Bhartu
& Ors Vs. State of Haryana [1996] INSC 1313 (24 October 1996)
G.N.
Ray, G.B. Pattanaik G.B. Pattanaik, J.
ACT:
HEAD NOTE:
This
appeal is directed against the conviction and sentence passed against the
appellants by the Sessions Judge, Jind and upheld by the High Court in Criminal
Appeal No. 494 of 1984. The five appellants stood charged under Section 148
IPC, 302/149 IPC, 324/149 IPC 323/149 IPC. The learned Sessions Judge convicted
all of them for all the offences charged and sentenced them to imprisonment for
life and to pay fine of Rs. 100/- or in default further rigorous imprisonment
for one month for the offence under Section 302/149 IPC, one year R.I. for
offence under Section 148 IPC, one year R.I. for offence under Section 323/149
IPC and six months R.I. for offence under Section 323/149 IPC with the further
direction that the sentences would run concurrently. All of them preferred
criminal appeal to the High Court against their conviction and sentence. The
complainant filed a criminal revision which was registered as 1483 of 1984
praying for enhancement of sentence and grant of compensation to the
complainant. The criminal appeal as well as the criminal revision was disposed
of by the impugned judgment of the High Court dated 26th April, 1985. The criminal appeal filed by the appellants was dismissed
and the criminal revision filed by the complainant was allowed to the extent
that the amount of fine if released shall be paid to the heirs of the deceased.
Thus, the present appeal.
The
prosecution case in brief is that the Panchayat elections had been held in
village Shambo on 25th
June, 1983 and in the
said elections the people belonging to the complainant party had voted for one Surjit
Sing who had contested for the post of Sarpanch. Said Surjit Singh was,
however, defeated and on that score the supporters of Jagat Ram had grudge
against the complainant party. On 17th July, 1983 at 8.30 p.m. the marriage procession of one Ram Rattan son of appellant
Mange was being taken around the village.
Mnage
was a partyman of Jagat Ram. When marriage procession was being lead by a group
consisted of mostly womenfolk and the accused appellants. The accused were in a
drunken state and were singing filthy songs. When the procession reached the
house of Gita Ram. some of the witnesses, namely, Tara Chand (P.W.8). Sita Ram
(not examined), Narain Dutt (P.W.9), Ganga Bishan (P.W.1O) requested the
accused persons not to sing filthy songs. The deceased Ram Pal also requested
the accused persons not to sing filthy songs and proceed with the marriage
procession. Shortly after the altercation, the accused appellants armed with
deadly weapons like gandasi. lathi. jaili attacked the complainant party.
Appellant Manphal assaulted the deceased Ram Pal with gandasi and the blow fell
on the left arm of the deceased appellant Bhartu attacked the deceased by
giving a blow on his head by means of gandasi. Karta Ram, Bhira and Mange the
three other appellants also assaulted the deceased with the weapons in their
hands. Apart from assaulting the deceased, they also attacked different persons
belonging to the complainant party who were consequently injured. On hearing
about the incident several other villagers came running to the spot therefore,
the accused persons left the place with the weapons in their hands. Injured
Tara Chand, Ganga Bishen. Narain Dutt, Sita Ram and
Ram Pal were removed to the hospital at Rajound where Ram Pal succumbed to the
injuries. Tara Chand though initially was in a precarious condition but his
condition was improved and at 1 a.m. the
treating doctor certified him fit to make a statement and accordingly his
statement was recorded by Sub-Inspector Bhup Singh and on the basis of the said
statement formal F.I.R. (Ex P.EE) was drawn up. The Investigating Officer then
made the inquest over the dead body of the deceased Ram Pal and sent his dead
body for autopsy. The Investigating Officer then started investigation and on
completion of investigation submitted a charge-sheet. The Magistrate committed
the accused persons to the Court of Session and ultimately the learned Sessions
Judge tried them. The defence of the accused persons was that it is the
complainant party who took recourse to violence and misbehaved with the ladies
going in procession in barat party and as a measure of self-defence the accused
persons retaliated and in course of the incident Ram Pal died. The learned
Sessions Judge on thorough scrutiny of the entire evidence on record and
relying upon the occullar statement of the injured witnesses P.Ws.8, 9 and 10
came to the conclusion that the prosecution case has been established beyond
doubt and accordingly convicted the appellants for different offences for which
they stood charged. The learned Sessions Judge relying upon the evidence of Dr.
