Raghunath, Ram Kishan & Ors vs State Of Haryana & Anr on 13 November, 2002

Supreme Court of India
Raghunath, Ram Kishan & Ors vs State Of Haryana & Anr on 13 November, 2002
Author: J Sema
Bench: Y.K. Sabharwal, H.K. Sema.
           CASE NO.:
Appeal (crl.)  73 of 2002
Appeal (crl.)  74 of 2002

PETITIONER:
Raghunath, Ram Kishan & Ors.

RESPONDENT:
State of Haryana & Anr.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 13/11/2002

BENCH:
Y.K. SABHARWAL & H.K. SEMA.

JUDGMENT:

J U D G M E N T

SEMA,J

These two appeals arise out of a common judgment and order
passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon, convicting the
appellants in Sessions Case No. 32 of 1995 and sentenced them to suffer
Rigorous Imprisonment on the following Sections of law as under:-

Offence U/s Sentence awarded Amount of fine Sentence in default
Imposed of payment

148 IPC Two years Nil –

302 IPC Imprisonment Rs. 1000/- Six months RI
r/w149IPC for life

325 IPC Three years RI Rs. 300/- Two months RI
r/w 149 IPC

323 IPC Six months RI Nil –

r/w 149 IPC

452 IPC Three years RI Rs. 300/- Two months RI
r/w 149 IPC

436 IPC Seven years RI Rs. 700/- Five months RI
r/w 149 IPC

The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. By the
aforesaid judgment all the nine accused have been convicted. The
convictions and sentences have been confirmed by the High Court.
Criminal Appeal No. 73 of 2002 is preferred by accused
Raghunath and Criminal Appeal No. 74 of 2002 is preferred by the
remaining eight accused, namely, Ram Kishan s/o Ram Pat, Anil @ Ajay
Kumar s/o Ram Kishan, Manohar Lal s/o Bohru, Desh Raj s/o Ram Pat, Siri
Chand s/o Bohru, Satish s/o Siri Chand, Sunil s/o Ram Kishan and Jagmal
s/o Ram Pat.

The complainant parties are close relatives of deceased Kundan
Lal. The accused are also inter-related (accused Nos. 2 and 6 being the sons
of accused No. 1 Ram Kishan, accused Nos. 3 and 7 brothers of accused No.
1, accused Nos. 4 and 9 inter-se brothers, accused No. 5 being the son of
accused No. 4), except accused No. 8.

Before adverting to the points urged by counsel for the appellants we
may, at this stage, notice that there is a rift between the two groups. While
considering the evidence of witnesses, particularly of PWs 1 and 2, one
could not loose sight that it is in the evidence of the prosecution that the
deceased Kundan Lal had contested the election of Sarpanch against accused
Manohar Lal earlier. It is also in the evidence of the prosecution that just a
day after the date of incident Panchayat elections were to be held. The fight
for the post of Sarpanch was between Raj Singh and one Satbir. The
complainant party was supporting Raj Singh and the accused were the
supporters of Satbir. It is also in the evidence on record that both criminal
and civil litigation was pending between the complainant and the accused
groups. Therefore, the rift between the complainant and the accused groups
was writ large prior to the date of the incident. In such a situation one
should be cautious while appreciating the evidence of the prosecution
witnesses.

The prosecution case, as revealed in the FIR, was set in motion on
receipt of information received from Badshahpur Police Station through
wireless that there was a fight in village Teekli and the injured were
admitted in the hospital. On the basis of the said information, ASI Bhup
Singh had noted the Farad Bayan. After recording the statement of the
complainant party, a prima facie case was found and a case under Sections
148
, 323/302/325/452/436/427 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal
Code was registered.

