Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Sujia And Ors. vs State Of Rajasthan on 5 December, 1989
Equivalent citations: 1989WLN(UC)476
JUDGMENT V.S. Dave, J.
1. This is an appeal against the judgment of Sessions Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur, dated July 27, 1981 convicting and sentencing the accused-appellants as under:
Sujia, Mangla, Kana S/o Under Sections 307/149 3 year's R.I. Bhoma & Kana S/o Chanda IPC. Under Section 147, IPC 6 month's R.I Gopal Under Section 307, IPC 3 year's R.I Under Section 147, IPC 6 month's R.I
Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently with no sentence of fine.
2. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that on March 28, 1979 at 5.00 p.m. a report was lodged at police station, Bagru by one Hanuman Prasad Yadav (PW 8) wherein it was alleged by him that his sister Harphool is living at Nari Ka Bas, police station, Bagru About 2-3 days before lodging the report his sister bad some altercation with Sujia Jat, Kana and Mangla Ram regarding cutting of the grass. On 28-3-1979 a Panchayat was arranged for compromise where Sujiaram, Manglaram Gopal, Kana etc were also called This Panchayat was held at 2.00 in that noon but Sujiaram, Kana, Mangla and Gopal left the Panchayat and returned with various weapons from their house. Kanaram was armed with a lathi, Gopal with an axe, Sujia and Mangla with sticks. They were also accompanied with Kana's mother Jeti, Sujia's wife Rampiari and Kana's wife Koyali. All of them had common object and as soon as they arrived there Sujia gave a lathi blow on his head, Kana also gave a lathi blow as a result of which his shirt and banian were smeared with blood When his son Kuldeep Singh came to his rescue Gopal Jat gave an axe blow on his head which struck him on his forehead. Ladies also beat his son with shoes and sticks. Ramnath Ahir, Sujia Ahir, Ramu Ahir and Ram Sahai intervened and he along with his son has come to lodged the report. On receipt of this report a case under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 324 and 323, IPC was registered Dr. Govind Singh, Medical Officer Incharge of Bani Park Dispensary examined the injured-complainants. Hanuman Prasad sustained following two injuries:
(1) Incised wound 1/2 x 1/2" x bone deep. (2) Incised wound 3-1/2" x 1/2" x bone deep.
Both the injuries were on anterior part of the head. They were simple in nature and caused by sharp edged weapon. Kuldeep Singh also sustained injuries one was incited wound 3 1/2" x bone deep on the head anterior side. The injury was grievous in nature and caused by sharp edged weapon. Another injury was irregular swelling around the neck. This injury was simple and caused by blunt weapon. For confirming the nature of the injuries sustained by Kuldeep Singh it was referred for X-ray and the Radiologist confirmed it as be found a fracture of the right parietal bone. After completing the investigation police submitted charge-sheet against seven accused persons, namely, Sujia, Mangla, Kana son of Bhoma. Kana son of Chanda Gopal son of Chanda Mst, Koyali and Mst. Rampiari. The accused were committed to Sessions and the prosecution examined 14 witness in support of its case. The accused denied the occurrence as stated by the prosecution and examined five witnesses in support of their defence. Two of the witnesses Nanda and Ladu Ram had been dropped by the prosecution though they were cited in the callender as witnesses for prosecution. According to the defence the complainants were the aggressors and caused injuries on the person of members of the accused party. They were examined by Dr. Satya Prakash who was posted as Medical Officer Incharge at Bagru. Since Dr. Satya Prakash Sharma had gone to Srilanka and it was not possible to examine the defence examined Mr. Yogendra Kumar who was posted as Compounder in Bagru hospital and who was conversant with the hand-writing and signatures of Dr. Satya Prakash under whom he was working. The learned Sessions Judge did not find the case proved beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted both the ladies, namely, Mst. Koyali and Mst. Rampiari. He held that accused persons had left Panchayat, went to their residence and returned with arms and started inflicting injuries, therefore, offence under Section 147, IPC is fully made out. He also found that the accused Gopal was guilty of offence under Section 307, IPC as he had inflicted injuries on the head of Kuldeep. Ha held other four accused, namely, both Kana, Sajia and Mangla guilty of offence under Section 307 read, with Section 149 IPC. He sentenced them as indicated above. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence this appeal has been preferred.
3. Mr. Pagaria, appearing for the accused-appellants, submitted that the prosecution has not come with a true story and has even changed the place of occurrence It is submitted that the accused-appellants have sustained multiple injuries on their persons which have been proved by the defence and have not been explained by the prosecution. It is submitted that Kanhialal son of Bhomaram sustained three injuries vide Ex. D. 1A, Kana son of Chanda sustained five injuries including one incised wound vide Ex D 5A, Soorajmal sustained three injuries vide Ex. D 6. It is submitted that the complainant party is a resident of Jaipur and they had come to the place of the accused for picking up quarrel and were the aggressors. Hence even if it is accepted that the injuries were inflicted on the person of Hanuman Prasad and Kuldeep, they were inflicted in exercise of right of private defence of person. It is then submitted that it is borne out that the incident took place outside the house of the accused persons. A perusal of the site-plan Ex. P 2 shows that B and C are the places where the accused and their huts (Chhappar) were situated where the accused are living and in between the two is place A where the incident is alleged to taken place. The prosecution has falsely shown this place to be the place where the Panchayat was convened. It is submitted that the story put forward is just to justify their presence in the village It is submitted that there is no report against the accused about an incident with Smt. Harphooli which might have been the cause of incident as alleged by the prosecution. It is then submitted that a report of the incident was also lodged by Mangla accused on which case under Section 147, 447 and 323 IPC was registered against the complainant party. According to the defence, it is submitted that on incident took place between the ladies on cutting of the grass and suddenly the complainant party who are the relations of Harphooli and who are staying in Jaipur, came armed with the weapons and started causing injuries on the person of the accused Sujia. Seeing him beaten the others went to his rescue who too were beaten. It is then submitted that the prosecution has failed to explain the injuries on the person of the accused and on that account also the accused appellants should be given the benefit of doubt.
