Vs.State of Rajasthan & Ors.
J U D G M E N T
HARJIT SINGH BEDI, J.
judgment will dispose of Criminal Appeal Nos. 82-83 and 778 of 2005. The facts have
been taken from Criminal Appeal No. 778 of 2005.
per the prosecution story, PW Prabhu Koli and his brothers had mortgaged 5 bighas
of land comprising Khasra No. 250 to PW-1 Raghuveer Singh several years earlier
to the incident. At about 2 p.m. on the 7th August 1997, Raghuveer Singh
alongwith Chhotey Lal, Rajendra, Munshi and Girdhari were in the process of ploughing
the land when the accused, Kallu, Kamru, Taiyab and Rahmat reached that place on
two tractors and also started ploughing the same land. Raghuveer Singh
protested at this intrusion on which they attempted to run him over with their tractors.
In the meanwhile, Asuddin,
Mehboob, Mauj, Sohan Lal and Kamru armed with Farsis, Tanchias, Dantis and lathis
attacked them and whereas Mauj and Asuddin inflicted blows with a Danti and Tanchia
on the head of Girdhari, Kallu and Rahmat ran over him with their tractors, and
when Raghuveer Singh attempted to intervene in favour of Girdhari, Asuddin,
Taiyab and Kamruddin also caused blows to him with their weapons. Girdhari died
on the spot whereas Chhotey Lal, Lallu, Rajendra and Munshi sustained serious
injuries. Raghuveer Singh thereafter went to the Police Station and submitted a
written report at 5.30 p.m. the same afternoon and on its basis a First Information
Report was drawn up.
On the completion of
the investigation, the accused were charged under various provisions of the Indian
Penal Code, they being inter-alia Sections 302 and 302/149, 307 and 307/149. The
prosecution in support of its case relied on the evidence of 17 witnesses in all,
the primary witnesses being PW-1 Raghuveer Singh, the first informant, PW-2 Rajendra
Kumar, PW-3 Chhotey Lal, PW-4 Munshi Ram, PW-5 Lallu Ram, PW-6, Suresh Kumar and
PW-7 Than Singh.
The prosecution also
relied on the statement of PW-14 Dr. Sanjay Gupta, who had conducted the autopsy
on the dead body and had found 5 injuries thereon and also examined five of the
witnesses aforementioned i.e. Raghuveer Singh, Rajendra Kumar, Chhotey Lal,
Munshi and Lallu and found several injuries on their persons, some of them
grievous in nature whereas from the side of the accused Taiyab, Kallu, Rahmat, Asuddin
and Kamru were found to have been injured, though with simple injuries. In their
statements recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. the accused denied their involvement
simplicitor. They did not lead any evidence in defence.
The trial court
relying on the aforesaid eye witnesses' account and the medical evidence
convicted 7 of the 9 accused under Sections 302, 302/149, 307 and 307/149 etc.
of the IPC and sentenced them to various terms of imprisonment under those
provisions. The trial court, however, acquitted Mehboob Khan and Taiyab. The accused
who had been convicted by the trial court challenged their conviction by filing
DB Criminal Appeal No. 796 of 1998 whereas the complainant PW Raghuveer Singh assailed
the acquittal of Mehboob Khan and Taiyab Khan by filing D.B. Criminal Revision No.
188 of 1999. During the pendency of the appeal in the High Court, Rahmat passed
away and the proceedings against him were disposed of as having abated.
The High Court on a reconsideration
of the evidence came to the conclusion that the land on which the incident had
happened did not belong to Prabhu but in fact belonged to the Forest Department
and was adjacent to the fields of accused Mauj Khan and Rahmat and that the
complainant party had, on the fateful day, gone for the first time to cultivate
the said land, although Patwari had advised them not to do so.
