Krishna Ram and Others Vs. State of Rajasthan - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
criminal - assault and murder - sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 323 and 364 of indian penal code, 1860 - mohan ram assaulted and killed by moola ram alongwith five other persons - six accused tried for offences punishable under sections 147, 148, 302 read with section 149, section 323 and section 364 read with section 149 - trial court acquitted keshra ram (one of accused) on benefit of doubt and convicted remaining five under section 302 read with section 149 on basis of evidence of eyewitnesses - high court modified death sentence to life imprisonment - appeal against order of high court - whether decision to be reversed on ground that witnesses were interested and their version was artificial - evidence of eyewitnesses establish time, place of occurrence and cause of death beyond doubt - appeal dismissed. - [r.s. pathak, c.j. and; ranganath misra, jj.] excise — central excise rules, 1944 — rule 8(1) — exemption to small scale manufacturers - the appellant company is engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling electric motors. it claimed to have captively consumed electric motors as inputs in the manufacture of monoblock pumps. by virtue of notification no. 80/80-ce dated 19-6-1980 issued by the central government under rule 8(1) of the central excise rules, exemption from excise duty was granted to excisable goods falling under certain tariff items of the first schedule to the central excises and salt act provided the aggregate value of clearances of the specified goods by the manufacturer for home consumption from the factory or factories had not exceeded rs 15 lakhs. explanation 5 to the notification stated: “where any specified goods (hereinafter referred to as inputs) are used for further manufacture of specified goods (hereinafter referred to as finished goods) within the factory of production of inputs and where such inputs and finished goods fall under the same item of the said first schedule to the said act, the clearances of such inputs for such use shall not be taken into account for the purposes of calculating the aggregate value of clearances under this notification.” for the financial year 1-4-1980 to 31-3-1981 the appellant had disclosed a clearance value of rs 13,43,443.55 on account of electric motors for home consumption and a clearance value of rs 6,51,138.50 on account of electric motors “for captive consumption” in the manufacture of monoblock pumps. the appellant contended that the electric motors used for making monoblock pumps could not be taken into consideration when calculating the clearances eligible under the notification. according to the appellant the captive consumption did not amount to clearance. the tribunal observed that while electric motors were mentioned under tariff item 30, power driven pumps were specified under tariff item 30-a and that consequently the electric motors captively consumed as inputs in the manufacture of power driven pumps could not be excluded when determining the appellant's clearances. the appellant urged that the appellant had mistakenly stated that electric motors had been used for monoblock pumps whereas only rotors and stators which were integral components of monoblock pumps had been used, and that, therefore, the same tariff item was attracted, thus entitling the appellants to the concession. the submission was rejected by the appellate tribunal. accordingly, it found that the appellant had exceeded the limit stipulated by notification no. 80/80-ce dated 19-6-1980, and was, therefore, disentitled to the concession. dismissing the assessee's appeal with costs the supreme court. the question whether the goods in question were rotors and stators, were integral components of monoblock motors and fell within the same tariff item as monoblock pumps, were of fact and the same having been considered by the appellate tribunal, need not be entertained by the supreme court at this stage. since the tribunal had proceeded on the basis that the goods in question were electric motors and it was only in the alternative that it considered the appellant's submission that the goods should be regarded as rotors and stators, recourse cannot be had to tariff item 68 by the appellant. the contention that the goods in question, having been employed in the manufacture of monoblock pumps within the factory itself, could not be said to have been cleared from the factory and therefore could not be included within the value of the clearances from the factory, cannot be accepted. as soon as the manufacture of the goods was completed they must be regarded as goods available for clearance from the factory, and there was nothing to show that when fitted into monoblock pumps they were not removed to another part of the factory for that purpose. the process of manufacture of those goods was distinct, separate and complete in itself and at the end of the manufacturing process, the goods in question represented a completed product. the contention that the classification lists had been approved earlier and the excise authority was estopped from taking a different view is also untenable as there can be no estoppel against the law. it is not possible to set aside the demand of the department on ground that no recovery had been made by the appellant from its constituents.     - the accused were arrested and a-1 was examined for some simple injuries like abrasions on him. 3 which was not liked by p.orderk. jayachandra reddy, j.1. on 28.11.1979 at about 9.30 p.m. an occurrence took place in village chadwas within the limits of chhapar police station, churu district in rajasthan, in the course of which one mohan ram was killed on p.w. 6 jiwan received an injury. in relation to this occurrence six persons were tried for offences punishable under sections 147, 148, 302/149, 323 and 364/149 i.p.c. the trial court acquitted one keshra ram and convicted the remaining five persons under section 302/149 and sentenced each of them to death. they were also convicted for other offences and sentenced to various terms of imprisonment ranging from three months to six months. a reference was made to the high court for confirmation of the death sentence. five convicted accused also filed jail appeals. the high court converted the sentence of death to one of imprisonment for life and the appeals were dismissed in all other respects. this court entertained special leave petitions filed by them but it was dismissed in respect of moola ram, a-1 and leave was granted in respect of the other appellants namely a-2 to a-5. hence these appeals. the prosecution case is as follows.one mangu ram, husband of smt. pinchu (p.w. 3) and the father of jiwan (p.w. 6) and the brother of moola ram (a-1) died about ten years back. the deceased mohan ram used to visit the house of p.w. 3 and a-1 had suspicion about their relations and he did not relish the deceased coming to the house of p.w. 3 or having any relation with her. the deceased mohan ram arranged the marriage of p.w. 6 in the village in which his own son was married. this also enraged moola ram (a-1) and his sons and they did not even attend the marriage. on 28.11.79 at about 8 p.m. the deceased mohan ram had gone to ease himself. while returning he went to the house of jiwan (p.w. 6) and asked him to accompany him to work at the grass cutting machine. then he went towards his house. at about 9 or 9.30 p.m. bhagu ram (p.w. 1) son of the deceased and smt. gayani (p.w.2) his mother were inside the house. the door of the house was closed but the window was open. when the deceased was entering his house through the window moola ram (a-1) caught hold the bush-shirt of the deceased and pulled him out and gave a lathi blow on the head of the decased. the lathi got broken. then the remaining accused gave lathi blows to the deceased who raised a cry. p.ws 1 and 2 came out of the house and tried to intervene but a-1 warned them of direct consequences. on hearing the cries p.w. 6 also rushed there and questioned the accused. on that a-4 and a-6 ran after p.w. 6 and a-1 gave a lathi blow on his hand. the cries attracted p.w. 11 bhanwara, another witness and p.w. 10 mala ram, a neighbour. they saw the assailants taking the injured deceased to the house of a-1. having taken him there they tied him with string to a nail and gave lathi blow and kicks to him. p.ws. 10 and 11 also reached there. p.w.3 and p.w. 6 asked the accused not to beat the deceased but they were also warned with dire consequences. the other witnesses then went to the house of a-1. there they found the deceased unconscious. p.w. 1 and others went in a tractor to the police station, chhaper and a report ex.p.1 was lodged by p.w. 1 the s.h.o., p.w. 15 with his staff reached the village and went on the house of a-1 and he found the deceased tied and in unconscious condition. he was bleeding. the s.h. o. untied the rope and prepared a memo. some blood-stained articles were seized. the deceased was sent for medical examination at chadwas. p.w. 6 who had an injury was also sent to chadwas. the doctor examined him. another doctor b.k. narula examined the injured deceased and noted 19 injuries on his person. the deceased died at about 9.15 p.m. on 29.11.79. the post-mortem was conducted by p.w. 7 dr. madhu sudan sharma. on external examination he found 19 injuries. most of them were lacerated wounds and bruises all over the body and on dissection he found fracture of right parietal bone, fracture of skull along front parietal and brain membrances were congested and the blood was present in left side of cavity outside the brain clotted and liquid both. the doctor noted fracture of skull along front parietal joint extending upto front of left ear. he also found facture of 6th to 9th ribs on the left side and on back. the doctor opined that the deceased died due to shock of head injury and lung injury. the accused were arrested and a-1 was examined for some simple injuries like abrasions on him. the doctor opined that these injuries would have been caused by friction against hard substance. after completion of the investigation charge-sheet was laid. the prosecution relied on the evidence of the eye-witnesses p.ws. 1, 2, 3, 6, 10 and 11. when examined under section 313 the accused denied the offence. a-1 moola ram, however, stated that the deceased used to visit the house of p.w. 3 which was not liked by p.w. 6 also and on the day of occurrence there was a quarrel between p.w. 