And Another Vs. State Of
Insc 479 (27 April 2007)
S.B. Sinha & Markandey Katju
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 639 OF 2007 (Arising out of SLP(Crl) No.4988 of 2006 )
MARKANDEY KATJU, J.
1. This appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment dated 8.12.2005
passed by the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Criminal Appeal No.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
3. The prosecution case is that Raj Pal and Jai Pal appellants are brothers
inter-se, being sons of Hari Chand. A panchayat was held in the village, in the
month of February 1990, in connection with the theft of buffaloes of Yad Ram.
Hira Lal complainant, Karan Singh, and Kure Ram had also attended the
Panchayat, in which Sohan Lal (@ Melha) deceased, who was uncle of Yad Ram, had
suspected the appellants to be the thieves. It is alleged that since then the
appellants had been nourishing a grudge against Sohan Lal.
4. On 5.8.1990, Hira Lal complainant, PW 10 Zile Singh and one Diwan Singh
were smoking "huqqa", in front of the baithak of Shadi Lal. At about 1.00 p.m. Sohan Lal was returning to his house after grazing buffaloes in his fields. When
he reached in front of Parshadi's house, Jai Pal and Raj Pal appellants who
were armed with pharsi and lathi respectively came near him and said that they
would teach him a lesson for suspecting them as the thieves of buffaloes. Jai
Pal then gave a pharsi blow and Raj Pal gave a lathi blow on Sohan Lal's head.
He fell on the ground. Even in fallen condition, Raj Pal gave 2-3 more lathi
blows which hit him on his back.
Seeing this, Hira Lal (PW 9), Zile Singh (PW 10), and Diwan Singh reached
the spot and rescued Sohan Lal from the clutches of appellants. In the rescuing
process, Jai Pal also received injuries. The appellants, thereafter, fled away
from the spot with their respective weapons. Zile Singh and Surender son of
Hans Lal removed Sohan Lal (injured) from the spot, in a car, to the General Hospital,
Gurgaon, where he succumbed to his injuries.
On receipt of this information, in the form of medical ruqqa, Ex. PA, about
the death of Sohan Lal, Sub-Inspector Suraj Bhan reached the hospital, where
Hira Lal complainant and Bis Ram were found sitting near the dead- body of
Sohan Lal. He recorded the statement of Hira Lal, Ex. PH, and sent it to the
police station with his endorsement, Ex.PH/1, thereon, on which the case
against the appellants was registered vide formal FIR, Ex PH/2. He prepared
inquest report, Ex. PL, and sent the dead-body for post-mortem examination. He
visited the place of occurrence, prepared rough site plan thereof, Ex. PM, and
also called the photographer who took photographs, Exs. P3 and P4 (negatives
Exs. P1 and P2) , of the scene of occurrence. He also took into possession
blood-stained earth from there vide memo, Ex. PN, after making it into a sealed
parcel. He searched for the appellants but could arrest them only on 10.8.1990,
as earlier they remained absconding. On 12.8.1990, Raj Pal appellant got a
lathi recovered in pursuance of his disclosure statement. Ex. PO, and the same
was taken into possession vide memo, Ex.PO/1. Similarly, Jai Pal appellant also
got recovered a 'pharsi' in pursuance of his disclosure statement, Ex. PP, and
the same too, was taken into possession vide memo, Ex. PP/1.
5. After completion of investigation, challan was filed in court against the
appellants by Inspector Jag Parvesh PW5.
6. On receipt of the case, by way of commitment, the trial court charged the
appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. and since they pleaded
not guilty, the case was committed for trial.
7. The witnesses examined by the prosecution, in support of their case, are
PW 1 Dr. B.M. Bhatnagar, PW 2 Dr. Sushil Goyal, PW 3 Mool Chand Punia, PW 4
Balwant Rai Bhatia, PW 5 Inspector Jag Parvesh, PW 6 Constable Maheshswar, PW 7
Jai Singh, PW 8 Head Constable Murari Lal, PW 9 Hira Lal, PW 10 Zile Singh and
PW 11 Sub-Inspector Suraj Bhan.
