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

PETITIONER: RAM LAKHAN SINGH AND ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

DATE OF JUDGMENT06/05/1977

BENCH: GOSWAMI, P.K. BENCH: GOSWAMI, P.K. GUPTA, A.C. SHINGAL, P.N.

CITATION:  1977 AIR 1936            1978 SCR  (1) 125  1977 SCC  (3) 268

ACT: Indian Penal Code, ss. 396 and 302/149, conviction and death sentence under-Admitted enmity between accused and family of deceased-Independent neighbouring witnesses not examined  by prosecution-When    crime   established    but    criminals’ participation  questionable,  conviction  not  maintainable. Under  Art. 136 when appreciation of the entire evidence  is undertaken.

HEADNOTE: A dacoity was committed in village Jafrapur at about 9  P.M. The  inmates  of  the house raised  alarm.   A  large  crowd gathered at the gate and lit a fire to add to the  moonlight to  enable  recognition of the dacoits who opened  fire  and murdered  three members of the family.  The accused were  of neighbourhood  and admittedly inimical to the family of  the deceased  but  apart  from three inmates of  the  house,  an inimical  neighbour  and  another  person,  no   independent witness from the crowd was examined by the prosecution.  The accused were tried and convicted by the Sessions Court  u/s. 396  and  in the alternative under s.  302/149  I.P.C.,  and sentenced to death.  They were also convicted under sq. 148, 395  and 324/149 I.P.C. and variously sentenced.   The  High Court affirmed the conviction and sentence. On  appeal  by  special leave, this Court  agreed  that  the crimes   were  established,  but  doubted  the   appellants’ participation  in  the  same.  Acquitting them  of  all  the charges, the Court, HELD  : It is not enough in this case that the inmates  were natural  witnesses, and that they could  correctly  describe what had taken place inside the house.  The real question is whether  the accused have taken part in the crime and  their implication  in the case is free from reasonable  suspicion. The  appreciation  of the evidence against  the  accused  is replete  with  infirmities  affecting the  very  quality  of appreciation and are unable to hold that the prosecution has established   the   charges  against  the   accused   beyond reasonable doubt. [133 B, 135 A] That  ordinarily  this  Court  does  not  reappreciate   the evidence  in an appeal u/Art. 136 will not stand in the  way of going into the whole matter once again in such an unusual

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

case.   This Court will not deny protection under  Art.  136 when  there  is a pervading sense of  judicial  unsafety  in relying upon the evidence for the purpose of conviction. The Court observed : The police cannot conscientiously rest on their: oars  after submitting  a hasty charge-sheet leaving for good the  track of the real,offenders of the crime. Dagdu and Ors. etc. v. State of Maharashtra [1977] 3  S.C.R. 636, referred to.

JUDGMENT: CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 423 of 1974. (Appeal  by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order  dated 1-1-1974  of  the Allahabad High Court in Crl.   Appeal  No. 1086 of 1973 and Referred no. 60 of 1973.) R.   K. Garg, S. C. Agarwal, V. J. Francis, A. P. Gupta  and U. P. Misra,   for the,appellants. D.   P. Uniyal and O. P. Rana, for the respondent. 126 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by GOSWAMI, J.-There are cases where crimes are established but criminals’ participation is shrouded in suspicion.  This  is one such case. Three  murders  were committed in the course  of  a  dacoity during  the  early part of the night on April 20,  1972,  at about  9.00 P.M. All the inmates of the house  under  attack had  not  then finished their meals.  Lights  were  burning. The  village  was  awake.  Accused are  known and  of  the neighbourhood  combining  with four unknown  persons.   They came armed with fire-arms.  The fire was opened and two  men and one woman fell to the fatal bullets. Shrieks  and shouts came from the house as well as from  the house-top where insiders took position, torchlight with  one of  them, shouting frantically for help.  A large number  of men  gathered at the gate, some of them even  while  dacoity was  going on inside.  A fire was lit at the gate to add  to the moonlight to enable recognition of the dacoits. What  does it all lead to?  Only three inmates, PWs 1 to  3, an  inimical neighbour (PW 4) and a witness (PW 5),  out  of the hundred who gathered and who had not even been  examined by  the  police during the investigation, are before  us  to testify  to the guilt of the four assailants awaiting  their death sentence under section 396 IPC or 302/149 IPC. A perusal of the High Court judgment shows that it was  more confined to the proof of the crime than to a close  scrutiny about the complicity of the accused. The  High Court in agreement with the Sessions  Judge  found that  the witnesses were truthful since their  evidence  was corroborated   by,  medical  evidence,  the  tattooing   and scorching signs which are inevitable in any gunshot injury. Who  doubts the dacoity and the accompanying murders  ?  But did the neighbouring enemies take part in the dacoity ? That is  the  principal  question which has  to  lie  established beyond  reasonable  doubt  on  the  evidence  of  the  five- witnesses. Accused  Ram Lakhan Singh, Lalloo Singh, Shitla Baksh  Singh and  Rameshwar  Singh were convicted by the  Sessions  Judge under  section 396 IPC and in the alternative under  section 302/149  IPC  and  sentenced  to  death.   They  were   also convicted  under  sections  148, 395  and  324/149  IPC  and variously sentenced.  The High Court affirmed the conviction and sentence.  Hence this appeal by special leave.