PW-2 complainant, Sumer Singh lodged the FIR stating that on
18.12.1994, at about 9.30 p.m., his wife Smt. Indrawati, father Kundan Lal,
mother Smt. Premwati, brothers Sher Singh and Sunder Lal, and Smt. Munni
wife of Sher Singh were present in their house. Accused Ram Kishan, Sunil,
Anil, Deshraj, Jagmal, Raghunath, Siri Chand, Satish, Manohar Lal, lass
with lathis and stones entered the house of the deceased Kundan Lal by
breaking the door open and on entering accused Anil Kumar inflicted a lathi
blow which fell on the head of Kundan Lal (deceased) father of the
complainant, as a result of which he fell on the ground. Thereafter,
accused Ram Kishan, Sunil, Deshraj, Jagmal, Raghnath, Siri Chand, Saish
and Manohar Lal caused injuries indiscriminately with lathis and stones to
the complainant, his mother Smt. Parmeshwari, his wife Smt. Indira, his
brothers Sunder Lal and Sher Singh and brother’s wife Smt. Munni Bai. On
hearing a noise from the members of the complainant party, Sube Singh son
of Makhan Lal, Karan Singh son of Pyare Lal, Ram Khilari son of Ami
Chand and Satbair Singh son of Chhatter Singh, all resident of the same
vilage, came to the spot when the accused set on fire a heap of cow dung
cakes (Bitoras) lying on the roof of the house and also the bundles of fodder
lying near the chaff-cutting machine. It is further stated that accused Ram
Kishan gave a Lalkara exhorting that members of the complainant party be
burnt alive. Karan Singh and Sube Singh when tried to intervene also
sustained injuries from the accused. It is further stated that the complainant
party also caused injuries to Ram Kishan in self-defence. In course of the
investigation, the IO found prima facie case against the accused-appellants
under the aforesaid Sections and submitted the challan. The prosecution
mainly relied on the evidence of two injured witnesses, PW-1 Karan Singh
son of Pyare Lal and PW-2 Sumer Singh son of deceased Kundan Lal.
Injured Smt.Parmeshwari, Smt. Indira, Sunder Lal, Sher Singh and Smt.
Munibai were not examined.

Counsel for the appellants, seriously doubted the genesis of the
prosecution story with regard to the place of occurrence as revealed from the
sketch map (Exht.P5). It is contended by Mr. K.T.S.Tulsi, learned senior
counsel, appearing for the appellant in Crl.Appeal No.73 of 2002 and
Mr.Sushil Kumar, learned senior counsel, appearing for the appellants in
Crl.A.No.74 of 2002 that it is quite unusual that the complainant party
namely Karan Singh, Satbir Singh, Ram Khilari and Sube Singh, sitting in a
Poli and smoking Hukka, allowed the accused party to break the main gate
of Poli and saw them going into the house of Kundan Lal. But the
complainant party remained a mute spectators without any resistance.
Similarly, it is argued that the hall, in which the accused party is stated to
have assaulted the complainant party marked points A, B, C, D, F and G,
within a radius of six feet is inherently improbable. It is their contention that
complainant party numbering seven and the accused party numbering nine
totaling 16, armed with lathis of six long feet, it will be inherently
improbable to accommodate the complainant party and the accused party in
a hall within a radius of six feet and wielding the lathis and raining blows at
the same time. The hall of deceased Kundan Lal in which the accused
party is said to have assaulted the complainant party with the lathis and
bricks is within the radius of six feet. According to the prosecution story,
the complainant party consisting of seven family members and the accused
party consisting of 9 in number, were assembled in the hall of Kundan Lal.
Having considered the submission with the ground reality and after
application of our mind, we are of the view that it would be inherently
improbable that the accused nine in number, to have wielded and raining
blows at the same time with lathis of six feet long in a hall within the radius
of six feet with seven members of the complainant party totaling 16 persons
in the room.