6 and the deceased and there was a scuffle and the deceased fell on a nail and that he (a-1) gave a fist blow and with the help of p.w. 6 tied the deceased. he himself went to the police station but he was told that the s.h.o was not there. he wanted to give a report but the same was not recorded. two d.ws were examined. the trial court accepted the evidence of the eye-witnesses. it however acquitted a-6 keshra ram since his name was not mentioned by any one of the eye-witnesses. the high court in a detailed judgment agreed with the findings arrived at by the trial court and confirmed the convictions as stated above.2. in these appeals, the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that many of the details were not mentioned in the earlier report and the witnesses are all interested and they have improved their version considerably and that their version itself is artificial. learned counsel also submitted that according to the prosecution case a-1 caught hold of the deceased when he was entering his own house through a window and dealt a lathi blow as a result of which lathi was broken and if that be so, there is nothing to show as to how later he could deal blow with the lathi. learned counsel also submitted that having acquitted a-6 and rejected the evidence to that extent, the courts below ought to have acquitted the other appellants also.3. we have gone through the evidence of the eye-witnesses. no doubt p.ws 1, 2, 3 and 6 are kith and kin of the deceased but they have given a truthful version of the whole occurrence. even in ex.p. 1 and the material particulars are mentioned particularly the fact that the deceased was dragged to the house of a-1 and that there he was tied and beaten. as noted already even a-1 admitted that the deceased was tied in his house but added that because of the scuffle between p.w. 6 and the deceased, latter was tied. immediately after registering the crime, the s.h.o. went to the house of a-1 and found the deceased tied and he was having bleeding injuries. thus the time, place of occurrence and the cause of death are established beyond doubt. so far as the presence and participation of the appellants are concerned there are statements of the eye-witnesses consistently to this effect. both the courts below have given cogent and convincing reasons for accepting the evidence of the eye-witnesses. the evidence adduced in defence is not at all materials and the courts below have rightly rejected the same. the trial court acquitted keshram ram (a-6) giving the benefit of doubt. in our view the same in any manner does not affect the evidence of the eye-witnesses who are the most natural witnesses. we see absolutely no merits in these appeals. the appeals are dismissed accordingly.

Judgment:
ORDER

K. Jayachandra Reddy, J.

1. On 28.11.1979 at about 9.30 P.M. an occurrence took place in Village Chadwas within the limits of Chhapar Police Station, Churu District in Rajasthan, in the course of which one Mohan Ram was killed on P.W. 6 Jiwan received an injury. In relation to this occurrence six persons were tried for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 302/149, 323 and 364/149 I.P.C. The trial court acquitted one Keshra Ram and convicted the remaining five persons under Section 302/149 and sentenced each of them to death. They were also convicted for other offences and sentenced to various terms of imprisonment ranging from three months to six months. A reference was made to the High Court for confirmation of the death sentence. Five convicted accused also filed jail appeals. The High Court converted the sentence of death to one of imprisonment for life and the appeals were dismissed in all other respects. This Court entertained special leave petitions filed by them but it was dismissed in respect of Moola Ram, A-1 and leave was granted in respect of the other appellants namely A-2 to A-5. Hence these appeals. The prosecution case is as follows.

One Mangu Ram, husband of Smt. Pinchu (P.W. 3) and the father of Jiwan (P.W. 6) and the brother of Moola Ram (A-1) died about ten years back. The deceased Mohan Ram used to visit the house of P.W. 3 and A-1 had suspicion about their relations and he did not relish the deceased coming to the house of P.W. 3 or having any relation with her. The deceased Mohan Ram arranged the marriage of P.W. 6 in the village in which his own son was married. This also enraged Moola Ram (A-1) and his sons and they did not even attend the marriage. On 28.11.79 at about 8 P.M. the deceased Mohan Ram had gone to ease himself. While returning he went to the house of Jiwan (P.W. 6) and asked him to accompany him to work at the grass cutting machine. Then he went towards his house. At about 9 or 9.30 P.M. Bhagu Ram (P.W. 1) son of the deceased and Smt. Gayani (P.W.2) his mother were inside the house. The door of the house was closed but the window was open. When the deceased was entering his house through the window Moola Ram (A-1) caught hold the bush-shirt of the deceased and pulled him out and gave a lathi blow on the head of the decased. The lathi got broken. Then the remaining accused gave lathi blows to the deceased who raised a cry. P.Ws 1 and 2 came out of the house and tried to intervene but A-1 warned them of direct consequences. On