Ram Kishan & Ors Vs. State of Haryana & Anr  Insc 473 (13 November 2002)
Sabharwal & H.K. Sema. Sema,J
Appeal (crl.) 74 of 2002
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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:
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
Blood Stained Cotton Human Inconclusive
Muffler Human `O'
Underwear Human Inconclusive
Sample blood Human Inconclusive
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.
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:
Abrasion on right eye-brow outer and 2 cm. x cm. surrounding area was swollen.
Fresh clotted blood was present. X-ray was advised.
cm. x cm. lacerated wound. It was skin deep on left maxillary prominence.
There was swelling below left elbow on fore-arm. It was 6 cm. x 4 cm. X-ray
left elbow and forearm was advised.
Abrasions 6 cm. horizontal x 4 cm. on back of the left side chest. Lower ribs
outer part. X-ray chest was advised.
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.
Lacerated wound cm x 1 cm. x muscle deep 2 cm.
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
20.12.1994, I conducted X-ray examination of Ram Kishan son of Ram Pat, 42
years, male r/o Teekli, vide MLR No.
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.
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.
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:-
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.
tissues showed hemorrhage and haemotama formation and underlying bone was fond
fractured. Meninges and brain matter found lacerated.
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.
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.
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.
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
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".
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.
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.
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.
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.
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".
view, the aforesaid discrepancies appearing in the statement of PW-2 would render
the prosecution story wholly unreliable, concocted and well an after thought.
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.
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.
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
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.
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:
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.
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:
" 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.
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
Oblique lacerated wound on right occipital region. It was 6 cm. x 1 cm. muscle
deep. Fresh bleeding was present.
area was swollen. X-ray skull was advised.
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.
Left index and middle fingers were swollen. Advised x- ray index and middle
Right fore-arm was swollen in the middle part. X-ray right fore-arm was
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.
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.
"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
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.
clotted blood was present. X-ray skull was advised.
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.
front of right leg anterior side there was 4 lacerated wounds.
cm. below knee. 1-1/2 cm. x 1 cm. x muscle deep
cm. below injury No. A. 2 cm. x 1 cm. x muscle deep
cm. below injury No. B. 4 cm. x 1 cm. into muscle deep. It was vertically
cm. below injury No. C. 2 cm. x cm. into skin deep. X-ray right leg was
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.
the left fore-arm there was abrasion. On the posterior size Middle part 2 cm. x
cm. was vertically placed.
area was swollen. X-ray left fore-arm was advised.
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.
Abrasions on the back of right index finger first phalanx posterior size 1 cm.
x cm. X-ray right index finger was advised.
Swelling on angle of left jaw 5 cm. x 4 cm. It was red in colour. X-ray left
jaw was advised.
Pattern contusion elongated in shape on middle part of abdomen 3 cm. above
umbilicus the margins were echymosed.
oblique, the rounded and was towards left and upper.
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.
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.
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.
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:
"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
area was swollen. Fresh clotted blood was present. X-ray skull was advised.
Right thumb was swollen. More in proximal part movement were painful. X-ray
right thumb was advised.
Slight swelling on palmer side of left hand near thumb.
of injuries are as follows:
No. 3 is simple in nature, however injury No. 1 and 2 were kept under
injuries were caused within 24 hours of the examination.
the injuries were caused by blunt weapon.
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
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.
clotted blood was present. Surrounding area was swollen. X-ray skull was
Complained of pain on back of left side of the chest. No apparent injury was
seen. X-ray chest was advised.
No. 1 and 2 were kept under observations. The duration of the injuries was
within 24 hours of the examination.
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:
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.
Defused contusion on the outer side of right shoulder upper part 10 cm. x 6 cm.
Abrasion on front of left knee joint 2 cm. x 2 cm. Fresh clotted blood was
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.
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:
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.
inner maleolus of left ankle cm. x 1 cm. abrasion was present. Fresh clotted
blood was present. Surrounding area was swollen.
Right big toe was swollen more on the dorsal side. Advised X-ray right big toe.
abrasions on inner aspect of right ankle joint.
cm. x cm. on centre of maleolus for injury No. 4-B.
cm. x cm. on ankle joint. It is 4 cm. from injury No.4-A towards heal.
cm. x 1.2 cm. abrasion. It was 3 cm. above injury No.4-A.
Abrasion on front of middle part of right leg 1 cm. x cm. fresh clotted blood
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.
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.
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.
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.
application is dismissed.