Bhagwan Das v. State of Rajasthan

[1957] 1957 854 SUPREME COURT REPORTS BHAGWANDAS _ti._ THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN (BHAGWATI and J. L. KAPUR JJ.) _Appeal against_ _acquittal-JV hen_ _High_ _Court may_ _interfere-·_ _Dying_ _declaration-Value_ _of-Expert_ _evidence-Discrediting_ _by_ _reference to text_ _books-Practice-Appreciation_ _of_ _evidence-Inter·_ _/erence_ _by_ _Supreme Court._ The l-Iigh Court should not set asi<lc an acquittal unless there are "subst:intial and compelling" reasons for doing so. _St1ra7pal_ _Singh_ v. _State,_ (1912) S.C.R. 193, _A7mcr Singh_ '" _The_ _State of_ _P11n7ab,_ (1953) S.C.R. 418, _Aher_ _Raia_ _Khima_ _'"The_ _State_ _of Saurashtra,_ (1955) 2 S.C.R. 1285, followed. It is not a satisfactory way of disposing of the evi<lence of Jn expert witness to discredit it by reference _to_ text books unless the passages \vhich are sought to discredit his opinion are put to hiin. _Sunder/al_ v. _The_ _State_ _of_ _Madhya Pradesh,_ A.LR. (1954) S.C. 28, followed. Although the Supreme CouTt will not interfere with the findings of the High Court because its conclusions on the e\·i<lence as to the guilt or innocence _oi_ the ai.:LuscJ Jifler from that _oi_ Lhe High Court, yet \vhcrc the evidence is such that no tribunal could legitin1ate\y infer fron1 it that the accused is guilty the Supreme Court \voul<l _set_ aside the conviction. _Stephen Seneviratne_ v. _'The_ _King,_ A.LR. ( 1936) tl.c:. 289, relied on. CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 50 of 1957. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated January 27, 1956, of the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur in Criminal Appeal No. 119 of 1954 arising out of the judgment and order dated March 23, 1954, of the Court of the Sessions Judge at Ganganagar in Original Criminal Case No. 74 of 1953. _Moh an_ _Behari Lal,_ for the appellant. _Kan Singh_ and _T._ _M._ _Sen,_ for the respondent. 1957. April 2. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KAPUR J.-Bhagwandas and Netram are two brothers who along with Mt. Rameshwari, a daughter S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 855 of the former, were tried by the Sessions Judge of Ganganagar for an offence under s. 302 of the Indian Penal Code but were acquitted. On appeal to the High Court of Rajasthan, the order of acquittal of Bhagwandas and Netram was reversed and they were convicted under s. 302 read with s. 34 and sentenced to transportation for life. The order as to Mt. Rameshwari was affirmed and she was acquitted. The convicted persons have obtained Special Leave. to appeal under Art. 136 of the Constitution. The appeal is founded on two grounds : (I) that there was no evidence against the appellants sufficient to warrant a conviction and (2) that there were no compelling reasons for reversal of the judgment of acquittal. According to the prosecution the canal after a temporary closure restarted flowing on May 5, 1953. And although it was not his turn of water the deceased Shivlal was allowed to take the water to irrigate his fields. On May 6 the canal was flowing to its full capacity and Shivlal was to take his turn of water which was of 6 hours duration from 8 a.m. to 2 p.m. but he watered his lands from 8 a.m. to 10-30 a.m. because the village _diggi_ (pond) which was empty had to be filled up. _Mirab_ Ram Karan P.W. 1 with the consent of Shivlal diverted the water for the purpose of filling up the _diggi,_ promising him (Shivlal) to get him the rest of his turn of water, _i.e.,_ for 3! hours after the _diggi_ had been filled up. The _diggi_ was filled up by 1 p. m. on the 7th. Shivlal then wanted to divert the water into his field but Bhagwandas prevented him from doing so claiming the tum to be his. According to Ram Karan _Mirab_ P. W.1 the turn of Bhagwandas was after Surta whose turn was next to that of Shivlal. As Shivlal was prevented from taking his turn of water he started walking towards the village saying that he would go and speak to Mirab. Bhagwandas thereupon shouted that "the enemy was going" and hit Shivlal on the head with a _kassi._ Netram then hit Shivlal with lathi as a result of which he fell down and then both beat Shivlal, and 1957 _Bhagwan Das_ v. _The State_ _of_ _Rajasthans_ _Kapur_ _J._ 1957 _**Bhagwan Das**_ .v. _Tk State of_ _**Ra}asthan**_ _Kapw_ _]._ 856 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1957] Mt. R:imeshwari also, it was alleged, joined in this beating with a wooden handle of a _kassi._ This occurrence was witnessed by Hazari P. W. 3 who was grazing his camels in the field . of Surta. He went up to the place where the beating was going on and shouted to the assailants who "went away" leaving their _kassi_ behind. Hazari found Shivlal seriously injured and unconscious. He sprinkled some water on his face which revived Shivlal and the latter asked Hazari to take him to the Thana but Hazari he! ped him to walk up to the Khala (threshing floor) of Hukma which was at a short distance from that place. Hazari P. 