Shyam Kalra (P.W.1) who had medically examined Ram Pal on 17th July, 1983 as
well as the evidence of Dr. Surinder Kumar Mittal (P.W.6) who had conducted the
autopsy over the dead body of deceased Ram Pal came to the conclusion that the
death of deceased Ram Pal was homicidal in nature. The learned Sessions Judge
also considered the plea of right of private defence as taken by the accused
persons and negatived the same in view of the cogent evidence of three injured
witnesses referred to earlier. One of the accused, namely, Manphul had taken a
plea of alibi and examining the same the learned Sessions Judge discarded the
said plea as the material on record did not support the aforesaid plea. The
accused persons also had taken a plea that some of them had been injured in course
of incident and the prosecution not having explained the injuries on the
accused persons the entire prosecution case is liable to be discarded. The
learned Sessions Judge considered the aforesaid plea but did not find any
substance in the same on the ground that it has not been established that
injuries on the accused persons were sustained in course of the incident and
further that the injuries in question were so minor or simple injuries that the
prosecution is not obliged to explain the same.
With
these conclusions the Sessions Judge having convicted and sentenced the accused
appellants as already stated, they had moved an appeal to the High Court.
Before the High Court the counsel appearing for the appellant did not challenge
the conclusion of the Sessions Judge with regard to the homicidal death of
deceased Ram Pal. In view of clinching evidence of the three injured witnesses
who have given a detailed narration of the incident and not being able to
impeach the testimony by way of cross examination, the counsel for the
appellants instead of attacking the evidence, raised contentions to create
doubt about the prosecution case as a whole on the ground of delay in lodging
the F.I.R. and non examination of two other injured witnesses and non-explanation
of the injuries found on accused Bhartu and Mange. The learned counsel for the
appellant also raised the plea of self-defense but the High Court on re appreciation
of the entire evidence negative all the contentions raised and affirmed the
conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge.
Mr. Kapil
Sibal, learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellants mainly raised the
following contentions in assailing the judgments of the learned Sessions Judge
and the judgment of the High Court:
1) The
entire prosecution story is unbelievable as no person in marriage procession of
his, own son would behave in a manner as alleged by the prosecution and, on the
other hand in the facts and circumstances of the case the plea suggested by the
defense appears to be more plausible.
2)
Admittedly, three of the accused persons having sustained injuries and no
explanation having been offered by the prosecution, the entire genesis of the
prosecution case falls through and the accused are entitled to be acquitted on that
ground.
3) The
prosecution witnesses having attributed that accused Manphul gave a blow with gandasi
which fell on the left arm of deceased Ram Pal and the medical evidence being
contrary to the occullar statement in as much as no injuries are found on the
left arm of the deceased, accused Manphul is entitled to benefit of doubt.
4) Surjit
Singh having brought deceased Ram Pal and injured Sita Ram, Narain Dutt, Ganga Bishan
and Tara Chand in his tractor trolly to the hospital at Rajound had sufficient opportunity
to vitiate the minds of these persons and to rope in several innocent persons
as accused assailants and that is why the F.I.R. version belatedly made does
not depict the true picture.
The
learned counsel appearing for the respondent on the other hand connected that
the entire prosecution evidence having been duly scrutinised by the Sessions
judge and learned Sessions Judge having come to the conclusion that the
prosecution case has been proved beyond reasonable doubt and further in appeal
the High Court having reappreciated the entire evidence on record and having
affirmed the conclusion of the Sessions Judge, this Court will not interfere
with the same in exercise of power under Article 136 of the constitution. The
learned counsel for the State also submitted that non explanation of any injury
on the accused irrespective of the nature of injury cannot be held to be fatal
to the prosecution case. He also resisted the contention of Mr. Sibal that the
medical evidence does not confirm to the prosecution evidence regarding the
manner of assault on the deceased by Manphul.
In
order to appreciate the contention raised by Mr. Sibal, the learned senior
counsel appearing for the appellants. we have ourselves scrutinised the entire
evidence on record and we find no substance in any of the contentions raised.
As has been stated earlier the rival factions had grudge against the other on
account of Panchayat election in which one party had supported the defeated
candidate and other party had supported the elected candidate. On the fateful
day while the marriage procession was being taken out in village, it is alleged
by the prosecution that the procession was being lead by the accused appellants
who were drunk and were using abusing words and when they were requested not to
indulge in the same. they came out with deadly weapons in their hands and
started assaulting the prosecution witnesses and in course of such assault the
deceased Ram Pal belonging to the prosecution party succumbed to the injuries.
