Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

Government Appeal No. 747 of 1995

Advocates

Rajeev Chaddha

Judges

R.R.K Trivedi
U.S Tripathi, JJ.

Acts

Section 307, 377, 325, 327, 109/34 and 511, I.P.C3.
Section 377 read with 511, 307 and 325, I.P.C2.
Section 307, 377, 511 and 325, I.P.C
Section 164, Cr. P.C

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Court Opinion Summary — U.P. v. Harish Chandra Mishra (Appeal from Acquittal)

Factual and Procedural Background

This appeal was preferred by the State of Uttar Pradesh against the judgment and order dated 9-12-1994 of the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Ghazipur, in Sessions Trial No. 12 of 1993, which had acquitted the respondent, Harish Chandra Mishra, of offences punishable under Sections 377 read with 511, 307 and 325 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The prosecution's case, as set out in the record, alleged that on the night of 2–3 July 1989 Rakesh Kumar Singh (PW 1), while travelling by train, was taken to an empty compartment by two Government Railway Police constables — Harish Chandra Mishra (the respondent) and Ram Nath. The complaint alleged that Harish Chandra attempted to commit an unnatural offence on the informant, threatened to throw him from the train if he did not comply, and then pushed him out of the train near Sidhauna halt, causing serious injuries (including fractured left hand and head wounds). The injured person went to Sidhauna bazar, where Ram Ji Gupta (PW 2) was awakened and then took him to Saidpur hospital; later he was admitted to SSPG Hospital, Varanasi.

Medical examination at Community Health Centre, Saidpur by Dr. A.K. Singh (PW 4) recorded lacerated and abrasion injuries and described them as fresh and caused by a blunt object. On 24-7-1989 the informant sent a typed report (Ext. Ka-3) to the SP, G.R.P., Gorakhpur; an FIR (Ext. Ka-4-A) was recorded on 9-8-1989 at P.S.G.R.P Mau and a case was registered against Harish Chandra and Ram Nath under Sections 307, 377, 325, 327, 109/34 and 511, IPC.

The investigating officer recorded statements, visited the scene, recorded Rakesh Kumar Singh's statement under Section 164, Cr.P.C., and submitted a charge-sheet against the respondent under Sections 307, 377, 511 and 325, IPC. The prosecution examined five witnesses (PW 1–PW 5). The respondent did not lead any defence evidence.

The trial court acquitted the respondent, finding the prosecution evidence — particularly the testimony of Rakesh Kumar Singh and Ram Ji Gupta — unreliable and the case full of improbabilities and discrepancies. The State appealed against the acquittal.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the prosecution had proved the guilt of the respondent beyond reasonable doubt for offences under Sections 307, 377, 325 and 511, IPC.
Whether the sole eyewitness (Rakesh Kumar Singh, PW 1) was a reliable witness whose testimony could sustain conviction despite inconsistencies with the FIR and other evidence.
Whether the delay in lodging the report/FIR (and the explanation for that delay) was satisfactorily explained and whether the delay affected the credibility of the prosecution case.
Whether the medical evidence and other materials corroborated the prosecution's account sufficiently to rebut the infirmities in the ocular testimony.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The appellate court closely reviewed the material on record and the findings of the trial court. Its reasoning proceeded in the following steps (as expressly recorded in the opinion):

Identification of the primary credibility issue: The court noted that the prosecution's case rested effectively on the testimony of a single eyewitness, Rakesh Kumar Singh (PW 1), since Ram Ji Gupta (PW 2) had not in fact seen the occurrence and only testified about being awoken and taking the injured person to hospital.
Examination of the delay in lodging the report: The occurrence was said to have taken place in the early hours of 2–3 July 1989 but the typed report was sent to the SP, G.R.P., Gorakhpur on 24-7-1989 and the FIR was recorded on 9-8-1989. The informant explained that he sent the typed report after recovering from his injuries; the Sessions Judge (and the appellate court) found that the explanation was insufficient and implausible. The court observed that the informant was able to move and could have lodged a report earlier or had his father informed to do so.
Inconsistencies between the FIR and subsequent evidence: The court pointed to material discrepancies between the account in the FIR (Ext. Ka-3) and the testimony of PW 1 at trial — including differing accounts about whether the compartment initially boarded was crowded, who was present in the empty compartment, whether both constables attempted the offence or only Harish Chandra, and whether other persons carried the injured man from the scene or he walked to Ram Ji Gupta's house.
Contradictory statements about who discovered/transported the injured person: In the FIR it was stated that villagers came and took the injured person to Saidpur hospital; at trial PW 1 said he went to Ram Ji Gupta's house and that Ram Ji Gupta (PW 2) took him to the hospital in a truck. The court recorded discrepancies about who awoke whom and noted that Ram Ji Gupta's account differed from PW 1's trial testimony on these points; further, the FIR did not mention Ram Ji Gupta by name.
Suspicion about composition and drafting of the FIR: The court observed that the FIR was drafted in a manner that suggested the drafter was well versed in law, as it listed various IPC sections that might apply. The FIR also purportedly contained badge numbers of the constables — information PW 1 admitted he could not have known (he said he noticed only name-plates and later admitted the report was typed by his brother-in-law, a travelling ticket inspector). The court considered the possibility that the FIR had been prepared or exaggerated in connivance with others (including a Deputy Superintendent of Police who visited the hospital).
Role of medical evidence: The court acknowledged the medical evidence which recorded lacerated wounds and abrasions and the fact that the injured person was admitted for treatment (including x-ray and about 22 days' treatment at SSPG Hospital); however, the court emphasized that medical evidence of injury does not automatically validate an ocular version that is otherwise unreliable or inconsistent.
Overall assessment and conclusion on proof: Given the multiplicity of improbabilities, material contradictions between the FIR and trial testimony, the unexplained delay in lodging the report, and the concluded possibility of fabrication or exaggeration in the FIR, the court found the trial court's assessment — that the sole eyewitness was wholly unreliable — to be sound. Because there was no other reliable evidence to establish the respondent's guilt, the appellate court found no merit in the prosecution's appeal.

Holding and Implications

Appeal dismissed.

Direct consequences recorded in the opinion:

The appellate court affirmed the trial court's acquittal of the respondent by dismissing the State's appeal.
The respondent, who was on bail granted by the Court, had his bail bonds cancelled and his sureties discharged.
The respondent was not required to surrender.

The opinion does not discuss broader legal implications or purport to create a new precedent; its effect was to uphold the acquittal because the prosecution failed to prove the charges to the requisite standard in light of credibility and procedural infirmities in the recorded evidence.

Show full summary ...

State Of Uttar Pradesh v. Harish Chandra Mishra .

U.S Tripathi, J.:— The State of U.P has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 9-12-1994 passed by 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Ghazipur in Sessions Trial No. 12 of 1993 acquitting the respondent of the offences punishable under Section 377 read with 511, 307 and 325, I.P.C

2. The prosecution story, briefly narrated, was that Rakesh Kumar Singh (PW 1) resident of village Gaurahat, P.S Khanpur, District Ghazipur was a student of B.A Part I in Harishchandra Degree College, Varanasi. His elder brother Vijai Bahadur Singh was working in coal mines in district Dhanband (Bihar). On 2-7-1989 Rakesh Kumar Singh (PW 1) had come from his village to Varanasi for sending the wife of Vijay Bahadur Singh and his children to Dhanbad. After seeing off his bhabhi and her children from Dhanband Ludhiana express at Varansi Cant. Railway Station, he boarded Varanasi Bhanati fast passenger at 2.30 a.m for going to Aurihar. The compartment in which Rakesh Kumar Singh (PW 1) boarded was full to its capacity. He was standing in gallery of the compartment. When the train reached at Railway Station Sarnath, respondent Harish Chandra Mishra a constable in Government Railway Police along with his colleague Ram Nath came in the said compartment. Respondent Harish Chandra Mishra inquired about Rakesh Kumar Singh (PW 1) and his family members and asked him to go to some other compartment. He took him in an other compartment in which there were no other passenger. Ram Nath left the above compartment and respondent Harish Chandra remained there along with Rakesh Kumar Singh (PW 1). Respondent Harish Chandra started obscene activities. When the train reached near Rajbari bridge respondent Harish Chandra attempted to commit unnatural offence on Rakesh Kumar Singh (PW 1), who ran toward gate and the respondent tried to open his pant. He also threatened him that in case he would not concede to fulfil his desire he would throw him of the train. Rakesh Kumar Singh (PW I) raised alarm and respondent Harish Chandra Misro threw him of the compartment by pushing him. Rakesh Kumar Singh (PW 1) fell down of the train at about 3.30 a.m near Sidhauna halt in village Yusufpur and sustained injuries. His left hand was broken and he also sustained injuries on his head. However, he managed to stand up and went to Sidhauna Bazar where he awaked son of Ram Ji Gupta (PW 2) and narrated him the entire story. Son of Ram Ji Gupta awaked his father Ram Ji Gupta (PW 2) who took him to Saidpur hospital in a truck. The injuries of Rakesh Kumar Singh (PW 2) were examined by the Dr. A.K Singh (PW 4) at Community Health Centre, Saidpur at 5.00 p.m who found lacerated wound 3 c.m × 2 c.m on front of left elbow joint, other laccerated wound 5 c.m × 3 c.m × bone deep on front of left wrist joint and abrasion over whole of left side face. The injuries were kept under observation, cause by blunt object and were fresh in duration. Dr. Singh prepared injury report (Ext. Ka 5) and referred patient to SSPG Hospital (Kabir Chaura), Varanasi, Rakesh Kumar Singh (PW 1) was admitted in SSPG Hospital where his left wrist was x-rayed and he was under treatment for about 22 days. On 24-7-1989 Rakesh Kumar Singh (PW 11 got typed report (Ext. Ka 3) and sent the same through registered post to SPGRP, N.E Railway Gorakhpur. On the basis of above application chik FIR (Ext. Ka 4-A) was prepared by Ram Roop Giri (PW 3) at P.S.G.R.P Mau on 9-8-1989 who made endorsement of the same at G.D report (Ex. Ka-4) and registered a case against respondent Harish Chandra and Ram Nath under Section 307, 377, 325, 327, 109/34 and 511, I.P.C

3. The case was investigated by the I.O who interrogated witnesses, visited place of occurrence, prepared site plan got recorded statement of Rakesh Kumar Singh (PW 1) under Section 164, Cr. P.C and on completion of investigation submitted charge sheet against the respondent Harish Chandra under Section 307, 377, 511 and 325, I.P.C The prosecution in support of its case examined Rakesh Kumar Singh (PW 1), Ram Ji Gupta (PW 2), Head Constable Ram Roop Giri (PW 3), Dr. R.K Singh (PW 4) and S.P Ram, Pharmacist (PW 5). The respondent did not adduced any evidence in his defence.

4. The learned Additional Sessions Judge found that evidence of Rakesh Kumar Singh (PW 1) and Ram JI Gupta (PW 2) was not reliable and the case was full of improbabilities, discrepancies and the prosecuiton could not establish the guilt of the respondent. With these findings he acquitted the respondent.

5. We have heard the learned A.G.A and Sri Rajeev Chaddha, learned counsel for the respondent and have gone through the evidence on record.

6. There is sole witness of the incident namely Rakesh Kumar Singh (PW 1) as Ram Ji Gupta (PW 2) had admittedly not seen the occurrence and Rakesh Kumar Singh (PW 1) told him about the occurrence and he took him to hospital at Saidpur. It is to be considered whether the prosecution had successfully proved the guilt of the respondent.

7. In this case admittedly occurrence took place in the night of ⅔-7-1989 between 2.30 a.m and 3.30 a.m but the report of the occurrence was lodged on 9-8-1989. However complainant Rakesh Kumar Singh (PW 1) sent report of the occurrence to S.P.G.R.P Gorakhpur on 24-7-1989. Assuming that the report was lodged on 24-7-1989 it was lodged after 20 days of the occurrence. Rakesh Kumar Singh (PW 1) offered explanation that when recovered of his injuries he sent typed report to S.P.G.R.P, Gorakhpur. No doubt Rakesh Kumar Singh (PW 1) had not explained as to when he was actually discharged from the hospital, but the learned Sessions Judge found, on perusal of paper No. 40-B which was although not proved, that Rakesh Kumar Singh (PW 1) was discharged on 24-7-1989 from the hospital, which shows that he sent application after being discharged from the hospital. But he mentioned in his report (Ext. Ka-3) that he was still in the hospital on bed No. 4 of ward No. 8.

8. From the evidence on record it is clear that Rakesh Kumar Singh (PW 1) was fully conscious when he was allegedly pushed from the train and he went to Sidhauna Bazar at the house of Ram Ji Gupta (PW 2) by travelling on foot. His injuries were examined in the night of occurrence at Community Health Centre Saidpur. There was police station at Saidpur but no report was lodged at P.S Saidpur. Rakesh Kumar Singh (PW 1) was, thereafter, shifted to SSPG Hospital, Varanasi on 3-7-1989. He was student of Harish Chandra Degree College. Varanasi and must be aware of situation of the police station in Varanasi City. His injuries were not such that he could not move and he was in position to lodge report at any of the police station at Varanasi City or would have sent his report from the hospital to his father who came to hospital on 3-7-1989 as stated by Ram Ji Gupta (PW 2). The explanation offered by informant Rakesh Kumar Singh regarding delay in lodging report was rightly held by the learned Sessions Judge insufficient and not plausible.

9. The version of Rakesh Kumar Singh (PW 1) as contained in report (Ext. Ka 3) was that at 2.30 a.m he boarded in a compartment of Varanasi Bhatani fast passenger and in the said compartment there was no other passengers except two GRP constables Harish Chandra Mishra and Ram Nath Ram and both the constables attempted to commit unnatural offence on him and Harish Chandra pushed him down of the train. But in his evidence he developed and set up another story that the compartment in which he initially boarded was full to its capacity and he was standing in gallery where respondent and other constable came and took him to some other compartment in which there were no other passenger. He further stated that Ram Nath Ram left the compartment and Harish Chandra alone remained there and attempted to commit unnatural offence on him.

10. In his report Rakesh Kumar Singh (PW 1) mentioned that when he was pushed down of the train he was crying and villagers came and took him to Saipur hospital. In his evidence he changed the above story and stated that he himself, went to the house of Ram Ji Gupta (PW 2) at village Sidhauna who took him to Saidpur hospital in a truck. Moreover, according to evidence of Rakesh Kumar Singh (PW 1) he awaked son of Ram Ji Gupta (PW 1) who awaked his father, but Ram Ji Gupta (PW stated that Rakeh Kumar (PW 1) awaked him. In the F.I.R there is no mention of Ram Ji Gupta (PW 2).

11. The contents of F.I.R (Ext. Ka 3) show that it was drafted by a person well versed in law as various sections of the I.P.C which could be applicable on the facts mentioned in the F.I.R were also mentioned. Badge number of both the constables was also mentioned in the report and oh the own showing of Rakesh Kumar Singh (PW 1) he was not aware of the badge number of the respondent and his colleague Ram Nath Ram. However, Rakesh Kumar Singh (PW 1) has stated that name plate of both the constables was on their uniform. From the above name plates he could know only their name and not the badge number about which he had not stated. This again shows that F.I.R was drafted by some other person who might be interested in fool proof implication of the respondent.

12. Rakesh Kumar Singh (PW 1) admitted that he wrongly mentioned the name of ‘Ram Nath Ram in the report, who was not involved in the occurrence. He also admitted that he got typed his report from his brother-in-law (Bhanoi) Rajendra Singh, Travelling Ticket Inspector. However, he denied that Jagdish Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police was his relative but he admitted that Jagdish Singh. Dy. S.P had come in Orderly Bazar Hospital to record his statement. Therefore, the possibility that report was drafted by twisting and exaggerating the facts in connivance with above two persons with whom respondent alleged his enmity.

13. As discussed above the evidence of sole witness Rakesh Kumar Singh (PW 1) is full of improbabilities and inconsistencies and shows that he is a wholly unreliable witness. The trial Court rightly disbelieved his sole evidence and there was no other evidence to hold the respondent guilty. Therefore, there is, no force in this appeal. The appeal, is accordingly, dismissed. The respondent is on bail granted by this Court. His bail bonds are cancelled and surities are discharged. He need not to surrender.

14. Appeal dismissed.

State Of Uttar Pradesh v. Harish Chandra Mishra .

Court Opinion Summary — U.P. v. Harish Chandra Mishra (Appeal from Acquittal)

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

State Of Uttar Pradesh v. Harish Chandra Mishra .

Comments