Similarly, the blood stained earth, Muffler and lathis, said to have
been taken in possession by the police in course of investigations were sent
for F.S.L. The result of F.S.L. is marked Exh. 8. It is reproduced as under:

“Forensic Science Laboratory Haryana, Madhuban (Karnal)
Report No. FSL(H) 94/B-3801 Dated 14.2.1996
Case FIR No. 972 Dated 19.12.1994
U/s 148/149/436/302/201 IPC P.S. Sdr.Gurgaon

Results of Serological Analysis of Blood

Exht. No. Name of Exhibit Origin Group

1. Blood Stained Cotton Human Inconclusive

2. Muffler Human `O’
3a. Pyjama Human Inconclusive
3b. Underwear Human Inconclusive

4. Sample blood Human Inconclusive

5. Lathi Human Inconclusive

6. Lathi Human Inconclusive

7. Lathi Human Inconclusive

8. Lathi Human Inconclusive
Material disintegrated

Sd/-

Dr. M.K. Goyal
Asstt. Director (Biology)
Forensic Sc. Laboratory (H)
Madhuban (Karnal)”

There is no evidence on record to show that the blood stain sent for
FSL bears a certificate that the blood is a human blood and it belongs to a
particular group which is the same blood group of the deceased Kundan Lal.
Therefore, the blood stain is a human blood is not conclusive evidence that
it belongs to the blood group of deceased Kundan Lal. This also can be
examined in the background of the defence version that accused Ram Kishan
was kidnapped and taken inside the house of Kundan Lal forcibly, wherein
he was beaten up by the complainant party and received several bodily
injuries. PW-4 Dr.B.B. Sharma had examined accused Ram Kishan on
18.12.1994 at 11.10 p.m. and found the following six injuries:

1. Abrasion on right eye-brow outer and 2 cm. x cm.
surrounding area was swollen. Fresh clotted blood was present.
X-ray was advised.

2. 1 cm. x cm. lacerated wound. It was skin deep on
left maxillary prominence.

3. There was swelling below left elbow on fore-arm. It was
6 cm. x 4 cm. X-ray left elbow and forearm was advised.

4. Abrasions 6 cm. horizontal x 4 cm. on back of the
left side chest. Lower ribs outer part. X-ray chest was advised.

5. 4 cm x 1 cm. x bone deep lacerated vertical wound
on middle part left leg was present. Fresh clotted blood was
present. X-ray left leg was advised.

6. Lacerated wound cm x 1 cm. x muscle deep 2 cm.

away. There was 1 cm x cm x muscle deep on the front
of the right leg middle part ;surrounding area was swollen. X-
ray right leg was advised.”

P.W. 5 Dr. B. B. Aggarwal, who conducted X-ray examination of
accused Ram Kishan stated as under:

“On 20.12.1994, I conducted X-ray examination of Ram Kishan
son of Ram Pat, 42 years, male r/o Teekli, vide MLR No.
BBS/126/94 Ex. DB and found fracture olecranon process of
left upper limb (elbow) and fractures 8th, 9th and 10th ribs of left
side chest.”

It is pertinent to notice that the blood stained earth was removed from
the point ‘A’, which is the hall of Kundan Lal. In the absence of certifying a
particular group of blood by FSL, the blood so collected from the point ‘A’
inside the hall of Kundan Lal could be the blood of accused Ram Kishan
from which place he is reported to have been beaten up mercilessly by the
complainant party.

As already noticed, the FIR was lodged on 19.12.94 at 2.30 a.m. for the
incident said to have taken place on 18.12.94 at about 9.30 p.m. An
accident which is stated to have taken place in the village Teekli, is stated to
be at a distance of about 14 KM from Gurgaon. It is in the evidence on
record that Sadar Police Station, Gurgaon, and police post Badshahpur fall
on the way from village Teekli to General Hospital, Gurgaon. The
complainant party did not stop at the two police stations and proceeded
straight to the General Hospital, Gurgaon. It is urged that the conduct of the
complainant party is unusual and this has created doubt about genesis of the
prosecution story. This contention has been rejected by the learned trial
court that the complainant party was busy in getting the first and immediate
aid to the injured persons of the family. We are of the view that in the
ordinary circumstances, it is quite imperative that the complainant party
could have stopped at the police station, sought necessary help from the
police station and also given the first hand information to the police. From
the evidence of P.W.4 Dr. B.B. Sharma, it appears that the injuries
suffered by the complainant party are simple in nature except that of Kundan
Lal (deceased). In our view, therefore, there are no mitigating circumstances
for not reporting to the police station at the first hour especially when the
police stations are on the way to the General Hospital.