The prosecution case as depicted through P.Ws.8, 9, and 10 who themselves were
also injured in course of such assault by the accused persons appears to us to
be wholly convincing and the evidence of these witnesses corroborate one
another. Nothing has been elicited in their cross-examination to impeach their
testimony. We are not in a position to accept the submission of Mr. Sibal that
the prosecution story on the face of it is unbelievable. On the other hand,
after going through the evidence we are of the considered opinion that the
prosecution case has been vividly described by the three injured witnesses and
the said evidence has rightly been accepted by the learned Sessions Judge as
well as by the High Court. We find nothing in their evidence to take a contrary
view. The first submission of Mr. Sibal accordingly stands rejected.
coming
to the question as to non-explanation of the injuries on the accused persons it
appears that they were examined by Dr. Kalra on 22nd July, 1983 at 7.30
a.m. though the
occurrence took place on 17th
July, 1983 at 8.30 p.m.
Accused
Karta Ram had an injury to the extent of 1 cm x 4 cm on the left side of the
face and bruise with slight abrasion on the left thumb and another abrasion on
the back of the left elbow. Accused Mange had a bruise of 6 cm x 1 cm on the
right shoulder and another bruise measuring 5 cm x 1.2 cm on the right
shoulder, accused Bhartu had abrasion of 1 cm x 1 cm on the left knee joint and
another bruise of 4 cm x 2 cm on the left arm and swelling on dorsum of right
hand. These injuries are in fact such minor and small injuries that the
prosecution is not obliged to explain the same and non- explanation by the
prosecution cannot be held to be fatal to the prosecution case. Further the
injured having been examined only after 5 days of the occurrence, it is
difficult to hold that these injuries had been inflicted in course of the
incident. In such circumstances non- explanation of aforesaid injuries on the
three of the accused persons cannot be held to be fatal to the case. Mr. Sibal's
contention therefore, cannot be accepted. So far as accused Manphul is
concerned, we also do not find any force in the contention of Mr. Sibal that
the medical evidence is contrary to the oral evidence. It has been found by the
Doctor that the deceased Ram Pal had as many as seven injuries with one injury
on front of left arm measuring 7 cm x 3 cm. Thus, it is not possible for us to
hold that there is total absence of injuries on the left arm of the deceased
and, therefore, Manphul cannot be held to be one of the assailants of the
deceased. That apart as has been stated earlier the three injured witneses
P.Ws.8, 9 and 10 have given a very succinct version of assault by each one of
the accused appellants with different weapons of offence in their hands on
deceased Ram Pal and there is nothing in their evidence in cross examination to
discard the same consequently, we are not in a position to give any benefit of
doubt to accused Man Phul as contended by Mr. Sibal, the learned Senior counsel
appearing for the appellants. So far as the contention regarding opportunity of
Surjit Singh to vitiate the minds of the injured persons which ultimately
resulted in the delayed F.I.R. and inclusion of innocent persons as accused
persons and as assailants, we do not find any force in the said contention. The
medical evidence clearly indicates that injured Tara Chand was brought to the
hospital in a precarious condition and was not even fit to make a statement
initially. It is only after some treatment been given when he was found to be
in a fit condition his statement was recorded and that statement was treated by
the Investigating Officer as F.I.R. In this fact situation question of Surjit
Singh influencing the minds of the injured persons and falsely roping in some
of the accused persons as assailants does not arise. It is no doubt true that
the injured persons were brought to the hospital at Rajound by Surjit Singh but
that ipso facto does not establish any inducement by Surjit Singh which
resulted in roping in innocent persons nor in the facts and circumstances it
can be said that there has been any initial delay in lodging the F.I.R. so as
to create any doubt in the minds of the Court. That apart the evidence of three
injured witnesses P.Ws.8, 9 and 10 having not been shaken in any manner, the
conclusion is irresistable that the prosecution case has been proved beyond
doubt. We, therefore, do not find any substance in the said contention of Mr. Sibal.
In our opinion, the entire prosecution case has been proved beyond reasonable
doubt as against the appellants and, therefore, the conviction and sentences
awarded against them does not merit any interference by this Court. The appeal
accordingly is dismissed. The conviction and sentences passed against them are
affirmed. The appellants having been released on bail by this Court, their bail
bond stands cancelled and they are directed to surrender for further serving
the remaining part of the sentence and if they fail to surrender, steps be
taken for their arrest.
Back
Pages: 1 2