hearing the cries P.W. 6 also rushed there and questioned the accused. On that A-4 and A-6 ran after P.W. 6 and A-1 gave a lathi blow on his hand. The cries attracted P.W. 11 Bhanwara, another witness and P.W. 10 Mala Ram, a neighbour. They saw the assailants taking the injured deceased to the house of A-1. Having taken him there they tied him with string to a nail and gave lathi blow and kicks to him. P.Ws. 10 and 11 also reached there. P.W.3 and P.W. 6 asked the accused not to beat the deceased but they were also warned with dire consequences. The other witnesses then went to the house of A-1. There they found the deceased unconscious. P.W. 1 and others went in a tractor to the Police Station, Chhaper and a report Ex.P.1 was lodged by P.W. 1 The S.H.O., P.W. 15 with his staff reached the village and went on the house of A-1 and he found the deceased tied and in unconscious condition. He was bleeding. The S.H. O. untied the rope and prepared a memo. Some blood-stained articles were seized. The deceased was sent for medical examination at Chadwas. P.W. 6 who had an injury was also sent to Chadwas. The Doctor examined him. Another Doctor B.K. Narula examined the injured deceased and noted 19 injuries on his person. The deceased died at about 9.15 p.m. on 29.11.79. The post-mortem was conducted by P.W. 7 Dr. Madhu Sudan Sharma. On external examination he found 19 injuries. Most of them were lacerated wounds and bruises all over the body and on dissection he found fracture of right parietal bone, fracture of skull along front parietal and brain membrances were congested and the blood was present in left side of cavity outside the brain clotted and liquid both. The Doctor noted fracture of skull along front parietal joint extending upto front of left ear. He also found facture of 6th to 9th ribs on the left side and on back. The Doctor opined that the deceased died due to shock of head injury and lung injury. The accused were arrested and A-1 was examined for some simple injuries like abrasions on him. The Doctor opined that these injuries would have been caused by friction against hard substance. After completion of the investigation charge-sheet was laid. The prosecution relied on the evidence of the eye-witnesses P.Ws. 1, 2, 3, 6, 10 and 11. When examined under Section 313 the accused denied the offence. A-1 Moola Ram, however, stated that the deceased used to visit the house of P.W. 3 which was not liked by P.W. 6 also and on the day of occurrence there was a quarrel between P.W. 6 and the deceased and there was a scuffle and the deceased fell on a nail and that he (A-1) gave a fist blow and with the help of P.W. 6 tied the deceased. He himself went to the police station but he was told that the S.H.O was not there. He wanted to give a report but the same was not recorded. Two D.Ws were examined. The trial court accepted the evidence of the eye-witnesses. It however acquitted A-6 Keshra Ram since his name was not mentioned by any one of the eye-witnesses. The High Court in a detailed judgment agreed with the findings arrived at by the trial court and confirmed the convictions as stated above.

2. In these appeals, the learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that many of the details were not mentioned in the earlier report and the witnesses are all interested and they have improved their version considerably and that their version itself is artificial. Learned Counsel also submitted that according to the prosecution case A-1 caught hold of the deceased when he was entering his own house through a window and dealt a lathi blow as a result of which lathi was broken and if that be so, there is nothing to show as to how later he could deal blow with the lathi. Learned Counsel also submitted that having acquitted A-6 and rejected the evidence to that extent, the courts below ought to have acquitted the other appellants also.

3. We have gone through the evidence of the eye-witnesses. No doubt P.Ws 1, 2, 3 and 6 are kith and kin of the deceased but they have given a truthful version of the whole occurrence. Even in Ex.P. 1 and the material particulars are mentioned particularly the fact that the deceased was dragged to the house of A-1 and that there he was tied and beaten. As noted already even A-1 admitted that the deceased was tied in his house but added that because of the scuffle between P.W. 6 and the deceased, latter was tied. Immediately after registering the crime, the S.H.O. went to the house of A-1 and found the deceased tied and he was having bleeding injuries. Thus the time, place of occurrence and the cause of death are established beyond doubt. So far as the presence and participation of the appellants are concerned there are statements of the eye-witnesses consistently to this effect. Both the courts below have given cogent and convincing reasons for accepting the evidence of the eye-witnesses. The evidence adduced in defence is not at all materials and the courts below have rightly rejected the same. The trial court acquitted Keshram Ram (A-6) giving the benefit of doubt. In our view the same in any manner does not affect the evidence of the eye-witnesses who are the most natural witnesses. We see absolutely no merits in these appeals. The appeals are dismissed accordingly.