Similarly, as noticed earlier, FIR was lodged on 19.12.1994 at 2.30
a.m. PW-4 examined the injured at 10.30 p.m. on 18.12.1994. In the FIR,
PW-2 has stated that “on entering our house, Anil Kumar gave a lathi blow
on the head of my father which he was holding in his hand, and my father
fell on the ground and Ram Kishan, Sunil, Desh Raj, Jagmal, Raghunath,
Siri Chand, Satish, Manohar Lal caused injuries with their respective lathis,
brick bats to me, my wife Indira, Bhabhi Munni Bai, my mother
Parmeshwari, brother Sunder Lal and elder brother Sher Singh
continuously.”

PW-6 Dr.Vineeta Bhatnagar, conducted the post mortem examination
on the dead body of Kundan Lal on 19.12.1994 at 1.30 p.m. and found the
following injuries on his body:-

1. A bone deep lacerated wound of 5 x 2 cms size on scalp
1.5 cm from the bridge of the nose in the mid line.
Subcutaneous tissues showed hemorrhage and haemotama
formation and underlying bone was fond fractured. Meninges
and brain matter found lacerated.

2. A bone deep lacerated wound of 2.5 x 2.5 cms size on
the scalp. 6 cm. above and behind the tip of left ear. His
subcutaneous tissue shows hemorrhage and heamatoma
underlying bone found fractured. Meninges and brain matter
was found lacerated.

3. A bone deep lacerated wound of size 4.5 x 1.5 cms on
right side. 7 cm. above the tip of right ear. Subcutaneous tissue
shows hemorrhage meninges and brain matter was found
lacerated.

4. An abrasion of 15 cm x 4 cm on the left upper arm just
below the shoulder on the lateral side. Subcutaneous tissues
showed hemorrhage. Bones were intact.

Dr. opined that “the death was due to hemorrhage and shock
resulting from ante-mortem injuries (Nos. 1 to 3) to brain,
which were, cumulatively as well as individually, sufficient to
cause death in the ordinary course of Nature”.

PW-2 Sumer Singh has deposed before the Court as under:-

“Accused Anil inflicted a lathi blow on head of his father
Kundan, followed by a lathi blow each by accused Ram Kishan
and Manohar Lal on his father’s head and another lathi blow by
accused Raghunath on his (Kundan Lal’s) shoulder”.

Counsel for the appellants, would argue that the version of PW-2
before the Court is an improvement on the basis of medical evidence
inasmuch as in the FIR he has stated that it was the accused Anil who on
entering the house gave a lathi blow on the head of his father and the rest of
the accused started beating him and members of the family continuously. In
our view, the particular part played by lathi blow each by accused Ram
Kishan and Manohar Lal on his father’s head and another lathi blow by
accused Raghunath on his father’s shoulder stated by PW-2 in his deposition
before the Court appears to be well an after thought after seeing the medical
evidence. This substantial contradiction in the FIR and in his deposition
before the Court makes a serious doubt of the presence of complainant
PW-2 – Sumer Singh at the place of occurrence, where deceased Kundan
Lal was assaulted.

Similarly, PW-2 also stated that the complainant party also caused
injuries to accused Ram Kishan in self-defence. PW-1 Karan Singh,
however, stated categorically in his deposition before the Court that none of
the accused had received injuries. This material contradiction between the
two injured eye-witnesses PWs-1 and 2 would rendered their presence
doubtful. This apart, there is also evidence on record that except accused
No.1- Ram Kishan, the rest of the accused did not sustain any injuries on
their bodies. If the eye witness account of PWs-1 and 2 are to be believed, it
is their specific statement that accused Anil caused the first blow on the head
of deceased Kundan Lal. Normally, the exercise of right of private defence
is directed towards the assailants. Accused Anil, who stated to have dealt
with the first blow on the head of the deceased Kundan Lal, did not sustain
any injury. The rest of the accused also did not sustain any injuries. It is
utterly unbelievable story of the prosecution that the right of private defence
is directed against only accused Ram Kishan who has sustained as many as
six injuries on his body, as described above. At the same time, the nature of
the injury sustained by accused Ram Kishan would disclose that the
complainant party was armed and had sufficient time to inflict the injuries.
This circumstance would lend support to the defence version that Ram
Kishan was kidnapped and forcibly lifted to the house of Kundan Lal and
beaten up mercilessly by the complainant party.