The court also found that
the accused appeared to be in possession of the said land and finding that the complainant
party had trespassed into it and had started ploughing had lodged a protest on
which a free fight had ensued and persons from both sides had received injuries
on which an FIR had also been 5registered against the complainant party by Kallu
accused. The court accordingly concluded that in this view of the matter, the
provisions of Sections 147, 148 and 149 could not be attracted and each of the
accused was to be held liable and responsible for his individual act. The High
Court accordingly examined the role of each of the accused and observed that
though Kallu had been charged under Section 302 of the IPC for having caused
the fatal injury on the left side of the back of Girdhari with the cultivator by
running over him he did not have the intention to cause death and as such he would
be liable under Section 304 Part II of the IPC.
The court accordingly
modified the conviction and sentence of the accused as under: (i) "Appeal
of appellant Rahmuddin is allowed and he is acquitted of the charges under
Section 302/149, 447, 147,325/149,324/149 and 323/149 IPC. He is on bail, he need
not surrender and his bail bonds stand discharged. (ii) As appellant Rahmat Khan
died during the pendency of the appeal, proceedings against him stand dropped. (iii)
Appeal of appellants Kallu, Asuddin, Sohan Lal, Kamruddin and Mauj Khan stands
partly allowed. Conviction of appellant Kallu under Section 6 302,447,148,325/149,324/149
and 323/159 is set aside, instead he is convicted under Section 304 Part II IPC.
As he had been in confinement
for a period of more than six years, ends of justice would be met in sentencing
him to the period already undergone by him in confinement, Kallu, who is in jail,
shall be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case. (iv) Conviction
of appellants Sohan Lal, Mauj Khan and Asuddin under Section 302/149,447,148,325/149
and 323/149 stands set aside and they are acquitted of the said charges. Their conviction
under Section 324 IPC is however confirmed and they are sentenced to the period
already undergone by them in confinement. Sohan Lal and Mauj Khan are on bail,
they need not surrender and their bail bonds stand discharged.
who is in jail, shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other
case. (v) Conviction of appellant Kamruddin under Sections 302/149,447,148,324/149
and 323/149 is set aside and he is acquitted of the said charges. His conviction
under Section 325 IPC however stands confirmed and he is sentenced to the period
already undergone by him in confinement. He is on bail, he need not surrender and
his bail bonds stand discharged. (vi) D.B.Criminal Revision No.188/1999 being devoid
of merit stands dismissed. (vii) The impugned judgment of the learned trial judge
stands modified as indicated above."
acquittal of Mehboob Khan and Taiyab Khan was, however, maintained on the plea that
the ocular testimony was not corroborated by the medical evidence. It is in this
Crl. Appeal Nos.82- 83/2005situation the 7present set of appeals has been filed
by the State as well as by PW-1 Raghuveer Singh.
have heard Dr. Manish Singhvi, the learned Additional Advocate General for the State
of Rajasthan, Ms. Aneetha Shenoy, the learned counsel for Raghuveer Singh, as
also Ms. Vibha Dutta Makhija the learned amicus for the accused respondents. The
learned counsel for the appellants have raised several arguments before us. It has
first been pointed out that there was ample evidence to show that the incident
had happened in the field of Prabhu which had been mortgaged with Raghuveer Singh
and the accused were therefore the aggressors as they had trespassed into that
field and the finding of a free fight was erroneous, more particularly as the prosecution
case rested on the statements of a large number of seriously injured eye witnesses.
It has been
emphasized that a free fight postulated that both sides had come to do battle, as
held by this Court in Gajanand & Ors. vs. State of U.P. AIR 1954 SC 695 and
Bhanwar Singh & Ors. vs. State of M.P. (2008) 16 SCC 657 and in the light
of Crl. Appeal Nos.82- 83/2005the fact that the 8accused were the aggressors
the finding of the High Court was completely misplaced.
It has also been submitted
by the learned counsel that even assuming that there was a free fight Asuddin,
Mauj Khan, Kallu and Rahmat accused were, in any case, liable for the offence under
Section 302 of the IPC as they had caused injuries to the deceased Girdhari. Ms.
Makhija, the learned counsel for the accused has, however, supported the judgment
of the High Court and has raised a preliminary argument that the High Court's interference
in such matters was required to be minimal and if the High Court had taken a view
which was possible on the evidence, interference should not be made.
