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