4. Learned Public Prosecutor supports the prosecution story and submitted that the trial court has thoroughly discussed the evidence and there is no warrant for interference in this appeal. It is submitted that the injuries sustained by Kuldeep was a serious injury resulting in the fracture of the frontal bone and it cannot be said this injury was caused in exercise of right of private defence. It is submitted that there is overwhelming evidence on record to substantiate that there was a Panchayat and accused were also present in that Panchayat but when they were asked to furnish the bonds for rot repeating incident in future, they left the Panchayat and returned with weapons of offence. Thus, they were clearly aggressors.
5. I have considered the rival contentions and have perused the entire evidence.
6. PW 1 Raghuveer Dayal Yadav states that his father's sister Harphooli came to him on March 27, 1979 and returned with her partners Mangla, Sujia and their ladies are beating her, hence be told them that they will come in the village on the following day and get the matter compromised therefore, on the next day i.e. March 28, 1979 he along with his father Hanuman Prasad and brother Kuldeep Singh went to village Champapur where she stays; on motor-cycles and scooters. One Nandram had collected certain villagers and accused persons along with his BHUHA were also present there. One Ram Sahai suggested that bonds be obtained from both the sides that they will not fight in future on which the accused left the place and returned with various weapons and as soon as they came there Kana gave a lathi blow on his father's head, while Mangla Jat gave a lathi blow on Kuldeep's neck. Thereafter Gopal gave an axe blow on the head of Kuldeep which hit him on the fore head. He fell down unconscious. In cross examination be admits that he is a resident of Jaipur but denies the suggestion that they had gone from Jaipur to beat the accused persons with whom his Bhuha had disputes. He denies the suggestion that it is they who had beaten the accused persons. He how ever, submits that a case has been registered against them for this incident but admits that is false. Accordingly to him ladies had also caused injuries. He states that Panchayat was taking place in the but of Sujia and Mangla accused because they had convened the Panchayat which was convened at the instance of Nanda s/o Gopi. According to him Panchayat was convened after their reaching in the village. He how ever, admits that the accused are enimical with his Bhuha. Kuldeep Singh gives almost a similar version and in cross examination he too denies that they were the aggressors and also that the accused had sustained some injuries. According to him accused had even no connection with the land of Harphooli. Similar is the statement of PW 3 Ramnath who how ever in cross-examination admits that no sharp edged injury was inflicted on the person of Hanuman. He also denies the presence of injuries on the persons. According to him accused were already present when he arrived at the place of occurrence. PW 4 Gheesa has been declared hostile. While the statements of PW 5 Ram Sahai, PW 6 Nandram and PW 8 Hanuman Prasad are also to the same effect as that of PW Raghuveer Dayal None of the prosecution witness has accepted that the accused had sustained any injury. As against this is the evidence of DW 1 Nanda, DW 2 Ladu, DW 3 Mahadeo and DW 4 Rampal. According to him the complainant party with other persons who were wrestlers had come to the village for picking up the quarrel with the accused persons. This is the total evidence so far as the incident is concerned.
7. In fact in cases where there are rival groups and there are charges and counter charges it is difficult to say as to which party is speaking the truth on their oral testimony and, therefore, the circumstances play an important role in such situations because it is universally accepted that a witness may lie but the circumstances would not lie and if judged with this point of view the case is in a very narrow ambit. It is the case of both the parties that Harphooli who is the aunt of the complainant injured Kuldeep Singh and sister of Hanuman Prasad, had a quarrel with accused persons few days earlier to this incident and she has lodged a protest to her brothers and nephews. It is also admitted that incident took place at place. A which is in between the two huts of the accused and rather forms a part of the same premises because the witnesses have admitted that it was in accused Chhappar that Panchayat took place Thus, place of incident is the house of the accused. It also cannot be denied that the circumstances of the case that though the injuries are not very serious but are multiple in nature and are sustained by as many as three accused appellants, as against which one grievous injury has been caused on the person of Kuldeep singh and two simple injuries on the person of Hanuman Prasad. Injuries on the person of accused persons have not at all been explained by the prosecution and from the nature of the injuries it cannot be said that they are self inflicted. In fact one of the injuries on the person of Kana s/o Chanda is an incised wound on the mastoid region. Thus, sharp edged weapon has also been, used by the other side. It is also not disputed that a report of the same incident had been lodged also by the accused persons. Thus, the incident did take place at the time alleged by both, the prosecution and the defence, but it is difficult to find out as to which party was the aggressor. The more probability in favour of the accused than the complainant because the complainant party was the aggrieved party as the accused had beaten Hanuman Prasad's sister, obviously they must have felt agitated and went to the village. Looking from either angle, i e, from the point of view of exercising right of private defence or from the angle that genesis of the prosecution case is not put warded and that the injuries on the person of the accused appellants are entitled to benefit of doubt. The case in fact is fully covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in Gottipulla Venkata Siva Subbrayanam and Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh . I have no hesitation in holding that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond any manner of reasonable doubt and the benefit of doubt is thus extended to the accused-appellants.
8. The result is that this appeal is allowed. The judgment of the trial court is set aside. The accused-appellants are given the benefit of doubt and are acquitted of the charges levelled against them. They are on bail and need not surrender to their bail bonds which shall stand discharged.