'vV. 3 has stated that the left Shivlal with Jora, Jagmal, Bhogar, Begaram and Binja, and on their asking him he (Hazari) told them what he had seen. Shivlal was then taken to Raisinghnagar by Bhaggu and J agmal on a she-camel to the shop of Gyani Ram P. W. 4. There Shivlal told Gyani Ram also that Bhagwandas, Netram and Rameshwari had assaulted him because of the water dispute and also asked Gyani -Ram to send for his son Ram Pratap and his Artya (Commission Agent) Ishardas. Ram Pratap came at about 6 p. m. Shivlal repeated the story to him and was then taken to the hospital by J agmal, Bhaggu and others. At the hospital he was treated by the doctor P. W. 11 but died the following day (8th) at 8-15 a. m. The First Information Report was based on a written report Ex. P-1 by Ram Pratap s/o Shivlal. It was recorded on May 7 at about 7-30 p.m. The prosecution supported their case by the evidence of two eye witnesses, dying declarations made to 3 persons and on the recovery of the _kassi._ They produced two eye witnesses Begaram. P.W. 2 and Hazari P.W. 3. The dying declarations were made to three persons first to Jora P. W. 7, later to Gyaniram P. W. 4 at his shop and lastly to Ram Pratap P. W. 5 who arrived at the shop at 6 p. m. If the dying declaration was made to this witness it must have been at that time. According to the doctor's evidence Shivlal was unconscious when he was brought to the hospital at 5 p. m. He h<id 15 injuries on his body, out of which S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 857 injury No. 1 was with a sharp-edged weapon and injury No. 2 with a blunt weapon and both these injuries were grievous and were "individually and collectively fatal sufficient to cause death." The learned Sessions Judge disbelieved the whole evidence and acquitted the accused. He was of the opinion that the evidence produced by the prosecution was not "free from suspicion and not sufficient to convict them". Begaram P. W. 2 was disbelieved both by the Sessions Judge and the High Court. The learned Sessions Judge described Hazari as a "facile fluent liar" but his testimony was accepted by the High Court. Both courts rejected the statement of Ram Pratap but the statements of Gyaniram and Jara were accepted by the High Court although they were rejected by the Sessions Judge. The High Court has relied upon the testimony of one eye witness Hazari P. W. 3 and two witnesses before whom Shivlal is alleged to have made two dying declarations. There are apparent contradictions between the testimony of Hazari and Bega. The learned High Court Judges disposed of this by saying that Bega's presence "on the spot is open to grave doubts. As such it is, in our opinion, not proper to contradict the statement of a man who was present ort the spot by using the statement of another man who was in all probability not there." The learned Judges have made the following significant observation in regard to Hazari : "It seems to us that Hazari had said this because the prosecution was producing Bega, and he must have been asked to say that Bega was also present. So far as the story of Hazari about the incident itself is concerned, nothing has been brought out in his crossexamination to throw doubts on this part of his statement." They also pointed out, but attached no importance, to other contradictions in the statements of Hazari ## made before the trial court and before the PoliCe. If as observed by the learned Judges of the High Court Hazari had mentioned the presence of Bega metel; 1957 _Bhagwan_ _IJas_ v. _TM State of_ _Rajashan_ _Kapur_ _J._ 1957 _**Bhagwan Dru**_ 858 SUPREME COURT REPORTS Ll957l because the latter was to be produced as a prosecution witness and because he (Hazari) had been asked to mention it, then it would detract so materially from his reliability that it would be dangerous to accept his testimony as being of any great value which is still more diminished by the finding as to the innocence of Mt. Rameshwari. The other piece of evidence which the prosecution relied upon was the two dying declarations made by Shivlal to Gyaniram P. W. 4 and fora P. W. 7. Besides the infirmities which the testimony of these two witnesses (Gyaniram P. W. 4 and Jora P. W. 1) suffered from due to material contradictions in their respective statements mad"'. at various stages of the case and which have been pointed out by the learned Se,sions Judge who said about Gyaniram : "In such a state of affairs I refuse to put any weight and value to the statement of Gyaniram ....... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " their evidence cannot be a surf foundation for maintaining the conviction if the statement of Hazari the sole eye witness is disregarded, as it must be disregarded in this case; because ordinarily a dying declaration of the kind which the prosecution has relied upon is by itself i!1Suflicient for sustaining a conviction on a charge of murder. The learned Sessions Judge was of the opinion that the evidence of the doctor P. W. 11 made- the story that Shivlal could walk for a little distance upto the Kliala of Hukma or was able to talk so as to make a dying declaration, improbable. But the learned Judges of the High Court disposed of this matter by saying that the doctor was comparatively young and that his statement was not in accord with the op11110n expressed in books on Medical J urisprudcnce by authors like Modi and Lyon. But it cannot be said that the opinions of these authors were given in regard to circumstances exactly similar to those which arose in the case now before us nor is this a satisfactory way of disposing of the evidence of an expert unless the passages which are sought to discredit his opinion are put to him. This Court in _S undarlal_ v. _The_ _State_ _of_ _Madhya Pradesh(_ [1 ] ) disapproved of Judges drawing (I) A.LR. 195{ S. C. 2H. v. _**Tht State oj**_ _**.Rajasthan**_ _**Kapur**_ **J.** S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 859 conclusions adverse to the accused by relying upon such passages in the absence of their being put . to medical witnesses. The learned Judges of the High Court were, therefore, in error in accepting the testimony of these witnesses in support of the correctness of the two dying declarations nor could the statement of the deceased alleged to have been made in the circumstances of this case be considered sufficient to support the conviction of the accused. The recovery of the _kassi_ is a wholly neutral circumstance because it has not been proved that it belonged to Bhagwandas. Although this Court will not interfere with the findings of the High Court because its conclusions on the evidence as to the guilt or innocence of the accused differ from that of the High Court, yet where the evidence is such that no Tribunal could legitimately infer from it that the accused is guilty this court would set aside the conviction. The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in _Stephen Seneviratne_ v. _The_ _King(1)_ 1957 # Bhagwan Tht Stau •• D111 of _Rajasthar._ _Kapur_ _Ji_ in setting aside an order of conviction said : " ........ there are here no grounds on the evidence, taken as a whole, upon which any Tribunal could properly, as a matter of legitimate inference, arrive at a conclusion that the appellant was guilty ...... " In our view the evidence in the present case is of such quality and no legitimate inference of guilt of the accused could properly be drawn. The second point on which the judgment of the High Court is assailed is the lack of compelling reasons ## .. for setting aside the judgment of acquittal. This court has held that the High Court should not set aside an acquittal unless there are "substantial and compelling" reasons for doing so. _Surajpal Singh_ v. _State(2),_ _Ajmer_ _Singh_ v. _The_ _State of Punjab(_ [3 ] ), _Ahcr_ _Raja_ _Khima_ v. _The_ _State_ _of_ _Saurashtra(_ [4 ] ). The judgment of the High Court does not disclose any such reasons justifying interference with the findings of the _trial_ Court. (1) A.I.R. 1936 P.C. 289, 299. (2) [1952] S.C.R. 193, 201. (3) [1953] s.c.R. 418, 423. (4) [1955] 2 S.C.R. 1285. 1957 _Bhagwan Das_ v. _The State of_ _Rajasthan_ _Kapur_ _]._ 1957 _April_ 5. 860 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1957] We would, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court, restore that of the Sessions Judge and order the acquittal of the accused. _Appeal allowed._ RAMJI LAL MODI _v._ THE STATE OF U.P. (S. R. DA5 C.J., JAFER IMAM, S. K. DAs, GoVINDA MEN0"1 and A. K. SARKAR JJ.) _Insult to Religion-f_,atu_ _making_ _such insult an_ _offence-Conrti-_ _tutional_ _validity-If_ _violates_ _freedo1n_ _of speech and_ _express;.011-_ _lndian Penal Code_ _(Act_ _XLV_ _of 1860),_ _s._ _295A-Constitm1011_ _of_ _fodio, Arts._ _19(1)(a),_ J9(2), _25, 26._ This \Vas a petition challenging the constitutional validity of s. 29'5.\ of the Jndi;in Penal Code and for quashing the pcfitioner's con\"iction thereunder for publishing an article in a 1-:ionthly rnag:.izinc of \Vhich he \Vas the printer, publisher and the editor. It \',"ls contended on his behalf that the impugned section infringed his fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression conferred by Art. l~(l )(a) of the Constitution and \Vas not a hnv i1np~sing reasonable restrictions on the right in the interests of public order under d. (2) of Art. 19, which alone could have afforded a justification for it. _field,_ that s. 295A of the Indian Penal Code was well with the protection of cl. (2) of Art. 19 of the Constitution and its validity \Vas beyond question. The expression "in the interests of" occurring in the amended cl. (2) of Art. J 9 had the effect of making the protection afforded.. by that clause very wide and a law not directly desigr.ed to maintain public order would well be within its protection if such acti\•ites as it penalised had a tendency to cause p·ublic disorder. _Debi Soron_ v. _The_ _State_ _of_ _Bihar,_ A.LR. ( 1954) Pat. 254, referred to. It was absurd to suggest that insult to religion as an offence could have no bearing on public order so as to attract cl. (2) of Art. 19 in view of the provisions of Arts. 25 and 26 of the constitution which, while guaranteeing freedom of religion, expressly made it subject to public order.