8. After consideration of the evidence on record the trial court by its
judgment dated 7.12.1996 found the appellant Raj Pal and Jai Pal guilty of
offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C and sentenced them to life
9. Against the said judgment the accused filed an appeal before the High
Court which was dismissed by the impugned judgment, and hence this appeal.
10. We have carefully perused the evidence and material on record and we are
of the opinion that the benefit of doubt has to be given to the accused.
11. In this connection it may be mentioned that in the FIR dated 5.8.1990 it
has been stated that the accused Jai Pal gave a pharsi blow on the head of
Sohan Lal while Rajpal gave a lathi blow on his head. The same is the
statements in Court of the alleged eye witnesses PW 9 Hira Lal and PW 10 Zile
Singh. A pharsi is a weapon which causes an incised wound like an axe. However,
there is no incised wound on the body of Sohan Lal as is evident from the post
mortem report. There are four injuries on the dead body of Sohan Lal as found
by Dr. Sushil Goyal's post mortem report conducted on 5.8.1990 at 6.05 p.m. One
of these wounds was a lacerated wound on the head while the other wounds are
contusions on the shoulder.
There is no incised wound. Thus, there is a clear inconsistency between the
ocular version and the medical version.
12. The prosecution version is that the pharsi was used lathi wise by its
blunt edge. It seems to us that this appears to be a tutored version when the
prosecution realized that there was a clear inconsistency between the ocular
version and the medical version. In fact in his statement in Court PW 9 Hira
Lal stated that he did not state to the police in his statement under Section
161 Cr.PC that the pharsi blow was given lathi wise. Thus, his statement in the
court appears to be a clear improvement over the statement given to the police.
As regards the other witness PW 10 Zile Singh, he has not stated in his
evidence that the pharsi blow was given to Sohan Lal lathi wise.
13. Another contradiction between the ocular version and the medical version
is that according to the FIR version and deposition of the eye witnesses before
the trial court two blows were given on the head of Sohan Lal, a pharsi blow by
Jai Pal and a lathi blow by Raj Pal. However, in the post mortem report only
one injury (lacerated wound) was found on the head of Sohan Lal.
14. In their statements under Section 313 Cr.PC the accused Jai Pal and Raj
Pal accepted that they did attack Sohan Lal but said that they did so in their
self-defence. In these statements the accused pleaded innocence and false
implication by the witnesses. They stated that a wrestling bout had taken place
in their village on the occasion of Raksha Bandhan in the year 1989. Wrestlers
of Rohtak and Bandhwari had opposed each other, at that time Hansraj Sarpanch
was married in the village Bandhwari and he had sided with the wrestlers of
that village whereas in fact they were not winning. Rajpal used to organize
that wresting bout with the help of villagers, and at that time, he, Hira Lal,
Diwan Singh, Zile Singh and Karan Singh had a wordy duel. Raj Pal was telling
that wrestlers of Rohtak had won whereas they were opposing them and on that
account they have been falsely implicated in this case. Aforesaid Hans Raj,
Diwan Singh, Hira Lal, Zile Singh and Karan Singh belong to different parties.
Ram Chand is also stated to be their companion and was always opposed to them.
15. Jai Pal accused further elaborated in his 313 Cr.PC statement that Ram
Chander had forcibly opened a door towards his plot. He opposed it, and hence
they quarreled on that issue also. Ram Chander, Sohan Lal, Karan Singh came
there with lathis and opened attack on him. He ran away but they overpowered
him near the house of Parshadi. He then picked up a three pronged jelly from
that place and used it in self-defence. A blow of his jelly hit the back of
Sohan Lal. He fell down. A brick was lying on the ground. The peg for tethering
cattle (Khunta) was also in existence at that place. Since Sohan Lal fell down
he got a chance and escaped therefrom.
The police arrested him, his brother and his father on the evening of 5th of
August 1990. He narrated the incident to the police. Despite that, the police
implicated him falsely. He had sufficient injuries in this accident but the
police did not arrange for his Medico Legal Report till 10th of August 1990.
