Police Often Implicate/Detain People Who Report Homicide/Accident & That Acts As Deterrent For Many To Fearlessly Report Murder Cases: Allahabad HC

The Bench of Acting Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice J. J. Munir further observed that this acts as a deterrent for many individuals to fearlessly step into a police station to report an incident of murder.

The case in brief

The Court was hearing an appeal filed by 4 persons who were convicted by the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Badaun for the offence of murder and were sentenced to imprisonment for life for crushing a man named Riazzudin under the wheels of a tractor in the year 2003.

According to the prosecution case, on November 11, 2003, Riazzudin and his father along with one other relative were riding a tonga when the four accused on a tractor intercepted them.

As per the FIR, all 4 accused were unhappy over the fact that the deceased had been selected as 'Shiksha Mitra', while the accused, who too applied for the post, couldn't get through and therefore they harbored animosity against the deceased.

Allegedly, the deceased was forced down the carriage (on which he was traveling along with his relatives) and dragged by the appellants through a distance, abusing him. He was thrown in front of the tractor.

The other three appellants are said to have exhorted one Pratap Singh to run him over and he is alleged to have run over and crushed the informant's son to death under the wheels of the tractor. The incident was witnessed by Hasanuddin and Fisauddin, besides the driver of the carriage.

The trial court convicted them under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, challenging the verdict, they moved the High corut.

Submissions made before the Court

It was argued by the defence that none of the three eye-witnesses immediately rushed to the police station to lodge an F.I.R. and therefore, it could be concluded that they never witnessed the occurrence.

However, the Court noted that the conduct of a person, who witnesses a morbid, dangerous and bizarre occurrence, like a murder, particularly one carried out in a dastardly fashion, like the one in hand, cannot be expected to exhibit the copy-book conduct of a vigilant and educated citizen proceeding to the police station to report a crime.

In this regard, the Court further observed thus:

"Judicial notice must be taken of the fact when evaluating evidence, that turns upon the conduct of men, that the Police generally, and without casting any stigma on them, have earned the reputation of often implicating the man, who comes to them to report a crime involving homicide or accident; or at least detaining him and subjecting the person to searching interrogation. It may be a necessary way for the Police to do so, but it does act as a deterrent for many individuals to fearlessly step into a police station to report an incident of murder"

Concludingly, the Court opined that so far as the three eye-witnesses were concerned, the mere fact that none of them actually lodged the F.I.R. relating to this incident does not, in the circumstances, derogate from the factum of their being eye-witnesses.

Next, it was contended by the counsel for the appellants that their conduct in not attempting to rescue the deceased was so unnatural that their presence on the spot had to be ruled out; at least seriously doubted.

However, refusing to accept this contention, the Court further opined thus:

"The individual's reaction, on witnessing a gruesome crime, like the present one, may vary according to his psychological makeup, his professional training, his prior exposure to like situations and the experience there. The causes that could contribute to individually varying reactions could be innumerable; and, so could be the variation in the reaction or the response of witnesses when exposed to a ruthless crime, like murder. Therefore, to say that all the three eye-witnesses, at least the two, who were related to the deceased, ought to have attempted a rescue, is a hypothesis that does not stand the test of human experience."

Apart from this, the Court noted that a perusal of the three versions about the occurrence, all by the three eye-witnesses, made it vivid that they were broadly consistent about the place, time, and manner of occurrence.

In this regard, the Court remarked thus:

"To our understanding, the presence of witnesses at the scene of crime not being found doubtful, there is no reason for us to doubt their testimony, which, in our considered opinion, puts forth a dependable eye-witness account. There is no such inherent inconsistency between the ocular version and the medico-legal evidence that may persuade us to reject the prosecution case on that score. We hold, accordingly."

Importantly, the Court was also of the view that motive is not very relevant in a case of direct evidence, where a dependable ocular version is available.

"Once there is evidence forthcoming on the basis of an eye-witness account, that is consistently narrated by multiple witnesses, motive is hardly relevant," the Court added.

Lastly, to sum up, the Court was of opinion that the prosecution had established the charge beyond all reasonable doubt and there was no warrant for the Court to interfere with the impugned judgment and in the result, this appeal failed and was dismissed. The impugned judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is affirmed.

Case title - Pratap Singh And Others v. State of U.P

Click Here To Download Order/Judgment

Read Order/Judgment