The High Court of Allahabad has held that where witnesses immediately reach the place of occurrence, see the accused fleeing with a blood-stained weapon, and hear a contemporaneous alarm naming the accused, such evidence is relevant and can form a reliable chain of incriminating circumstances; the contemporaneous utterance is admissible under Section 6 of the Evidence Act as part of the same transaction, and the accused’s conduct in fleeing is relevant under Section 8 of the Evidence Act.
The Court ruled that documents whose genuineness is admitted under Section 294 CrPC constitute substantive evidence and can be relied upon without formal proof. Essentially, where a homicidal death occurs inside the accused’s house in circumstances especially within his knowledge, and he offers no explanation, Section 106 of the Evidence Act can operate against him as an additional incriminating circumstance.
Accordingly, the Court held that although the appellate court may find that the trial court ought not to have reduced the offence from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part II IPC, it cannot enhance or alter the conviction to Section 302 IPC in the absence of a State appeal or enhancement proceedings; however, it may modify the sentence to impose fine under Section 307 IPC, treating fine as an integral part of the sentence under that provision.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Santosh Rai observed that the trial court was right in concluding that the appellant was responsible for the assault on Chhotey Lal, but the conversion of the case from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part II IPC was not supported by cogent reasoning. The Bench specifically observed that if reliance was placed on PW-3 and PW-6, there was no justifiable basis to absolve the accused of the offence under Section 302 IPC. It found that the trial court had not properly appreciated the evidence, especially the medical evidence and the injury report of Shanti Devi.
The Bench further observed that a document admitted under Section 294 CrPC becomes substantive evidence and can be read in evidence without formal proof. It held that the evidence of PW-3 and PW-6 that they saw the accused fleeing from the place of occurrence with a blood-stained spade, coupled with PW-1’s contemporaneous alarm naming the accused, constituted relevant evidence. The Bench treated the alarm as admissible under Section 6 of the Evidence Act as part of the same transaction (res gestae), and the conduct of fleeing with the weapon as relevant under Section 8 of the Evidence Act.
The Bench also invoked Section 106 of the Evidence Act, observing that the death occurred inside the appellant’s house at night when only the inmates were present, and the appellant failed to explain the special circumstances of Chhotey Lal’s death in his statement under Section 313 CrPC. At the same time, the Bench held that in the absence of a State appeal or enhancement proceedings, and in view of Section 386 CrPC, it was not permissible to alter the conviction to Section 302 IPC, despite finding that the trial court’s reasoning for convicting under Section 304 Part II IPC was unsustainable.
The Bench also held that the trial court had erred in not imposing fine under Section 307 IPC. It treated fine as an integral part of the sentence under Section 307 IPC and modified the sentence by imposing a fine of Rs. 10,000, with three months’ simple imprisonment in default, while affirming the rest of the judgment.
Briefly, as per the written report lodged by PW-1 Phool Chandra, the deceased Chhotey Lal worked as a helper on his farm and lived in the house. The prosecution case was that Chhotey Lal had developed an illicit relationship with Shanti, the mother of the informant and the accused. One night, Lalloo and Shyam allegedly found Chhotey Lal and Shanti in a compromising position and attacked Chhotey Lal with a spade; Shanti also sustained injuries while intervening. On that basis, an FIR was registered initially under Section 307 IPC.
After investigation, a charge-sheet was filed under Sections 302 and 307 IPC, and the matter was committed to the Sessions Court where charges under Sections 302/34 and 307/34 IPC were framed. Co-accused Shyam Lal was later acquitted, while the present appellant was convicted under Section 304 Part II IPC and Section 307 IPC.
The prosecution examined nine witnesses and relied on the FIR, written report, injury reports, recovery memo, panchayatnama, post-mortem report and charge-sheet. PW-1 Phool Chandra and PW-2 Shanti Devi, though material witnesses, turned hostile during trial. PW-3 Fakire Singh stated that he did not witness the actual assault, but on hearing alarm, he reached the place and saw Lalloo running toward the pond with a gadasa; he also stated that persons present told him Lalloo had assaulted Chhotey Lal. PW-6 Atar Singh stated that after hearing alarm, he reached the spot, found Chhotey Lal murdered, and saw Lalloo and Shyam Lal running away; he also stated that he had seen them assaulting Chhotey Lal and that Shanti was injured while trying to save him.
The medical evidence showed severe incised wounds on Chhotey Lal, including injuries extending to bone and brain matter, and Shanti Devi had also sustained two incised wounds. The injury reports were admitted by the accused under Section 294 CrPC. The post-mortem proved fracture of the parietal bone and injuries possible by a sharp weapon.
Appearances:
Advocate A.N. Mulla, and Arun Kumar Singh, for the Appellant
