- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Mohar Singh And Others v. State Of U.P .
Structured Summary of the Opinion — G.S.N Tripathi, J.
Factual and Procedural Background
The judgment under review arises from a conviction recorded by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Agra, dated 4.12.1979 in Sessions Trial No. 410 of 1977, State v. Mohar Singh and Man Singh. The trial court convicted Mohar Singh and Man Singh under Section 460 IPC and sentenced them to four years' rigorous imprisonment.
The prosecution case originated from an FIR lodged by Benglace (P.W.1) at Samsabad police station in District Agra following an incident on the night of 16/17-6-77 (approximately 2 A.M.). The complainant alleged that thieves entered his house and were removing articles; an alarm was raised, and his brother Sheo Charan (P.W.5) flashed a torch from the roof. One of the miscreants allegedly fired causing injuries to Sheo Charan, his wife Bhoori (P.W.4), and two children. The accused were identified by witnesses on the roof and named as persons from the same village. Goods and cash totaling Rs. 3,200 were said to have been taken. The investigation followed, medical examinations were carried out the same morning (17.6.77), and the investigating officer (P.W.9) filed the charge sheet.
On trial, the prosecution relied on oral testimony including the complainant, injured witnesses, medical and police formalities. The accused made statements under Section 313 Cr. P.C. denying involvement and alleging false implication owing to enmity and the village Pradhan's role. The trial court accepted the prosecution's case and convicted. The accused appealed. The present opinion is the appellate court's decision allowing the appeal and acquitting the appellants.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the two accused, Mohar Singh and Man Singh, actually participated in the crime charged (robbery with causing hurt and firing) and whether their identification at the scene is reliable.
- Whether the trial court's findings about the victims' identifications and the resulting conviction are sustainable given the circumstances of the occurrence, the contents of the FIR, and subsequent witness statements.
Arguments of the Parties
Prosecution's Case (as presented in the trial and recited in the opinion)
- An occurrence of theft with firing occurred on the night of 16/17-6-77 at the complainant's house; injured persons were medically examined and injuries were recorded.
- Witnesses on the roof (including Sheo Charan and his wife Bhoori) identified the accused Mohar Singh and Man Singh as the miscreants in the light of a torch flashed by Sheo Charan.
- The FIR was lodged and a charge sheet was filed; prosecution presented medical evidence and other formal incriminating material as proof of the incident and identification.
Accused's (Appellants') Arguments / Defence
- The accused generally denied the allegations in their Section 313 Cr. P.C. statements.
- They alleged that the village Pradhan was behind their false implication, that there was “partybandi” (local enmity/partisanship), and that they were falsely involved at the Pradhan's behest.
- No defence evidence was led by the accused.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The appellate court undertook a focused analysis primarily on the reliability of the ocular identification and the sufficiency of the prosecution's evidence to link the two accused to the crime beyond reasonable doubt. The court's step-by-step reasoning, as recited in the opinion, is summarized below:
- Admission of Occurrence and Injuries: The court accepted that an incident involving theft and firing occurred on the stated night and that four persons sustained injuries. There was no substantial challenge in cross-examination nor effective challenge under Section 313 Cr. P.C. on that factual point, so the occurrence and injuries as such were confirmed.
- Principal Question — Identification and Participation: The court framed the principal legal question explicitly as whether the two accused had actually participated in the crime and whether such participation was proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
- Conditions of Identification — Darkness and Light Source: The court noted it was a dark night and the only source of illumination at the time of identification was a single torch flashed by Sheo Charan. The court examined the physical layout stated in the site-plan: three kothas (rooms/compartments) belonging to Sheo Charan, Bengalee and Mohar Singh, with dividing walls about 2–3 feet high but a common passage below. The accused Mohar Singh's kotha was described as being at the extreme south, Sheo Charan in the middle and Bengalee at the extreme north.
- Distance and Position Considerations: The trial court had found that the distance between the miscreants on the ground floor and Sheo Charan on the roof was at least 25 feet. The appellate court concluded that identification from that distance in darkness using a single torch was difficult, if not impossible, thereby undermining the claimed positive identification.
- Complainant's Own Admission: Bengalee (P.W.1) admitted he did not personally identify the miscreants and had named the accused on the basis of information from others (Sheo Charan and Mohar Singh). Given that Bengalee was on the ground floor and had an arguably optimal vantage point, his failure to identify the culprits was significant.
- Known Persons with No Attempt to Conceal Identity: The accused belonged to the same village and were known figures. The court observed that they did not attempt to conceal their identities (no masks, etc.), which the court considered unusual unless the accused were especially bold. The absence of such concealment raised questions about the claimed on-the-spot identification.