The police even did not produce them in the Court. Only on the application
moved by his brother Shiv Raj, they were produced in the Court. The entire
prosecution case is false and concocted. If one is sitting on the chabutra of
Shadi Lal, then the house of Parshadi Lal was not visible and this proves that
Raj Pal, and his brother were not present, at all, at the time of the aforesaid
16. In their defence evidence the accused examined DW-1 Dr. S.P. Singh.
He stated that on 18.8.1990 at about 8.00 p.m. he medically examined Jai Pal
and found the following injuries on his person :- (1) Already dissected and
stitched wound, over the left parietal eminence, length 1-1/4".
(2) Complaint of pain back. No mark of external injury was seen. There was
(3) Complaint of pain left calf, muscles. There was no mark of external
injury. There was no swelling.
Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that Jai Pal, the appellant
has honestly admitted that he caused the injury on the back of the deceased
with a jelly and his brother Raj Pal was not present. He submitted that the
injuries on the person of Jai Pal was in self-defence. He further submitted
that the report of the local commissioner clearly reveals that it was not
possible for the eye witnesses Hira Lal and Zile Singh to have seen the
occurrence while sitting at the place in front of Shadi Lal's Baithak as the
place of occurrence, that is the house of Prashadi Lal, is not visible from
there. He further submitted that there is a clear contradiction between eye the
witnesses and the medical evidence (details of which have already been
mentioned above). The delay in lodging the FIR also shows that it is a
concocted false story. The injuries on the person of Jai Pal are totally
unexplained by the prosecution and they are in conformity with the defence
17. Learned counsel further stated that the motive attributed to the accused
was stale and the theft of buffalo of Yad Ram and Sohan Lal was only a the
suspicion which had taken place a long time back and was no reason to commit a
serious crime as murder. Learned counsel further submitted that the FIR is the
result of consultation and deliberation. The special report was received by the
Illaqa Magistrate at 6.55 p.m. even though his residence is only 100 yards from
the police station.
18. We are of the opinion that in this case the benefit of doubt has to be
given to the accused and it is possible that it is a case of bona fide self-
19. In Bishna vs. State of West Bengal (2005) 12 SCC 657 one of us (Hon.
S.B. Sinha, J) have discussed in great detail the law of private defence and
the effect of non-explanation by the prosecution of the injuries on the
20. While there is no absolute rule that merely because the prosecution has
failed to explain the injuries on the accused ipso facto the prosecution case
should be thrown out, the non-explanation of the injuries on the accused is
certainly an important circumstance which has to be taken into consideration by
the Court in deciding whether the benefit of doubt should go to the accused. In
Bishna's case (supra) the entire law on the point has been discussed in great
detail, and hence it is unnecessary to repeat it here.
21. The injuries on the accused include an injury on the head, which is a
vital part of the body. Ordinarily self-inflicted injuries are on non-vital
parts. The injury on the head of the accused Jai Pal required stitches. It is
difficult to believe that this was self-inflicted. Moreover, in the present
case, as noticed above, there are very important discrepancies in the
prosecution version. It is true that minor discrepancies will not necessarily
lead to the rejection of the prosecution case, but when there are major
discrepancies and unexplained injuries on the accused it is an important factor
to be taken into account.
22. In his statement under Section 313 Cr.PC, Jai Pal has stated that Ram
Chander had forcibly opened a door towards his plot. Since Jai Pal opposed this
there was a quarrel on this issue. Thereupon Ram Chander, Sohan Lal and Karan
Singh attacked Jai Pal and he tried to run away, but they overpowered him near
the house of Parshadi where he picked up a jelly and used it in his self-defence.
23. While we are not in a position to say that the version of Jai Pal is
necessarily correct, it certainly throws a reasonable doubt upon the entire
prosecution version when it is coupled with other circumstances (such as major
discrepancies between the ocular version and the medical evidence) which have
already been referred to above.
24. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the benefit
of doubt has to be given to the appellants. The appeal is allowed. The impugned
judgments of the trial court and the High Court are set aside. The appellants
shall be released forthwith unless required in some other case.