In this connection, the
learned counsel has relied on State of U.P. vs. Banne (2009) 4 SCC 271. She has
also submitted that the witnesses had suppressed the factum of the injuries on the
person of the accused, which meant that the genesis of the incident was
uncertain and an adverse inference was to be drawn on the prosecution's case. On
facts it has been urged that the observation of the Trial Court that the
incident had happened in the field 9belonging to Prabhu was wrong as there was no
evidence to suggest that it had been mortgaged with Raghuveer and it was for that
reason that during the course of the evidence Raghuveer Singh had claimed himself
to be a lessee on the land and not a mortgagee which was a clear departure from
his earlier statement.
It has also been emphasized
that the above submissions coupled with the fact that the dead body had not
been recovered from the spot but had been found in the house of the deceased and
that no plough or blood had been picked up from the place of incident clearly
revealed that the incident had not happened in the field in question. It has
also been submitted that the story projected by PW-1 that Kallu had first knocked
Girdhari over with his tractor and then using the lift of his tractor had
raised the cultivator and then dropped it on his body had not figured in his
statement recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. and had come up for the
first time in court and thus could not be relied upon.
It has finally been
submitted that PW-3 Chottey Lal, one of the injured witnesses, and the Investigating
Officer PW-17 Samayadeen had 10admitted in their evidence that the dispute
between the parties with regard to the land had resulted in a sudden fight
between the two groups and as such the observation of the High Court was fully
justified on the evidence.
first take up Ms. Makhija's preliminary submission about the scope of
interference by this Court in an appeal filed under Article 136 of the Constitution.
As already indicated, the learned counsel has relied on Banne's case (supra). After
reviewing a large number of judgments of this Court, it has been observed in paragraph
25 thereof that if the view taken by the High Court was plausible or possible, it
would not be proper for the Supreme Court to interfere with an order of acquittal.
It has been observed thus: "Following are some of the circumstances in
which perhaps this Court would be justified in interfering with the judgment of
the High Court, but these are illustrative not exhaustive:
High Court's decision is based on totally erroneous view of law by ignoring the
settled legal position;
High Court's conclusion are contrary to evidence and documents on record;
entire approach of the High Court in dealing with the evidence was patently
illegal leading to grave miscarriage of justice.
High Court's judgment is manifestly unjust and unreasonable based on erroneous law
and facts on the record of the case;
Court must always give proper weight and consideration to the findings of the
Court would be extremely reluctant in interfering with a case when both the Sessions
Court and the High Court have recorded an order of acquittal.
" A perusal of the
aforesaid quote in a manner reduces the scope for interference by this Court. We,
therefore, have to see as to whether this Court should interfere on the basis
of the parameters laid down above. It has firstly to be borne in mind that the
injuries on the accused had not been explained as the prosecution witness did not
utter a single word as to how they had been suffered by them. In this view of the
matter, the defence can legitimately raise a suspicion that the genesis of the incident
was shrouded in mystery and the prosecution had suppressed a part of the
It is true, as contended
by Dr. Manish Singhvi, that each and every injury on an accused is not required
to be explained and more particularly where all the injuries caused to the
accused are simple in nature (as in the present case) and the facts of the case
have to be assessed on the nature of probabilities.
incident in the light of the above, we find that the injuries in the present
case were required to be explained as there is a serious dispute as to the
possession of the land in which the incident had happened, more particularly as
Raghuveer Singh himself was uncertain as to the nature of the possession as per
the statements on record and the Patwari had also warned the complainant party not
to trespass into the land. Undoubtedly, there are a large number of injured witnesses,
some of them grievously hurt, to support the prosecution case, but in the light
of the finding of the High Court that there was uncertainty about the possession,
this fact by itself cannot preclude the accused from claiming that no case was
made out against them.
It has also to be
noticed that PW-3 Chottey Lal, one of the injured witnesses, had admitted in
his cross examination that the quarrel had taken place suddenly and that the
rival groups were both saying that they would sow the 13land. This plea is also
supported by the evidence of PW-17 Samaydeen, the investigating officer, who also
admitted that as per the Patwari, the fight had taken place on the land
possessed freshly and belonging to Gauga and Dallu and that the land was under the
possession of the complainant party.