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

The  occurrence took place at village Jafrapur about  twelve miles  from Jagatpur Police Station in the district  of  Rae Bareilly. At  village  Jafrapur,  there was a  very  well-to-do  joint family of three generations living together in a large  two- storied  house.   The family owns  substantial  cultivation, besides flour, saw and oil mills. 127 The  patriarch of the family is deceased Shiv Bahadur  Singh (55) who was also Pradhan of the village.  The other members of  the  family, all living together, are his  son,  Udairaj Singh  and his wife deceased Shmt.  Lakhpat (36)  and  their sons, Ram Naresh Singh (22)   (PW 1), deceased Ram Jas Singh (20) and Ram Kumar Singh (5)  and daughters, Ram Kumari (14) (PW  3) and Kumari Nirmala (8). Shmt.  Rajwati (17) (PW  2), wife of Ram Naresh Singh and Shmt.  Saroj, wife of  deceased Ram Jas Singh, were also living there. The  house  of  the  accused Jai  Singh,  Lalloo  Singh  and Rameshwar  Singh is close to the residence of  Shiv  Bahadur Singh.   In  the same village, Jafrapur, there  was  another family  of  accused Ram Lakhan Singh and  his  daughter  was married  to  accused  Shitla Baksh Singh  of  Manehru  at  a distance  of about one mile from Jafrapur.  It  appears  the case of accused Jai Singh was separated and he is not before us. The  two families of the accused were at daggers drawn  with the family of the deceased.  For years there have been civil and  criminal litigation between them and some were  pending even on the date of occurrence.  Proceedings were instituted by the police against both the parties under section 107 Cr. P. C. These wire also pending on the date of occurrence.  In connection  with the case under section 107 Cr.  P. C.  guns of Udairaj Singh and Ram Naresh Singh (PW 1) were  deposited with the authorities about a year before the occurrence.  In December  1971 Udairaj Singh had complained to the  District Magistrate,  Rae  Bareilly, against the  accused  and  other members  of  their family stating that there was  danger  to their  life and property.  On the other hand about  five  or six months before the occurrence accused Shitla Baksh  Singh also  lodged a report against deceased Shiv  Bahadur  Singh, Udairaj Singh and PW Ram Naresh Singh implicating them in  a dacoity and on the date of the occurrence they were on  bail in  that  case.   Shiv Bahadur Singh bad  a  flour  mill  in village Manehru.  Jaddu Singh, uncle of accused Shitla Baksh Singh  installed  a flour mill in front of  the  said  flour mill.  Business rivalry ensued.  One Mohan Mistry working in Shiv Bahadur Singh’s flour mill was said to be assaulted  by accused  Ram  Lakhan Singh and  others as Mohan  refused  to leave Shiv Bahadur Singh’s service in compliance with  their wish.   This  led to a case under section  308  IPC  against accused  Ram Lakhan Singh and three others and it was  fixed for trial in the Court of Sessions at Rae Bareilly on  April 21,  1972,  the day following the night of  occurrence.   In fact  Ram  Lakhan  Singh was arrested on  that  day  at  Rae Bareilly where he went for the case. In  the  backdrop  of the  aforesaid  fierce  hostility  and business  rivalry between the parties a dacoity with  murder was  committed  in the house of Shiv Bahadur  Singh  on  the night of April 20, 1972, at about 9.00 P.M. The first information report was lodged by Ram Naresh  Singh (PW 1) at midnight at 12.10 A.M. at Jagatpur Police Station. The FIR contains the names of five persons, namely,  accused Rameshwar 128 Singh  (65), Lalloo Singh (35), Jai Singh, Ram Lakhan  Singh