Similarly, in the FIR PW-2 Sumer Singh did not mention about the
particulars of the injuries suffered by him at the hands of the accused. He
has, however, stated in his statement recorded under section 161 on
19.12.1994 that Desh Raj caused injury on his left shoulder by stone,
accused Sunil caused injury on his left ankle and left foot by lathi, accused
Satish caused injury on his right ankle and below right knee by stone. This
witness deposed before the court that accused Desh Raj caused him injury
on his right shoulder and accused Sunil on the right ankle and accused Satish
on left knee respectively. This, in our view, is a substantial contradiction
which is fatal to the prosecution story. No reliance can be placed on such a
contrary statement with regard to the injuries sustained by him caused by
each of the accused.

The defence raised serious contentions on the discrepancy of the
injuries described by PW-2, said to have been sustained by him from each of
the accused but the same has been rejected by the learned trial court on
tenuous grounds. The aforesaid contention has been rejected by the learned
trial Judge in paragraph 91 of his order as under:-

“In the totality of circumstances it is to be mentioned that it is
not a case of non-existence of injuries but while appearing as
PW-2 Sumer Singh instead of injuries No.1 and 2 being
mentioned on left shoulder and left ankle, he mentioned the
same on the right side. Similarly injury No.5 though is present
on the right knee but was mentioned to be on the left side. This
slip, though exists, would not be a circumstances to discredit
the prosecution version. It may be a slip of tongue or a
bonafide mistake”.

In our view, the aforesaid discrepancies appearing in the statement of
PW-2 would render the prosecution story wholly unreliable, concocted and
well an after thought.

As already noticed, accused Ram Kishan sustained as many as six
injuries. The rest of the accused did not suffer any injury. There is no
explanation by the prosecution how the accused Ram Kishan received
injuries except in the statement of PW-2 that injuries caused to Ram Kishan
were in self defence, which has already been discussed. The fact that only
accused Ram Kishan received injuries would disclose that accused Ram
Kishan alone was present at the place of incident. This would also support
the theory of defence that accused Ram Kishan was kidnapped by the
complainant party to the house of deceased Kundan Lal and beaten up by
them mercilessly and not on account of right of private defence as projected
by the prosecution story.

Mr. J.P. Dhanda, learned counsel, appearing for the respondents
urged that this Court would not interfere with the concurrent findings of fact
recorded by the learned trial court Judge and affirmed by the High Court.
While it is true that normally this Court would not interfere with the
concurrent findings of fact save in exceptional circumstances, where legal
process are disregarded or principles of natural justice are violated or
substantial and grave injustice has otherwise resulted (see Balak Ram v.
State of U.P
. (1975) 3 SCC 219). The High Court is a final Court of appeal
and normally this Court would not interfere, if the High Court on the
reappraisal of evidence confirms the trial court judgment. But in the present
case, going through the judgment of the High Court, with respect we may
point out that the High Court merely affirmed the findings of the trial Court
without reappraisal of the evidence on its own.

As already pointed out, accused Ram Kishan sustained as many as six
injuries on his body, injury Nos.3 and 4 stated to be grievous in nature. Both
the trial court and the High Court accepted the version of PW-2 that injuries
were caused in self-defence. We have already disbelieved the version of
PW-2. No explanation whatsoever has been afforded by the prosecution
with regard to the injuries on the person of the accused – Ram Kishan.