This statement is at variance
with the evidence of the other witness particularly PW-1 Raghuveer Singh as he
stated that they had been in possession of the land in question for almost 20
years. There is also a doubt as to the site of the incident. The dead body and the
cultivator were recovered from the house of PW-1, and PW-17 admitted that no blood
stained earth had been lifted from the site.
The judgment in
Bhanwar Singh's case (supra) cannot be made applicable as it deals only with
the scope of an offence under Section 149 of the IPC. In the light of the facts
that have been enumerated above, it would be seen that the observations of the High
Court that both sides had come to do battle appears to be justified as this is an
assessment on an appreciation of the evidence which cannot be said to be palpably
wrong so as to invite the intervention of this Court. The observation in Gajanand's
case (supra) that in order to bring the matter within a free fight both sides
have to come armed and prepared to do battle must be applied in the present
case with the result that each accused would be liable for his individual act.
this background, we now go to the alternative argument made by the learned counsel
for the appellants i.e. even accepting the case to be one of a free fight, the four
accused respondents i.e. Kallu, Asuddin, Mauj and Rahmat ought to have been
convicted under Section 302 of the IPC for having caused the murder of
Girdhari. It will be seen that the allegation projected against Kallu was that
he was the tractor driver who had first knocked Girdhari over, had then driven
the tractor over him, lifted the cultivator and then dropped it on his person
killing him instantaneously whereas the other three had also caused injuries to
Girdhari with their weapons. We have gone through the evidence on this score very
carefully. The injuries found on the dead body are reproduced here in under:
a. "1. Perforating 15
injury on back on left side L-L (toom) region deep upto peritoneal cavity size 12
x 5 cm x deep upto peritoneum also fracture of 9m 10 & 11th rib on
b. 2. Abrasion: 4 x 2 cm
left side to the injury No.1. 3. Incised wound 5 x 1.5 cm Margins regular on right
parieto frontal region transversely.
c. 4. Incised wound 5 x 1.5
cm on center of head between both parietal bone longitudinally, margins
d. 5. Lacerated wound: 2
x 1 cm X 0.5 cm in middle of left medical side.
The injuries were ante
mortem in nature and cause of death was haemorrhage & shock due to injury
to spleen & left kidney by injury No.1."The injury with the cultivator
is injury No.1 which is the fatal injury and has been attributed by the
witnesses to Kallu. Ms. Makhija has, however, argued that the story that the
cultivator had first been lifted and then dropped on Girdhari could not be
believed as Raghuveer Singh had not mentioned this fact in his evidence
although the other witnesses had done so and as such, this story was improbable.
Even assuming, however, that the cultivator had not been lifted and then
dropped yet we find that injury No.1 had been caused with a cultivator is clear
from the medical evidence and the extent and gravity of the injury shows that
Kallu had the intention to cause Girdhari's death.
It is also 16clear from
the evidence that injury No.1 was sufficient to cause death in the normal course
of nature. The injuries attributed to the other three accused mentioned herein
above were simple in nature and can, by no stretch of imagination, be said to
have been the cause of death. In the light of the fact that we are dealing with
a case of a free fight, Asuddin, Mauj and Rahmat must be made responsible for their
respective injuries and Rahmat had, as a matter of fact, died while the matter was
in the High Court. We are, therefore, of the opinion that in so far as Kallu respondent
is concerned, his conviction under Section 304 Part II of the IPC even on the
findings recorded by the High Court, was erroneous. We, accordingly, allow these
appeals to the extent that Kallu is held guilty under Section 302 of the IPC
for having caused the murder of Girdhari and we restore the judgment of the Trial
Court to this limited extent. In so far as the other accused are concerned, the
appeals are dismissed.
fee of the Amicus Curiae is fixed at Rs.7,000/- in each appeal.
(HARJIT SINGH BEDI)
(GYAN SUDHA MISRA)