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

(45)  and Shitla Baksh Singh (25).  Rameshwar Singh,  Lalloo Singh and Jai Singh ate brothers.  Accused Ram Lakhan, Singh is the father-in-law of accused Shitla’Baksh Singh.  The FIR also  mentioned  that there were four unknown  persons  with them.  The FIR gave a list of 18 items of property including cash Rs. 13,500/- which were taken away by the dacoits after breaking  open almirahs and boxes.  The FIR gave a  detailed description  of  the entire incident from  entrance  of  the intruders  upto their bolting away after having  shot  three persons dead , namely, Shiv Bahadur Singh, Ram Jas Singh and Shmt.   Lakhpat.  The case was registered under section  396 IPC  and  the police arrived at the place of  occurrence  at about 4.00 A.M. According  to the prosecution, along with the  four  accused who had pistols with them, there were Jai Singh armed with a double  barrel  gun and four other unknown  men  dressed  in khaki uniforms with bandoliers.  At the time of  occurrence, Shiv  Bahadur Singh, Ram Jas Singh and Shmt.   Lakhpat  were taking  their meals in the court-yard.  These  nine  persons all  of a sudden entered their house.  Jai Singh and  Lalloo Singh  fired  shots at Shiv Bahadur Singh and he  fell  down dead.  Ram Jas Singh tried to escape.  Accused Shitla  Baksh Singh  and an unknown person caught him and brought  him  to the  court-yard.   Then Shitla Baksh Singh and  the  unknown person fired shots at him.  He also immediately died.  Shmt. Lakhpat, Shmt.  Rajwati, Shmt.  Saroj and Shmt.  Ram  Kumari ran  into  a  room and chained the door  from  inside.   The assailants broke open the door and accused Jai Singh and Ram Lakhan  Singh  entered  the  room  and  brought  out   Shmt. Lakhpat.   The other women also came out of the room.   Then Jai Singh and Ram Lakhan Singh shot Shmt.  Lakhpat dead.  At that  time  Shmt.  Ram Kumari also received  injury  from  a pellet  but was not directly attacked.  The unknown  persons then broke open two almirahs in the north verandha and  took out  a  sum of Rs. 13,500/-.  They also entered a  room  and broke  open  boxes  and took  out  ornaments.   The  dacoity continued  for 20/25 minutes after which all the  assailants ran away firing shots in the air. The prosecution relied upon the evidence of Ram Naresh Singh (PW  1), Rajwati (PW 2) Ram Kumari (PW 3), Rahim Bux (PW  4) and Ram Kishun (PW 5).  Both the Sessions Judge and the High Court accepted their testimony. It  is submitted by Mr. Uniyal on behalf of the  State  that there is no reason why we should reappraise the evidence and interfere with the conclusion of guilt affirmed by the  High Court.    Mr.  Garg,  on  the  other  hand,   submits   that notwithstanding  the evidence of these five witnesses  there is such an inherent improbability of the accused committing, the offence that the Sessions Judge and the High Court  have arrived at a completely erroneous conclusion which we should not  accept  in the interest of  Justice.   Counsel  further submits that it is not merely a question of appreciation  of evidence  as such but appreciation of the realities  of  the situation whether under the entire circumstances which  have been brought out in the evidence the accused could have 129 taken  part  in the crime in the way  alleged  without  even taking  precaution  to  conceal their  identity.   Mr.  Garg submits  that  the first information report could  not  have been lodged at the hour described in the detailed manner  in which  it  has been written.  He submits that  it  was  more likely  that Ram Naresh Singh did not know any names of  the accused  and it was only after the police had  arrived  that the accused were roped in with the four unknown men to wreak vengeance.

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

Mr.  Uniyal  submits  that there  is  party-faction  in  the village,  one party supported by the deceased’s. family  and the other by that of the accused.  There was enmity  between the  parties  and the authorities had been informed  by  the deceased  about  threat to life and  property.   He  further submits that the object of the attack was to murder and wipe out the family and not dacoity which was incidental for  the purpose-of  enlisting  the aid of four unknown  men  in  the crime.   According  to him if the object was  dacoity  there would  have been some evidence as to snatching of  ornaments from the person of the ladies as also an attempt at  getting hold  of the keys for the purpose of opening the  boxes  and almirahs  to  facilitate  the robbery.   Further  there  was immediate  opening of fire to kill the inmates.  Mr.  Uniyal submits  that the witnesses are natural witnesses and  their testimony  should  not  be rejected  when  two  courts  have accepted the same. We  have given anxious consideration to the  submissions  of Mr.  Uniyal but for the reasons which will presently  follow it is not possible to hold that the charges are  established against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The Sessions Judge has more or less prefaced his judgment by observing  that  Shitla  Baksh Singh’s  "family  is  of  law breakers".  He further observed as follows :-               "I  may also mention that Shiv  Bahadur  Singh               and members of his family always took recourse               to  law and the accused persons acted  as  law               breakers.   It  is  true  that  cases  against               Rameshwar Singh were of civil nature and  that               there  was no criminal case against him.   But               in  these days offenders bear  grudge  against               and  become hostile to the person  who  either               takes civil action or criminal action  against               them.  I may further mention that Shitla Baksh               Singh  ventured to implicate respectable,  law               abiding  and  very  well to  do  persons  Shiv               Bahadur  Singh,  his  son and  grandson  in  a               dacoity  case.   This clearly  speaks  of  his               malice towards them.               The  position  that I conclude  is  that  Shiv               Bahadur  Singh and members of his family  were               law  abiding persons and always took  recourse               to  law, whereas the accused persons  are  law               breakers   and   they   were   positively   in               mical/hostile  to Shiv Bahadur Singh  and  his               family".               x x x x               Baksh Singh’s) father-in-law, Ram Lakhan Singh               accused  was convicted under section  308  IPC               case   brought   by  Mohan  servant   of   the               complainant. . . . . 130 From  the  above we are of opinion bat  the  Sessions  Judge adopted  a  highly incorrect approach in trying  a  criminal case While  dealing  with the evidence, of Rahim Bux (PW  4)  the Sessions  Judge referred to the fact of his  evidence  being accepted  in  another  case under section  308  IPC  against accused  Ram Lakhan Singh and he took note that  Ram  Lakhan Singh was convicted in that case.  From this he observed :               "It  means  that the testimony  of  Rahim  was               believed.   The  defence has  not  shown  that               evidence  of  Rahim was found  false  in  that               case.  In case Rahim gave correct evidence ill               the  case of Mohan then in my opinion  he  can

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

             also  be believed in the present case  because               he is a natural witness of the occurrence". This is again a wrong approach. Although the judgment of the Sessions Judge is otherwise  an exhaustive  judgment  it cannot be said from  the  instances which  we have set out above that his appreciation  is  free from  legal infirmity of some kind of prejudice against  the accused who are described as "law breakers".  In our  system of  law an accused starts with a presumption  of  innocence. His  bad character is not relevant unless he gives  evidence of good character in which case by rebuttal, evidence of bad character may be adduced (Section 54 of the Evidence Act). With  regard to accused Rameshwar Singh the  Sessions  Judge observed  that  "the presence of Rameshwar Singh  was  quite necessary with the assailants because he knew very well  the circuitous route of going inside the house of the  victims". This is again a very faulty appreciation of the case against accused Rameshwar Singh who is 65 years old and who need not himself   have  taken  the  trouble  of   accompanying   the assailants when his younger brothers were there. The  High Court also did not closely examine the case  which contain   several   extra-ordinary   features   and    above infirmities in the judgment of the trial court.  To say  the least,  that the accused were none but known persons of  the neighbourhood   highly  inimically  disposed   towards   the deceased and the crime was committed when the whole  village was awake, should call for an onerous test regarding  credi- bility.   In  disposing  of the argument  on  the  score  of improbability the High Court observed as follows :-               "There  can  be more than one reason  for  the               appellants  themselves having gone  to  commit               the  offences  charged against  them.   It  is               quite  likely that the unknown persons  picked               up  by the appellants were not prepared to  go               for  the perpetration of the crime unless  the               appellants also accompanied them.  It is  also               likely that the appellants were swayed by  the               feelings  of old time chivalry and wanted  not               only  their adversaries to be killed but  also               wanted  to demonstrate to them that  they  met               their  doom for having the audacity  to  incur               their displeasure’. 131 Dealing with the arguments regarding absence of  independent evidence the High Court observed :               "In the particular circumstances of this case,               therefore,  the mere fact that no  independent               person   has  come  forward  to  support   the               prosecution  version of the occurrence can  be               no  ground for discarding the evidence of  the               witnesses already examined, particularly  that               of  Ram  Naresh Singh, Smt.  Rajwati  and  Ram               Kumari P.Ws’. With  regard to the evidence of Ram Kishun (PW 5 who  a  not even been examined by the investigating officer, both courts relied on his evidence and the High Court observed that "the evidence  of Ram Kishun can also therefore be  pressed  into use in order to lend assurance to the evidence of the  other witnesses".   The above observation of the High Court  would go to show that it was trying to look for further  assurance from some independent source to corroborate the testimony of the  eye witnesses who are all inimically  disposed  towards the accused.  We also do not find in either of the judgments any  reference to the prosecution not examining all the  eye witnesses mentioned in the FIR.

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

Thus  when  we find that the appreciation  of  the  evidence against the accused is replete with infirmities pointed  out above affecting the very quality of appreciation, this Court will  have  to  undertake for itself,  in  the  interest  of justice,  a  thorough examination of the  evidence  and  the entire  circumstances to satisfy itself about the  guilt  of the accused who have been awarded the extreme penalty  under the  law.  That ordinarily this Court does not  reappreciate the evidence in an appeal by special leave under Article 136 of  the Constitution will not stand in the way of our  going into  the whole matter once again in such an  unusual  case. This Court will not deny protection under Article 136 of the Constitution when there is a pervading sense of judicial un- safety  in  relying  upon the evidence for  the  purpose  of conviction. The  Sessions Judge wrongly accepted the  prosecution  case that "the assailants had come to destroy the entire  family" and  that  "in the present case the main  intention  of  the known assailants was to murder Shiv Bahadur Singh and  other members  of his family’.  It is difficult to appreciate  how this alone can be the object when we find that Udairaj Singh and  Ram Naresh Singh who were all along shouting  from  the roof and were focussing a torch upon the intruders, who even fired  towards them, were spared.  If the Sessions Judge  is right  about  the  object of the attack,  it  will  only  be consistent with the absence of Udairaj Singh and Ram  Naresh Singh in which case the evidence of Ram Naresh Singh will be open  to grave suspicion.  Even Udairaj Singh has  not  been examined  by  the  prosecution as  a  witness  although  the Sessions  Judge has referred in his judgment  "that  Udairaj Singh  told them (people who gathered) that Rameshwar  Singh and  others had killed his father and son. . . . . .  ".  In the  absence of Udairaj Singh this statement is  of,  course inadmissible, but this is pointed out only to show that  the culprits  named,  at that stage, were "Rameshwar  Singh  and others" and not all the accused and that withholding of  his evidence  was deliberate.  If the killing of the persons  is the main intention, it 132 is  difficult  to appreciate why it was  necessary  for  the accused  Shitla  Baksh Singh and another unknown  person  to have  caught  Ram Jas Singh while he was  running  away  and brought him back to the courtyard for the purpose of  firing at  him  in order to kill him.  He could  have  been  killed while  he  was running away.  The reason why  the  witnesses have stated that Ram Jas Singh was brought to the court-yard was perhaps to enable Ram Naresh Singh and others to see the killing.  The courts have not taken note of this at all. The most unusual feature in the case is that in spite of the fact that people from the neighbourhood gathered at the gate of  the house and were said to be watching when the  dacoity was being committed inside and nine persons from among  them were named as witnesses in the FIR only Rahim Bux (PW 4) who was admittedly inimical towards the accused was examined  to impeicate the accused. Another  unusual feature is that Ram Naresh Singh, who  went to,  the police station about half an hour after  commission of the dacoity leaving three dead bodies in the house  would have himself the equanimity and patience to detail an  essay of  information at the police station.  It would  have  been more  natural for him just to tell the police  that  murders and dacoity were committed by the persons whom he could name and  the  names  of the witnesses who  could  recognise  the dacoits.   It is also surprising that he could give  a  long list  of  articles with weight and value  when  lodging  the

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

first information report.  The constable who wrote the first information report containing five pages appended a note  at the  foot of the FIR certifying that "the statement  of  the complainant has been taken down in the check report word for word".  Even in this unusually long first information report accused  Rameshwar Singh was not ascribed any part  although during evidence it was stated that he was the first to  have "challenged"  and threatened the inmates after  which  other accused opened fire.  There is also no mention in this  long report  about  Ram Kumari having received any  injury.   One should  have  thought it rather unusual for  the  police  to delay  for  a long time in the Thana after  they  have  been informed  of such a dastardly crime committed  twelve  miles away  and not immediately to go to the place  of  occurrence and  take  immediate  steps for  apprehending  the  near  by culprits.   The  police  could have spared  the  trouble  of cataloguing   in  the  FIR  the  instances  of  enmity   and description of the pending courts cases while it might  have been enough to mention that the family of Shiv Bahadur Singh had enmity with the accused persons. It  is  because of these unusual features that  the  defence strongly  suggested  that  there was  some  manipulation  in lodging  the first information report in this case and  that therefore mention of the names of the accused therein should not be treated with the same importance as is done in normal cases. This is not a case in which a dacoity was committed at  dead of  night when inmates were asleep and they could  recognise the  dacoits while committing the dacoity and there  was  no other  independent person nearby who could have  seen  them. There being admittedly 133 enmity between the accused and the ’deceased’s family it was the  bounden of the prosecution to examine the  neighbouring witnesses who were there and named in the- first information report  to corroborate the testimony of the  inmates.   That out  of  the  neighbouring  witnesses  named  in  the  first information report only Rahim Bux (PW 4) who was  inimically disposed  towards  the accused was selected throws  a  great deal  of doubt in the prosecution case against the  accused. It is not enough in this case that the inmates were  natural witnesses,  as  the courts emphasised, and that  they  could correctly  describe what had taken place inside  the  house. The real question is whether the accused have taken part  in the  crime  and their implication in the case is  free  from reasonable suspicion. Our  attention is drawn by Mr. Uniyal to an  application  by the  Public  Prosecutor  filed before  the  court  that  the statements of the other witnesses were not necessary.  There is nothing to show that they were either unwilling to depose in  favour  of  the  prosecution or were  won  over  by  the accused.  When the witnesses named in the first  information report   were  not  considered  necessary  by   the   Public Prosecutor, it is curious to find that Ram Kshun who was not examined  by the police nor was he cited in the  chargesheet was  found necessary and was examined as PW 5. According  to the  evidence  the  two servants of  Udairaj  Singh  namely, Pancham  and  Ghurai,  were at the  gate  when  the  robbers entered  the  house  and they went to the  village  to  call people.   They  also returned later with the  people.   Even then these two witnesses were not examined as witnesses.  As already pointed out even Udairaj Singh who flashed his torch and must have seen the intruders was withheld.  It is rather intriguing that Rahim Bux (PW 4) stated in his evidence that "Udairaj told us that Rameshwar and others had fired at  his

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

father and son".  This is repeated by Ram Kishun (PW 5) when he  stated "Udairaj Singh told us that Rameshwar  Singh  and others had entered his house".  One is left to guess whether it is because of this reason that Udairaj Singh has not been examined  as a witness and the statements attributed to  him have  also become inadmissible in evidence It is clear  that the  prosecution does not require that part of the  evidence and left it to be finally inadmissible.  There is no  reason why Udairaj Singh would not have been able to name, all  the accused  persons  to  PWs 4 and 5.  His  non-examination  is suspect. Again  if the object of the accused was to murder  and  wipe out  the entire family, as has been found, by  the  Sessions Judge,  there  is no reason why in spite of  their  noticing Udairaj  Singh and Ram Naresh Singh on the roof  they  would have  left them without a scratch in spite of the fact  that Ram  Naresh Singh stated that the accused had tired  towards them. Some importance is given by the prosecution to the  evidence that the accused tried to search for the youngest boy in the family, namely, Ram Kumar Singh (5), who was sleeping in the courtyard.   This  fact  is  even  mentioned  in  the  first information  report.   We are, however, unable to  give  any unusual  importance to this which may as well perhaps  be  a clever verisimilitude- 134 When  the police found that along with four unknown  persons certain  enemies of the deceased were named as  culprits  it was their duty to keep that fact in mind while investigating into the crime.  On the other hand we find that there was no investigation  worth the name in this case even  though  the Superintendent of Police arrived at the place of  occurrence the  following  morning.  Even a police constable  from  Rae Bareilly, the District Headquarters, arrived at the place of occurrence  at 6.00 A.M., about two hours after the  arrival of  the  Jagatpur  police.  It is not  known  how  and  what information  was  received  Rae Bareilly  kotwali.   It  is, however, admitted that Sub-Inspectors from Rae Bareilly also came  with the S.P. at 8.00 A.M., the following  morning  to the  place of occurrence.  Rae Bareilly is about  ten  miles from  the village whereas Jagatpur is twelve miles.   It  is equally intriguing that in such a case the police  submitted the charge-sheet on May 11, 1972, after about three weeks of the  occurrence.   The  police, therefore, did  not  at  all consider it necessary to investigate the case, carefully  to rule  out  the possibility of the enemies  of  the  deceased being implicated due only to grave suspicion.  It is  indeed surprising that the police officer did not think it his duty to immediately arrest the accused living next door if he had no  doubt  about  their complicity disclosed  in  the  first information report.  The Police Officer (PW 7) stated in his evidence  that  he had asked one of  the  Sub-Inspectors  to arrest the accused but did not tell if that officer tried to find  them  out in their house.  Even that officer  has  not been examined as a witness in this case.  This is an unusual and unnatural attitude on the part of the police officer  in such a serious case if the names of the accused  immediately available bad been truly disclosed.  Again, when the  police officer  was  asked as to bow the police from  Rae  Bareilly came there he was unable to give any reason and stated  that he  could  not say "how the information in respect  of  this occurrence  had  reached  the  kotwali".   We  should   have expected the police officer at least to have asked the  Sub- Inspectors  of  kotwali as to how they came to know  of  the occurrence   in  which  case  there  would  have  been   the

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

possibility of some information at Rae Bareilly which  might even  be  earlier than the actual first  information  report received  at  the Jagatpur Police Station.  This  fact  also reduces  the  weight  that  may be  attached  to  the  first information report in this case at Jagatpur. After  all this discussion when we come to the  judgment  of the High ,Court we find that it was of the opinion that "the evidence  of Ram Kishun can also therefore be  pressed  into use in order to lend assurance to the evidence of the  other witnesses". It  is  true that no enmity or grudge is  suggested  against this  witness,  but we find that this witness was  not  even examined by the police nor was he cited in the  chargesheet. In a grave charge like the present, it will not be proper to place  reliance  on a witness who never figured  during  the investigation  and was not. named in the  chargesheet.   The accused who are entitled to know his earlier version to  the police are naturally deprived of an opportunity of effective cross-examination  and  it  will be difficult  to  give  any credence  to a statement which was given for the first  time in  court after about a year of the occurrence.  We  cannot, therefore, agree that the High Court was right in  accenting the 135 evidence  of  this  witness  as  lending  assurance  to  the testimony  of  other witnesses on the basis of  which  alone perhaps, the High Court felt unsafe to convict the accused. After having examined the entire evidence and  circumstances in  a case of this description, we are unable to affirm  the conviction  on  the  oral testimony of  the  aforesaid  five witnesses  and to hold that the prosecution has  established the  charges  against the accused beyond  reasonable  doubt. We, therefore, give the four accused the benefit of  reason- able doubt and acquit them of all the charges.  The judgment and order of the High Court sentencing the accused to  death and  other sentences are set aside and the accused shall  be released from detention forthwith. We  may observe that this is a case where the police  cannot conscientiously rest on their oars after submitting a  hasty chargesheet leaving for good the track of the real offenders of  the crime.  This is equally the problem for the  general police  administration  throughout the country to  which  we direct  attention in a recent judgment in Dagdu and  Others, etc. v. State of Maharashtra(1). M.R.                                 Appeal allowed. (1) [1977] 3 S.C.R. 636 136