The question, whether prosecution is obliged to explain the injuries
sustained by the accused in the same occurrence and failure to explain
injuries on the accused would construe that the prosecution has suppressed
the truth and also the origin and genesis of the occurrence, has been in
controversy before this Court in a catena of decisions. A three-Judge Bench
of this Court in Ram Sunder Yadav & Ors. vs. State of Bihar (1998) 7
SCC 365, referred to another three-Judge Bench decision of this Court in
Vijayee Singh vs. State of U.P. (1990) 3 SCC 190 at page 202 para 10,
which held as under:

“In Mohar Rai case it is made clear that failure of the
prosecution to offer any explanation regarding the injuries
found on the accused may show that the evidence related to the
incident is not true or at any rate not wholly true. Likewise in
Lakshmi Singh case also it is observed that any non-explanation
of the injuries on the accused by the prosecution may affect the
prosecution case. But such a non-explanation may assume
greater importance where the evidence consists of interested or
inimical witnesses or where the defence gives a version which
competes in probability with that of the prosecution. But where
the evidence is clear, cogent and creditworthy and where the
court can distinguish the truth from falsehood the mere fact that
the injuries are not explained by the prosecution cannot by itself
be a sole basis to reject such evidence, and consequently the
whole case.”

In the present case, as noticed earlier, the prosecution evidence
consists of interested or inimical witnesses. Therefore, non-explanation of
the injuries sustained by Ram Kishan may assume greater importance. There
is also the defence version which competes in probability with that of the
prosecution. In our view, therefore, non-explanation of the injuries
sustained by the accused Ram Kishan, which are grievous in nature, renders
the prosecution story not wholly true.

Regarding the injuries sustained by the complainant party, it is in the
evidence of PW-4 Dr. B.B. Sharma, Medical Officer, General Hospital,
Gurgaon that he examined PW-1 Karan Singh, s/o Pyare Lal on
18.12.1994 at about 10.30 P.M. and found the following injuries on his
person:

1. ” Lacerated wound horizontally placed 12 cm. x 2 cm.
muscle deep. It was on right parietal region. 8 cm. from right
ear. Fresh blood was coming. Surrounding area was swollen.
X-ray skull was advised.

2. 5 cm. x 2 cm. muscle deep lacerated wound on right side
of fore-arm near mid line. It was 4 cm. from injury No. 1. It
was horizontal. X-ray skull was advised.

3. Oblique lacerated wound on right occipital region. It was
6 cm. x 1 cm. muscle deep. Fresh bleeding was present.
Surrounding area was swollen. X-ray skull was advised.

4. Left leg was swollen lower 1/3rd. Angulation of the bone
was present. It was 12 cm. from the ankle joint. Lacerated
wound on anterior size 2cm. x 1cm. It was bone deep. 10 cm.
above ankle joint. Underlying bone was present. X-ray left leg
was advised.

5. Left index and middle fingers were swollen. Advised x-
ray index and middle fingers.

6. Right fore-arm was swollen in the middle part. X-ray
right fore-arm was advised.

Injury No. 4 was declared grievous and injury Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5
and 6 were kept under observations. After seeing the X-ray
report No. MLX-1284 dated 19.12.1994 injury No. 1 was
dangerous to life. Injuries No. 4 and 5 grievous. Rest were
simple in nature.

The weapon used was blunt and injury No. 4, it was penetrating
weapon. It was within 24 hours. The duration between the
injuries and the MLR within 24 hours.”

On the same day, Dr. B.B. Sharma examined Sunder Lal s/o Kundan
Lal and found the following injuries on his person.

1. “Horizontal lacerated wound 6 cm. x cm. into muscle
deep. It was 8 cm. from left ear on parietal region. Fresh
clotted blood was present. X-ray skull was advised.

2. Lacerated wound on left side fore-head. Oblique from
mid line to left side. It was 4 cm. x 1 cm. It was muscle deep.
Fresh clotted blood was present. X-ray skull was advised.

3. Lacerated wound 3 cm. x 1 cm. into muscle deep right
side of parietal region near mid line. It was vertically placed. It
was 2 cm. posterior to injury No. 2. X-ray skull was advised.