- Improvements/Embellishments and Omission in FIR: The court placed weight on the content of the FIR — it did not specify which miscreant fired the shot(s). Important specificity identifying Mohar Singh as the shooter emerged later at trial. The court treated the omission in the FIR and the subsequent specification as signs of improvement or embellishment of the prosecution case during trial.
- Inconsistencies and Delay in Disclosure: Sheo Charan (P.W.5) in his Section 161 Cr. P.C. statement had not specified that Mohar Singh fired on him; later at trial he did. The court treated this as evidence that the specific attribution of firing to Mohar Singh was not originally known and may have been suggested later (the court noted the Pradhan's involvement and the possibility of prompting). The court found Sheo Charan's explanations for not having disclosed the role earlier to be whimsical and unconvincing, and ultimately discarded his testimony as unworthy of credence.
- Corroboration and Witness Credibility Issues: Similar criticisms applied to the testimony of Smt. Bhoori: she was interrogated 15 days after the occurrence, did not name the accused before the IO under Section 161 Cr. P.C., did not report seeing weapons initially, and claimed to have become unconscious after the shots. These factors led the court to doubt her capacity to make a reliable identification at the scene.
- Internal Inconsistencies Concerning Witnesses: The opinion noted that another witness who was a relative (referred to in different places with different P.W. numbers) also did not name the accused in the FIR and had not stated before the IO that Mohar Singh fired from a pistol. This failure to mention the key incriminating detail early on contributed to the court's conclusion that the evidence was unreliable.
- No Immediate Steps to Apprehend or Raid: The court found it significant that, although the culprits were said to be known villagers and allegedly identified on the spot (with the Pradhan even having taken culprits to the police station), no attempt was made to search or raid the accused' houses the same night. The court regarded the absence of such contemporaneous action as a factor undermining the prosecution's story of immediate, reliable identification.
- Conclusion on Evidence Standard: Considering the totality of circumstances — darkness, single torch illumination, distance, omissions in the FIR, subsequent improvements in witness accounts, internal inconsistencies, and absence of immediate investigatory steps such as night raids — the appellate court found that the identification and participation of the appellants were not established beyond a reasonable doubt.
Holding and Implications
Holding: The appeal is allowed. The appellate court set aside the judgment and order of the trial court and acquitted the appellants of the charge under Section 460 IPC. The appellants were on bail; their bail bonds and surety bonds were discharged. The opinion concludes with "Appeal Allowed."
Implications:
- Direct effect: The immediate consequence for the parties is that Mohar Singh and Man Singh are acquitted of the charge under Section 460 IPC and their bail and surety obligations are discharged.
- On legal principle: The decision turns on the court's assessment of the reliability of eyewitness identification, the evidentiary value of the FIR versus later trial statements, and the requirement that participation must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. The opinion emphasizes factors that can undermine identification evidence: poor lighting, distance, omissions in the FIR, improvements or embellishments in witness testimony at trial, delays in recording statements, and absence of contemporaneous investigative action that would be expected if identification were certain.
- No new precedent was cited or expressly laid down in this opinion; the court's ruling resolves the appeal on the facts and credibility findings recorded in the opinion.
This summary is confined strictly to the contents of the provided opinion and does not add facts or materials beyond what the opinion itself contains.
G.S.N Tripathi, J.:— The then 1st Addl. Sessions Judge Agra vide his judgment and order dated 4.12.79 passed in S.T No. 410 of 1977, State v. Mohar Singh and Man Singh of the district Agra convicted the accused Mohar Singh and Man Singh on a charge under Section 460 IPC and sentenced them to undergo 4 years' R.I
2. The prosecution case started on the basis of the FIR lodged by Benglace, P.W 1 at the police station Samsabad, Distt. Agra. The incident is said to have taken place in the night of 16/17-6-77 around 2 A.M The FIR was lodged on 17.6.77 at 6.30 A.M after covering a distance of 3 miles. Both the accused have been named as they belong to the same village. It is alleged that in the night of occurrence, the complainant was sleeping in the court-yard of his house along with his wife. At about 2 A.M he heard some inkling coming out of his house and he got up and saw that thieves were removing the articles from his house towards the roof. He cried hearing which, his brother Sheo Charan, P.W 2 replied that he was coming to his rescue. Sheo Charan was sleeping with his wife Bhoori, P.W 4 and children on the roof. Sheo Charan flashed a torch, upon which one of the miscreants fired from his pistol causing injuries to Sheo Charan, his wife and children. In the light of the torch flashed by Sheo Charan, the accused Mohar Singh and Man Singh, who belonged to the same village, were identified. The thieves bolted away with goods and cash worth Rs. 3200/-. On the basis of the oral information conveyed by the complainant, a case was registered by the Head Constable of the police station and investigation followed. The injured Smt. Bhoori was examined on 17.6.77 at 9.05 A.M As many as 4 firearm injuries were found on her person (Exhibit Ka-2). The child Satish, aged about 1 ½ years, was examined at 9.15 A.M Two firearm injuries were found on his person (Exhibit Ka-3). Km. Vimla, aged 4 years was examined at 9.30 A.M One firearm injury was found on her person. Sheo Charan was examined at 9.40 A.M Two injuries were found on his person one of them was caused by firearm. The details of the injuries received by the aforesaid persons have been noted by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge in his judgment. Therefore, they are not being repeated.
3. After usual investigation, the I.O Hari Maya Sharma, P.W 9 laid down the charge sheet.
4. The prosecution has examined Bengalee P.W 1 the complainant in support of its case. He has narrated the story as contained in the FIR. He has frankly admitted that he did not identify any of the miscreants himself and the report has been lodged on the basis of the information conveyed by Sheo Charan, P.W 2 and Mohar Singh (not named in the FIR). The star witness is P.W 5.
5. P.W 5 Sheo Charan in his statement under Section 161 Cr. P.C said that he was sleeping on the roof of his house along with his family members. After hearing the alarm raised by Bengalee, P.W 1, he replied and flashed his torch towards the miscreants. One of them fired towards him causing injuries to him, his wife and children. He identified the accused Man Singh and Mohar Singh amongst the miscreants.
6. P.W 4 Smt. Bhoori is the wife of Sheo Charan. She has virtually corroborated the story given by her husband.
7. P.W 8 Mohar Singh is the real brother of Bengalee, the complainant. He has not been named in the FIR. He has also said that he saw the incident with his own eyes.
8. Other evidence is formal in nature. For instance, Dr. R.B Singh, P.W 3 has proved the injury report, P.W 6 Dr. R.K Sharma has proved the X-ray report of Smt. Bhoori, Constable Rajendra Singh had registered the case in his G.D and prepared the chik, Constable Tahjibul Hasan, P.W 8 had conducted the injured person for medical examination, P.W 8 Hari Maya Sharma is the Investigation Officer.
9. The accused in their statement under Section 313 Cr. P.C have generally denied the allegations against them. They have said that the village Pradhan is against them and it is at his behest that they have been falsely implicated, on account of partybandi. Accused have led no evidence in their defence.
10. After appraisal of entire evidence and circumstances on the record, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge found the prosecution story convincing and he convicted the accused as noted above.
11. Feeling aggrieved, the accused have preferred this appeal.
12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. I find that there is much substance in this appeal and it deserves to be allowed.
13. It is not very much disputed that an occurrence took place in the night of 16/17-6-77 at the house of Bengalee, P.W 1 and properties were looted from there. It is also not disputed that during the course of crime, the criminals had fired towards Sheo Charan and his family members and caused injuries to 4 persons as noted above. There is neither any cross-examination worth the name on this point nor any challenge under Section 313 Cr. P.C Therefore, the conclusion drawn by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge is confirmed.
14. The main question for determination by this Court is as to whether these two accused had actually participated in the crime and their participation is proved beyond a shadow of reasonable doubt. The admitted position is that it was a dark night as admitted by Smt. Bhoori, P.W 4 towards the end of the cross-examination. The only source of light was a torch flashed by Sheo Charan. A lock at the site-plan will show that there are three Kothas belonging to Sheo Charan, Bengalee and his brother Mohar Singh. The roof is divided by walls of the height upto 2 or 3 feet. But there is a common passage in the down side of the house. The Kotha of Mohar Singh is towards the extreme south and that of Sheo Charan in the middle and that of Bengalee, complainant towards the extreme north. Therefore, the possibility of Mohar Singh having seen the miscreants, is totally ruled out. Bengalee who is the complainant, had clearly admitted that he did not identify the culprits. He has named them at the behest of his brother. The significant thing is that the culprits were on the ground floor where Bengalee was sleeping. He had optimum opportunity to identify the culprits. But he has totally failed to do so, whereas, Sheo Charan and Smt. Bhoori are said to have identified the culprits from their roof. The distance of the miscreants from Sheo Charan, according to the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (Para 6 of the Judgment) was 25 feet at the least on the ground floor, whereas, Smt. Bhoori and Sheo Charan were sleeping on the roof of their house. So Sheo Charan and Smt. Bhoori have claimed to have identified the culprits from the said distance of 25 feet in the light of a solitary torch flashed by Sheo Charan. That by itself shows that it is difficult, if not impossible, for these witnesses to have identified the culprits from the roof of their house. Apart from it, another important feature of the case is that the culprits belong to the same village in which the crime was committed. They were known figures. They have made absolutely no efforts to conceal their identify by wearing some mask or having some dhata upon their faces. Normally unless the accused are proved to be dare devils, which is not a case at present, such known persons will not commit such a crime without making any effort to conceal their identity.
15. Apart from it, there has been considerable improvement made in the prosecution story. The FIR says that one of the miscreants fired at Sheo Charan causing injuries to him and his family members. Who was the person who fired this shot towards Sheo Charan and his family members, has not been specified in the FIR. Although, Bengalee, P.W 1 says that he could not see the appellants Mohar Singh and Man Singh himself. Rather, he named them on the statement of Sheo Charan and Mohar Singh, P.W 5. These are the persons who have specified the role of the individual accused and specially, the role of Mohar Singh, who had fired from his pistol. There is no earthly reason why he would not have named Mohar Singh in FIR as the person solely responsible for firing towards them. This special feature of the case shows that these persons had not known by them as to who had fired at them. They were not at the behest of or the inspirations provided by somebody. But it is not very difficult to find out because the Pradhan of the village has played a leading role in this case. He had taken the culprits to the Police Station. He had gone inside the Police Station where the FIR was lodged orally by Bengalee, P.W 1. Even then the specific role played by Mohar Singh has not been given in the FIR. When Sheo Charan was cornered as to why he did not tell the role played by Mohar Singh to his brother Bengalee before lodging report, he has given very whimsical reply. In paragraph 4 of his statement, he has said that he had not openly said to Bengalee that Mohar Singh had fired at him from his pistol. Not only this, he did not tell this fact even to the I.O Why this important secret was kept inside the bosom of this witness for such a long time, is not explained by the prosecution in this case. That shows that the prosecution case has undergone improvements and embellishments at the stage of trial. In his statement under Section 161 Cr. P.C Sheo Charan has stated that someone amongst the miscreants had fired at him. He admits in paragraph 7 of his statement that his this statement is correct and he has correctly stated the same to the I.O It means that the statement made that Mohar Singh had fired at him, was made at the behest of somebody else and that is a total lie. That again shows that since Sheo Charan had not by then identified the real culprits, therefore, he kept this fact totally ambiguous. In the normal course since the culprits were known and the role was also known, this fact must have been noted in the FIR. It was definitely lodged at the pointing out of Sheo Charan. When further cornered in paragraph 7, he said that when he saw the accused for the first time on the roof of Bengalee, he did not see any weapon with them. That again shows that these accused were not present there otherwise the witness would not have missed the salient feature. Therefore I discard the statement of Sheo Charan as unworthy of credence.
16. Smt. Bhoori is the wife of Sheo Charan. She says that when her husband flashed the torch, she saw the culprits and amongst them, were Mohar Singh and Man Singh. Thereupon Mohar Singh fired towards her. The reasons for discarding the statement of Sheo Charan as noted above apply mutatis mutandis to the statement of Smt. Bhoori equally. She was interrogated after 15 days of the occurrence. That by itself shows that enough time was available to the prosecution to brain wash her. She did not name these accused before the I.O under Section 161 Cr. P.C She has simply said that there were 4 miscreants. She did not say before the I.O that Mohar Singh had fired from his pistol. Further she says that she did not see any weapon in the hand of accused Man Singh. It is difficult to believe that accused Man Singh would have gone to commit theft without having any weapon in his hand. Thereafter, further she says that immediately after receiving fire shots, she became unconscious and could not see things thereafter. It was a dark night. Therefore, I find that she was not in a position to identity the culprits correctly.
17. P.W 5 Mohar Singh is the real brother of the complainant and Sheo Sheo Charan. His name did not find place in the FIR as one amongst the witnesses, who have seen the crime and criminals. On this ground alone, his statement is liable to be rejected. He also did not say before the I.O that Mohar Singh accused had fired from his pistol towards Sheo Charan and his wife. Further he says that he did not see any weapon in the hand of Mohar Singh and other co-criminal.
18. Another salient feature of this is that although the culprits belonged to the same village and they were seen and allegedly identified on the spot, no effort was made to trace them at their houses in the same night, although efforts were made to go to the house of Pradhan of the village. If it were a fact that the accused had committed crime and they were identified on the spot with the aid of the Pradhan, their houses must have been raided in the same night. But that was not done. Under these circumstances, I find that the findings of the learned lower court that the witnesses could have identified the culprits in the light available, is not sustainable. It seems that the learned trial court had not gone deeper into the matter and has ignored the salient features of the case as noted above. Therefore, the findings recorded by him, cannot be maintained. The appeal deserves to be allowed. The appeal is allowed. The judgment and order passed by the learned trial court is set aside. The appellants are acquitted of the charge under Section 460 I.P.C They are on bail. Their bail bonds and surety bonds are discharged.
19. Appeal Allowed.
Alert