnesses were subjected to searching and lengthy cross-examination, but nothing could be elicited to shake the central core of then testimony that they saw the ghastly crime with their own eyes. Each assigned convincing reason for his presence at the spot. Though Raja Ram PW 1 was the son of the deceased but the relationship could be no ground to reject his testimony. It was by who had lodged the F.I.R. with promptitude within two hours of the incident. He very well explained that his father had gone to plough the field in the morning and he subsequently joined him at about 8.30 A.M., taking his food there, The deceased took his food at about 8.30 A.M. and they resumed agricultural operations of ploughing till about 10.30 A.M. Small intestine of the deceased was filled with gases and small amount of faecal matter. The condition of intestine of the deceased was corroborative of Ms having taken food at about 8.30 AM that day. The witness himself was weeding out grass from the field. Ram Gulam alias Ram Gopal PW 2 had also reached there for scrapping grass and they had all left for home together when the incident occurred in the way.
14. We note from the perusal of the impugned judgment that the testimony of Raja Ram PW 1 was challenged before the lower court on the ground that he did not state in the F.I.R. that he had gone to the field with food of his father and that therein simply it was stated that he was returning with his father after ploughing the held. The argument was rightly rejected by the trial Judge. The witness was not a legal expert Minute details are not required to be slated in the F.I.R. It is well settled that the F.I.R. is not encyclopaedia of every minute detail. He had seen the ghastly murder of his father with his own eyes. The essential details as to the time and place of incident, names of the assailants and arms used by them were stated by him in the oral F.L.R. lodged at the Police Station. The background of enmity and litigation with Bhurey Singh appellant was also briefly related in the F.I.R., which he narrated in his testimony also before the court. It was quite natural that he went with the food of his father to the field as his father had left home for the field in early morning for ploughing. It is quite usual in rural life that some member(s) of the family go to the field for agricultural operations in early morning and some other member of the family carries his/their food to the field.
15. Ram Gulam alias Ram Gopal PW 2, no doubt, was a collateral of the deceased and a child witness aged about 12 years. His competence of giving evidence was tested by voir dire. He had gone to the field of the deceased for scrapping grass and at the relevant time was returning with a load of grass over his head. He gave graphic details of the incident. His evidence was consistent with that of Raja Ram PW 1 and the other witness Babu PW 3. He also explained as to. why he had gone to that very field of the deceased to scrap the grass. According to him, grass was not available in the nearby fields because they were already ploughed and cultivated. Therefore, it was not surprising that he went for scrapping grass in a field of one of his Khandan. We do not locate any inconsistency in the testimony of this child witness. On careful scrutiny, we find that the evidence of this witness does not suffer from any infirmity.
16. Babu PW 3 was also resident of the same village. At the time of incident, he was cutting fodder from the field of Itwari. Itwari and one Mishri were also present there. The field of Itwari was just in the west of the place of incident as per the site plan. This attention was drawn to the scene of occurrence by the alarm raised by Raja Ram PW 1 and Ram Gulam alias Ram Gopal PW 2. Me saw all the accused persons surrounding the deceased from all the sides. He witnessed the debased throwing away the plough on the ground and trying to escape. He also saw the accused Bhurey shooting at him from his countrvmade pistol from the backside. Lila Dhar fired at him from the front side. He saw the deceased falling down and he named all of the accused assaulting him with their respective weapons. He deposed that Raja Ram with the bullocks and Ram Gulam were raising alarm. The deceased died at the spot and the accused ran away, when challenged. The witness explained that he had no fodder in any of his fields and, therefore, he used to take fodder from the field of other persons with their permission. On that day also, he was cutting fodder from the field of itwari with his permission and Itwari was also present with him. Obviously, there was nothing surprising, unnatural or unusual in it. It has to be recalled that he belonged to the same village Singhdalpur. He was quite independent with no animus to falsely implicate any of the accused. The only enmity of this witness was alleged with the accused appellant Sardar Jatav that rainy water of his house used to fall in the house of Sardar Jalav on account of which there existed ill will between the two. The witness candidly admitted that the house of Sardar Jatav was at a short distance from his own house but specifically denied any dispute between him and Sardar Jatav on account of flow of rainy water. In fact, the flow of rainy water was a natural eventuality which could hardly actuate him to depose falsely against Sardar Jatav. Further, Sardar Jartav had done nothing to incur his displeasure because the allegation was that rainy water of this witness was flowing towards his house. On scrutiny of the testimony of this witness Babu PW 3 too, we are in agreement with the learned trial Judge that he was trustworthy, reliable and independent witness with no animus against the accused appellants.
17. As a result of the above discussion, we endorse the finding of the learned trial Judge that complicity of all the six appellants in the offence of murder of Ram Prasad alias Parsadi was proved to the hilt beyond any shadow of doubt. 'They formed unlawful assembly and ambushed themselves as alleged, variously armed. In prosecution of common object of such unlawful assembly, they emerged from their hiding and committed the murder of unfortunate and unarmed deceased. There is neither any perversity, nor misreading of evidence warranting interference by this Court. Rather, the conviction has been recorded for cogent and convincing reasons.
18. Finding no merit in the appeal, we hereby dismiss it.
19. The accused appellants are on bail. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Budaun shall cause them to be arrested and lodged in jail to serve out the sentences passed against them.
20. The judgment be certified to the lower court and compliance be reported within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order along with the record which shall be sent to the court, below forthwith.