4. On front of right leg anterior side there was 4 lacerated
wounds. (a) 10 cm. below knee. 1-1/2 cm. x 1 cm. x muscle
deep (b) 3 cm. below injury No. A. 2 cm. x 1 cm. x muscle
deep (c) 6 cm. below injury No. B. 4 cm. x 1 cm. into muscle
deep. It was vertically placed (d) 7 cm. below injury No. C. 2
cm. x cm. into skin deep. X-ray right leg was advised.

5. Lacerated wounds on front left leg. Fresh clotted blood
was present. 5-A (1 cm. x cm. into muscle deep. It was
vertical and 8 cm. below 5-B) 1-1/2 cm. x cm. x muscle
deep it was 8 cm. below injury No. 5-A. (5-C) 1-1/2 cm. x
cm. into skin deep. It was 8 cm. from injury No. 5B. X-ray left
leg was advised.

6. On the left fore-arm there was abrasion. On the posterior
size Middle part 2 cm. x cm. was vertically placed.
Adjoining area was swollen. X-ray left fore-arm was advised.

7. Right fore-arm was swollen in middle and upper 1/3rd.
Advised x-ray right fore-arm. Abrasion on posterior aspect 3
cm. below elbow. It was 2 cm. x cm.

8. Abrasions on the back of right index finger first phalanx
posterior size 1 cm. x cm. X-ray right index finger was
advised.

9. Swelling on angle of left jaw 5 cm. x 4 cm. It was red in
colour. X-ray left jaw was advised.

10. Pattern contusion elongated in shape on middle part of
abdomen 3 cm. above umbilicus the margins were echymosed.
It was oblique, the rounded and was towards left and upper.

11. Pattern oblique contusion on back of the left side of chest
extending from mid line towards outer and lower side upto
costal margins. It was 16 cm. x 2 cm. The margin was
ecchymosed. X-ray chest was advised.

12. Defused red swelling on anterior and outer aspect of left
shoulder. It was 12 cm. x 8 to 10 cm. in size. X-ray left
shoulder was advised.

Injuries No. 1 to 12 were kept under observations. The duration
between the injuries and examination was within 24 hours. The
injuries were caused by blunt weapon.

After seeing the X-ray report No. M.L.X.-1285 dated
19.12.1994. Injury No. 1, 2, 3 were kept under observations
and the opinion of treating Doctor is required. Injury No. 4 was
simple in nature, injury No. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 12 were simple
in nature. The injury No. 11 repeated X-ray was advised, so
definite opinion can be given after seeing the X-ray report
repeated.”

On the same day at about 11.40 P.M., Dr. B.B. Sharma examined
Indira w/o Sumer Singh and found the following injuries on her person:

1. “There was oblique lacerated wound on right parietal
occipital region 13 cm. x 1-1/2 cm. x muscle deep extending
from mid line towards right side. Occipital region.
Surrounding area was swollen. Fresh clotted blood was
present. X-ray skull was advised.

2. Right thumb was swollen. More in proximal part
movement were painful. X-ray right thumb was advised.

3. Slight swelling on palmer side of left hand near thumb.

The nature of injuries are as follows:

Injury No. 3 is simple in nature, however injury No. 1 and 2
were kept under observations.

The injuries were caused within 24 hours of the examination.
All the injuries were caused by blunt weapon.

I have seen X-ray report No. MLX 1287 dated 19.12.1994, I
declared injury No. 2 grievous in nature and opinion about
injury No. 1 can be given after treating the record of the
doctor.”

On 19.12.1994, at 12.15 A.M. Dr. B.B. Sharma examined Smt. Muni
w/o Sher Singh and found the following injuries on her person:

1. Vertical lacerated wound in front of parietal region near
mid line right side. It was 8 cm. x 1 cm. It was a muscle deep.
Fresh clotted blood was present. Surrounding area was
swollen. X-ray skull was advised.

2. Complained of pain on back of left side of the chest. No
apparent injury was seen. X-ray chest was advised.

Injuries No. 1 and 2 were kept under observations. The
duration of the injuries was within 24 hours of the examination.
The injuries were caused by blunt weapon.”

On 19.12.1994, at 12.35 AM, Dr. B.B. Sharma examined Sube Singh
s/o Makhan Lal and found the following injuries on his person:

1. Contusion on the back of left fore-arm below elbow. 8
cm. x 6 cm. in the centre of the contusion. There was abrasion
with fresh clotted blood 1 cm. x cm. X-ray left fore-arm was
advised.

2. Defused contusion on the outer side of right shoulder
upper part 10 cm. x 6 cm.

3. Abrasion on front of left knee joint 2 cm. x 2 cm. Fresh
clotted blood was present.

Injury No. 1 was kept under observation, however, injury No. 2
and 3 were declared simple in nature. The probable duration of
the injuries are within 24 hours. The injuries were caused by
blunt weapon.

On the same day, at about 1.00 AM, Dr. B.B. Sharma examined
Sumer Singh s/o Kundan Lal and found the following injuries on his person:

1. 2 adjacent abrasions on outer aspect of left shoulder 1
cm. x cm. 1 cm. x cm. 8 cm. from upper border of
shoulder joint. Fresh clotted blood was present.

2. On inner maleolus of left ankle cm. x 1 cm. abrasion
was present. Fresh clotted blood was present. Surrounding
area was swollen.

3. Right big toe was swollen more on the dorsal side.
Advised X-ray right big toe.

4. 3 abrasions on inner aspect of right ankle joint.

4-A. 1 cm. x cm. on centre of maleolus for injury No. 4-B.

4-B. 1 cm. x cm. on ankle joint. It is 4 cm. from injury No.
4-A towards heal.

4-C. cm. x 1.2 cm. abrasion. It was 3 cm. above injury No.
4-A.

5. Abrasion on front of middle part of right leg 1 cm. x
cm. fresh clotted blood was present.

Injury No. 1,2,4,5 were simple in nature however, injuries No.
3 was kept under observation for X-ray. The probable duration
of all the injuries was within 24 hours for examination. The
injuries were caused by blunt weapon.”

Doctor opined that “the injury No.5 of Sumer Singh (PW-2) having
been caused by a fall on a hard surface can not be ruled out. Similarly,
injury No.3 on the person of Sube Singh having been caused by a fall on a
hard surface can not be ruled out. The injury No.2 on Muni Devi is only a
complaint of pain and I can not give its duration and the weapon used. The
injury No.3 on the person of Indira, having been caused by a fall on the hard
surface can not be ruled out. The injury No. 6 and 8 on the person of Sunder
Lal having been caused by a fall on the hard surface can not be ruled out.

As already noticed, out of the injured complainant party, only Karan
Singh PW-1 and Sumer Singh PW-2 have been cited as witnesses. The
others were not examined. The nature of the injuries sustained by the
complainant party would clearly suggest that such injuries could be caused
in a melee which is the version of the defence that injuries sustained by
deceased Kundan Lal and other members of the complainant party have been
caused by a mob consisting of 300-350 while trying to rescue the accused
Ram Kishan. Considering the nature of the injuries sustained by the
complainant party it is quite probable that they sustained injuries

accidentally while being involved in a mob fight. We are clearly of the view
that the nature of the injuries sustained by the complainant party would
clearly suggest that such injuries could only be caused in a melee wherein
the mob of 300-350 gathered at the place as projected by the defence. Such
injuries sustained by the complainant party could not be attributed to the
accused in the circumstances as explained above.

In the fact and circumstances recited above, we are clearly of the
view, that the prosecution has not come up with a true story. It has
suppressed the facts. If that be the case, the whole prosecution story would
stand on a quick sand. The prosecution has failed to establish its case
beyond reasonable doubts. It is now well settled principle of law that if
two views are possible, one in favour of the accused and the other adversely
against it, the view favoring the accused must be accepted.

In the result, these appeals are allowed, the convictions and sentences
passed on the appellants are set aside and all the appellants are acquitted of
the charges framed against them. The appellants are in jail. They are

directed to be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in connection with any
other case.

The impleadment application is dismissed.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *