Punjab-Haryana High Court
Babu Ram And Ors. vs State Of Haryana on 3 May, 1993
Equivalent citations: 1993CRILJ3788
JUDGMENT J.S. Sekhon, J.
1. The appellants were found guilty and convicted by Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal, on the charge of murder of Amir Chand and Laxmi Narain in prosecution of the common object of the unlawful assembly under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and each one of them was awarded sentence of imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 500/- or in default of payment thereof to further undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment. They were also convicted under Section 325 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code for the injuries on the persons of Smt. Dhanno Devi and Gullu Ram and each one of them was awarded sentence of three years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500/- or in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment. They were also convicted under Section 323 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code for the injuries on the person of Moti Ram,PW 18 and each one of them was awarded six months' rigorous imprisonment. All the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Feeling aggrieved against their conviction and sentence they have come up in appeal.
2. Smt. Rajni Devi, complainant, has also preferred Criminal Revision No. 489 of 1991 against the accused-respondents for awarding capital punishment qua the murder of Amir Chand and Laxmi Narain and for enhancement of sentence as well as awarding adequate compensation to the complainant. Both these matters shall be disposed of by this order as these arise out of the same judgment of the trial Court and rest upon the same evidence.
3. In brief the prosecution case is that Babu Ram, Lal Ram and Rup Lal accused-appellants are real brothers while Dhan Raj and Nathu Ram accused-appellants are the sons of aforesaid Babu Ram and Bhalu Ram accused-appellant is son of aforesaid Rup Lal. On the other hand, Amir Chand, deceased, is the father of Laxmi Narain, deceased, Moti Ram, PW 18 and Gullu Ram, PW 17, while Smt. Dhanno Devi, PW 8 is the mother of Amir Chand deceased. Both the parties used to reside in village Dera Purbian and cultivate their respective lands. Two days prior to this occurrence, Babu Ram, accused had dismantled the water course of Arnir Chand, deceased. Amir Chand, deceased, remonstrated, with Babu Ram and an altercation took place between them.
4. On 4-8-1989 at about 9/9.30 a.m. Moti Ram, PW 18, was returning to his house from his Batora after urinating. When the reached in front of the house of Babu Ram accused, aforesaid Babu Ram armed with Dang, and his sons Dhanraj and Nathu Ram, armed with Sariyas, Rup Lal, Lala Ram and Bhalu Ram accused armed with lathis, came there. Babu Ram acccused exhorted his co-accused to teach a lesson to Moti Ram for mending the water course. Dhan Raj accused then dealt a sariya blow on the head of Moti Ram. Lala Ram, accused gave lathi blows on his chin and left leg while Bhallu Ram accused gave a lathi blow on his arm. Moti Ram, PW 18, then raised alarm upon which Amir Chand deceased, Gullu Ram PW and Laxmi Narain deceased were attracted to the spot and started rescuing Moti Ram PW 18. Dhan Raj and Nathu Ram accused gave Sariya blows on the head and waist of Amir Chand, respectively. Rup Lal, Bhalu Ram and Lala Ram accused gave injuries with their respective lathis to the witnesses. Pala Ram son of Nand Lal also arrived at the spot on hearing the alarm and saw the entire occurrence. All the accused with their respective weapons then fled away towards village Sirsi through the fields. Amir Chand was found dead just thereafter. Leaving Ram Chander and Om Parkash to guard dead body of Amir Chand, Smt. Dhanno, removed Moti Ram, Gullu Ram and Laxmi Narain injured to Civil Hospital, Karnal. Thereafter, she rushed to the Police Station, Karnal and lodged the report Ex. PL at 11.30 a.m. with Inspector Raj Gopal. A case under Sections 148/302/149 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the accused and its special report was conveyed to the Ilaqa Magistrate at about 4.40 p.m. by Constable Sukhvinder Singh. Inspector Raj Gopal along with Smt. Dhanno Devi then left for the spot. He found the dead body of Amir Chand lying at the spot and prepared the inquest report Ex. PJ-4 in the presence of Ram Chander and Om Parkash witnesses. The dead body was entrusted to Constables Surender and Mam Chand for autopsy.The Inspector also prepared the rough site plan Ex. PT of the spot. He also took into possession the blood stained earth from the spot after putting it in a sealed parcel. He prepared the injury statement Ex. PD of Smt. Dhanno Devi and deputed Constable Jaipal for her medical examination. He also recorded the statements of the witnesses.
5. Reverting to the fate of the injured it transpires that Dr. P.K. Bhatia, P W 7, examined Moti Ram PW 18 at about 11.20 a.m. on 4-8-1989 and found three blunt weapon injuries on his person. Subsequently, during the course of treatment, this doctor also found fracture of right ulna of this witness.
6. Dr. P. K. Bhatia, PW 7, also medico-legally examined Gullu Ram PW 17 on the same day at 11-35 a.m. and found seven blunt weapon injuries on his person. Oh X-ray examiantion, Dr. Bhatia found fracture of 3rd and 4th metacarpal bone on the person of Gullu Ram.
7. On the same day, Dr. P. K. Bhatia at about 11.55 a.m. medicolegally examined Laxmi Narain deceased who complained of pain in the scalp region, but there was no visible external mark of injury on his person.
8. Smt. Dhanno Devi, PW 8, was medicolegally examined by Dr. Anil Sharma, PW 2, at 4.30 p.m. on 4-8-1989. He found three blunt weapon injuries on her person. The injuries on the right fore-arm and right finger were kept under observation subject to X-ray examination. Dr. P. K. Bhatia, PW 7, on X-ray examination of Smt. Dhanno Devi, detected fracture of lower end of ulna and lower end of radius. Thus, injury on the right fore-arm was declared grievous in nature.
9. The autopsy on the dead body of Amir Chand was conducted by Dr. (Mrs.) Amerjit Wadwa, PW 6, at 5.00 p.m. on 4-8-1989. She found six blunt weapon injuries thereon out of which under injury No. 1, she detected the fracture of scalp bone in two halves, starting from the base of the nose and extending up to the centre of the skull joining occipital bone at the suture. Haematomae was present on both sides of the brain under neath the membrane. All the injuries were ante-mortem in nature and were found sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature.
10. It is noteworthy that Babu Ram accused was also examined by Dr. Anil Sharma, PW 2, at 7.30 p.m. on 4-8-1989 and a lacerated wound was found on the left parieto-frontal region, besides defused swelling over the right hand at the base of right index finger. The head injury was found simple in nature, but X-ray was advised for the injury on the hand. Dr. Anil Sharma, PW 2, also medicolegally examined Nathu Ram accused at 7.55 p.m. on that day and found a lacerated wound on the occiput region besides reddish contusion on his nose. Both the injuries were kept under observation subject to X-ray examination. Both the accused were admitted in the hospital for treatment.
11. Inspector Raj Gopal, after spot inspection came to the hospital in the evening and recorded the statement Ex. PV of Laxmi Narain injured after obtaining the opinion of the doctor about his fitness. He also recorded the statements of other injured witnesses.
12. Unfortunately, Laxmi Narain injured succumbed to the injuries in the Civil Hospital at 4.45 p.m. Dr. Vinod Aggarwal, then sent intimation to the police post of Civil Hospital, on receipt of which Head Constable Mam Raj, PW 13, recorded entry at 5.15 p.m. in the Daily diary of the police post and sent intimation to the Incharge of Police Station Sadar, Karnal. On receipt of this intimation1, ASI Ajit Singh reached the hospital and drafted inquest report Ex. PB on the dead body of Laxmi Narain. The dead body was entrusted to Constables Sir Singh and Mohinder Singh for autopsy.
13. Dr. R. A. Mittal, PW 1, conducted the autopsy on the dead body of Laxmi Narain at 12.00 Noon on 6-8-1989. There was no external mark of injury. On dissection of the skull coagulated blood was detected under parietal and frontal bones. Parietal bone also transpired fracture. He also detected fracture of frontal bone on the left side. Subdural haematoma was present under the fractured bones. In the opinion of this doctor this injury was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature and could be caused by a blunt weapon like lathi.
14. On 17-8-1989 ASI, Jit Singh, arrested Babu Ram, Rup Lal, Lala Ram and Bhalu Ram accused.
15. Inspector Raj Gopal failed to contact the remaining two accused despite search till 18-8-1989 when Dhan Raj and Nathu Ram accused were arrested by him on 18-8-1989. On 21-8-1989, Dhan Raj accused in the presence of Vir Bhan and Amar Nath disclosed having kept concealed an iron bar under the koop of Turi vide his disclosure statement Ex. Py. Thereafter, Nathu Ram accused on interrogation disclosed having kept concealed a sariya in the Batora, vide statement Ex. PZ. Both these accused got recovered Sariyas Ex. P1 and P2 respectively in pursuance of their respective disclosure statement from the above said places.
16. Parcels of blood stained earth and clothes of the deceased as well as the injured witnesses, besides parcels of Sariyas were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Madhuban, Haryana and the Deputy Direc-tor-cum-Assistant Chemical Examiner found blood thereon while the Serologist confirmed the origin of blood to be of human on the Shirt and Dhoti only.
17. After completion of the investigation all the accused were arraigned for trial on such like allegations by submitting the charge-sheet before the Committing Magistrate. The commitment proceedings ended in the committal of the case against the accused to the Court of Session.
18. Before the trial Court, in order to prove its above referred case, the prosecution examined nineteen witnesses, besides tender-ing the formal evidence of C. Multan Singh and Head Constable Sat Pal Singh on affidavits Ex. PR PS respectively as these witnesses were not required by the defence for cross-examination. The reports Ex. PAA and Ex. PAA/1 of the Forensic Science Laboratory, Haryana, Madhuban, were also tendered in evidence. Smt. Dhanno Devi, Gullu Ram and Moti Ram, injured witnesses supported the case of the prosecution.
19. Babu Ram, Nathu Ram, Rup Lal and Lala Ram accused-appellants in their respective statements recorded by the trial Court under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure set up the plea of self-defence. The detailed version of Babu Ram accused reads as under:--
"On the day of occurrence in the morning I, my brother Lala Ram and my son Nathu Ram were present at our house when Gullu Ram, Moti Ram, and Amir Chand came there outside our house while they were armed with lathis. They abused us and raised lalkaras and stated that they would teach us a lesson for dismatling the khal. I, Nathu Ram and Lala Ram entreated them not to precipitate the matter after coming to the street, that thereafter they attacked us and caused injuries to me and Nathu Ram. We defended ourselves and caused injuries to them. In the meanwhile Laxmi Narain and Dhanno had also reached there and had joined the attacking party. They also became members of unlawful assembly constituted by the complainant party. We had defended ourselves and caused injuries to complainant party in the right of self-defence."
He further asserted that he along with his co-accused also appeared before the police on 4-8-1989. Babu Ram and Nathu Ram accused-appellants had injuries on their persons and were medicolegally examined on the same evening and later on they were brought to the police station and were detained. Lala Ram and Nathu Ram accused-appellants also adopted the version of their co-accused Babu Ram, while Dhan Raj accused-appellant set up the plea of innocence and false implication. He. further maintained having gone to the police station along with his co-accused on 4-8-1989, where they were detained while Babu Ram and Nathu Ram accused were got medicolegally examined. Bhalu Ram accused also set up the plea of innocence and false implication. The accused, however, led no evidence in defence before the trial Court despite being called upon to do so.
20. The trial Court believing the ocular version coupled with medical evidence, convicted, and sentenced the appellants as referred above. The defence version did not find favour with the trial Court.
21. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties besides perusing the record.
22. In a case of cross-versions motive for committing assault plays crucial role although the intention of the accused to give a particular injury in a murder trial can also be ascertained from the nature of the weapon used and other prevailing circumstances. In the case in hand, it is the admitted case of the parties that two days prior to the present occurrence Babu Ram accused had dis-. mantled the water course of Amir Chand deceased. It is obvious that Amir Chand deceased and Babu Ram accused must have exchanged some hot words with each other keeping in view that without the availability of the water for irrigation purposes the crops are likely to wither away. Thus, under these circumstances, there is no escape but to conclude that the accused had no motive to assault the complainant party or Amir Chand deceased. But on the other hand, the complainant party had the motive to assault the accused as Babu Ram accused had dismantled water course which used to irrigate the fields of Amir Chand from the tubewell and pass through the fields of the accused.
23. No doubt, Smt. Dhanno Devi, Gullu Ram and Moti Ram injured witnesses have given consistent version that it was the accused party which had attacked Moti Ram PW while the latter was passing in front of the house of Babu Ram accused on the morning of the occurrence, yet all the same, the probabilities of the case do not at all make out a case of the accused having indulged in preplanned assault upon Moti Ram, especially when Moti Ram, PW had not figured in the earlier altercation between Babu Ram accused and Amir Chand deceased over the demolition of the water course. The nature of weapon i.e. lathis and Sariyas used by the accused in the assault also leads to the irresistable conculsion that they had not indulged in pre-planned assault because in; that case they could have picked-up deadly weapons like Gandasa, Kulhari and spear which are usually available at the house of the cultivators of the land. On the other hand, the version of all the accused except Dhan Raj and Bhalu Ram accused that the complainant party was the aggressor, finds force as the occurrence has taken place in front of the house of Babu Ram accused. The matter does rest here as the prosecution witnesses have failed to explain the injuries on the persons of Babu Ram and Nathu Ram accused. It is noteworthy that in the First Information Report Ex. PL, lodged by Smt. Dhanno Devi, PW 8, she is completely silent about the injuries of these two accused persons. On the other hand, in her supplementary statement Ex. D C recorded by Inspector Raj Gopal, she came forth with a version that her son Amir Chand deceased had caused injuries on the head of Babu Ram accused while her grandson Laxmi Narain deceased had given injuries to Nathu Ram accused in self-defence. During her testimony at the trial she stated that Babu Ram and Nathu Ram accused were not given injuries by the complainant party. She was duly confronted with her statement Ex. DC made before the police. She admitted having got recorded so. Thereafter, in the next breath she wriggled out Of this admission by stating that she had not stated so. Even according to the statement of Laxmi Narain deceased, Ex. PV, recorded by Inspector Raj Gopal on 4-8-1989 which was become dying declaration under Section 32 of the Evidence Act on account of his death as a result of the injuries suffered by him in this occurrence, he had stated that they also caused injuries to Babu Ram etc. in their self-defence. Similarly, Gullu Ram, PW 17, during his testimony at the trial stated that none of them had given injuries to Nathu Ram and Babu Ram accused. He went to the extent of denying during cross-examination whether Moti Ram or Laxmi Narain were armed with lathis. He was confronted with portion A to A of his statement Ex. DD made before the police wherein it was recorded that they also caused injuries to Babu Ram and Nathu Ram accused iathe exercise of right of self-defence. Moti Ram, PW 18, during his testimony at the trial stated that none from his side had caused injuries to Babu Ram and Nathu Ram accused. He was duly confronted with portion A to A of his statement Ex. DE wherein he has stated that in their self-defence they had given injuries to Babu Ram and Nathu Ram accused. Thus, it is not a case of that type where the accused had self suffered the injuries or suffered the injuries at the hands of their co-accused during the assault, but it is a case of that type where the injured eye witnesses referred above during the investigation of the case did admit that both Amir Chand and Laxmi Narain deceased had given injuries to babu Ram and Nathu Ram accused.
24. The medical evidence of Dr. Anil Sharma, PW 2, as well as the conduct of Babu Ram and Nathu Ram accused in reaching Civil Hospital, Karnal, and themselves medi-co-legally examined at 7.30 p.m. on the day of the occurrence, further probabilise the version of the accused that they had suffered the injuries at the hands of the complainant party and that the complainant party was aggressor because a party at fault would like to avoid visiting such like places like Civil Hospital where the police is bound to come as the other injured witnesses were also admitted inthe said hospital. During cross-examination Dr. Anil Sharma, PW 2, admitted having med-icolegally examined Babu Ram accused at 7.30 p.m. on 4-8-1989 and found the following two injuries on his person :--
1. A lacerated wound of size 3.5 cm x 5 cm was present over left parieto frontal region. It was 6 cm above the left eye brow, skin deep and fresh bleeding was present.
2. A diffused swelling present over the right hand at the base of right index finger. No colour change was seen X-ray was advised.
Injury No. I was declared simple in nature while injury No. 2 was kept under observation subject to X-ray examination. This doctor also stated that these injuries could have been received by Babu Ram accused at 9.30 a.m. on that day. No X-ray report of the injury of this accused was produced before this doctor which shows that the investigator had deliberately with-held the rediological particulars of Babu Ram accused. Injury No. 1 is located on the left parieto frontal region. Keeping in view that the impact of the force of trauma with weapon cannot be circumscribed, it is not acceptable that the accused would suffer head injury at a frinedly hand, Dr. Anil Sharma PW 2, also medico-legally examined Nathu Ram accused at 7.55 p.m. on the day of the occurrence and found following two injuries on his person:--
1. A lacerated wound of the size of 6 cm x 1 cm present over the occiput. It was bone deep and bleeding was present X-ray of skull and surgeon's opinion was advised.
2. Blue reddish contusion was present over the nose 2.5 cm x 1.0 cm in size and surrounding area was swollen. X-ray of nose and ENT surgeon's opinion was advised.
Both these injuries were kept under observation subject to X-ray report and the Sure-geon's opinion. The location of these injuries on the vital portions of Nathu Ram, like head and nose also rules out that these injuries were self suffered or self inflicted.
25. Under these circumstances it cannot be said that the injuries on the person of Babu Ram and Nathu Ram accused were of such a nature which require no explanation. The trial Co rut has not given any importance to the non-explanation of the injuries on the person of these two accused relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Hare Krishna Singh v. State of Bihar, 1988 SCC (Cri) 279 : (1988 Cri LJ 925) for coming to the conclusion that it is not invariably the rule of law that the prosecution witnesses are bound to explain the injuries on the person of the accused. The trial Court lost sight of the fact that in para 21 of judgment the Supreme Court has held that assuming Hare Krishna had sustained an injury in the same occurrence even then in the facts and circumstances of the case the prosecution was not obliged to account for the injury and the failure of the prosecution to give reasonable explanation of the injury would not go against or throw any doubt on the prosecution case. The Supreme Court on the other hand, believing the ocular version of the eye witnesses and keeping in view that Hare Krishna had not set up any specific plea of safe defence has made the above referred observation regarding the non-explanation of injury on his person. The trial Court had not applied its mind to the facts and circumstances of the case that the accused party had no motive to indulge in a pre planned assault and that the occurrence took place in front of the house of Babu Ram accused and that the witnesses are blowing hot and cold in the same breath regarding the injuries on the persons of two accused at different stages of the investigation and trial, Consequently, there is no escape but to conclude that the complainant party was the aggressor and not the accused party.
26. The question then arises whether the accused had the reasonable apprehension of suffering grievous hurt or death at the hands of the complainant party or exceeded the exercise of the right of self defence. In this regard it is noteworthy that if the complainant party started hitting the accused on their heads with blunt, weapons like lathis and that too in front of the house of the accused, it can be well inferred that the accused had reasonabl9 apprehension of at least suffering grievous hurt. Thus, their case falls under clause Secondly of Section 100 of the Indian Penal Code, which reads as under:--
Section 100. When the right of private defence of the body extends to causing death.
...........
The right of private defence of body extends, under the restrictions mentioned in the last preceding section to the voluntary causing of death or any other harm to the assailant, if the offence which occasions the exercise of the right be of any of the descriptions hereinafter enumerated, namely:--
First. xxx xxx xxx Secondly:-- Such an assault as may reasonably cause the apprehension that grievous hurt will otherwise be the consequence of such assault."
27. Faced with the above situation, Mr. D.S. Bishnoi, learned Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, contended that the accused had exceeded the right of self defence by causing more harm than was necessary for the purpose of their defence. The limitation on the exercise of right of self defence is provided under Section 99 of the Indian Penal Code. The relevant portion of this section reads thus,:--
"Section 99 : Extent to which the right may be exercised:-- The right of private defence in no case extends to the inflicting of more harm than it is necessary to inflict for the purpose of defence."
In the case in hand, Laxmi Narain, deceased has sufferred only one injury on his head. It has not left any external mark, but on dissection of skull, Dr. R.A. Mittal PW 1 had found the fracture of perietal and frontal bones and the presence of subdural haema-toma under these injuries. According to Dr. P.K. Bhatia, PW 7, at the time of medical examination on 4-8-1989 i.e. on the day of the occurrence, Laxmi Narain deceased was conscious and complained of pain in the scalp region but there was no external mark of injury. Thus, it can be well said that the accused had not repeated the blow on his person.
28. Dr. (Mrs.) Amarjit Wadwa, PW6, during the autopsy of Amir Chand deceased, had found following six injuries on his person:--
1. Contusion 10 cm x 3 cm on the forehead just in the centre of the midline of body extending up to the scalp. It was starting from 3 cm above the base of the nose. On dissection haematomas was present between skull and scalp and skull was fractured in two halves starting from the base of the nose extending up to the centre of the skull joining occipital bone at the suture. On opening the skull there was haematomae present on both sides of the brain under neath the membrane.
2. Lacerated wound 3 cm x 3 cm muscle deep on the right side of the scalp just to the right of the scalp just to the right of median line 13 cam above the pinna of right ear.
3. Contusion 15 cm x 2 cm on the back of the abdomen at the site of left renal angle it was bluish in colour.
4. Contusion 10 cm x 2 cm, bluish in colour on the back of left side of chest 10 cm below the tip of shoulder, horizontally placed in the central of scapula.
5. Horizontally placed contusion 5 cm x 2 cm on the right side of back of shoulder.
6. Abrasion 2 cm x 2 cm on the right upper arm 5 cm above the elbow joint on the back.
In the opinion of this doctor the death had taken place as a result of haemorrhage in the brain which in turn implies that injury No. 1, alone was the cause of death as under that injury on the head the skull bones were found fractured and haematoma was detected on both sides of the brain underneath the membrane. The perusal of the remaining injuries shows that these were simple in nature. Consequently, it cannot be said that the accused had caused more harm by giving more injuries on the person of Amir Chartd deceased. Smt. Dhanno Devi had received only two external injuries as Dr. Anil Sharma, PW 2, failed to locate any injury on her right hand finger although she had complained of pain. This doctor had found the following injuries on her person:--
1. A lacerated wound measuring 1.2 cm x 3 cm, was present over the back of right fore-arm. It was 5 cm above the wrist joint, skin deep and fresh bleeding was present.
2. Diffused swelling around the wrist joint. -No colour changes were seen.
3. She complained of pain in right finger.
On X-ray examination fracture of lower end of Ulna and lower end of radius was found by Dr. P.K. Bhatia, PW 7, Injury No. 1 is located on the back of the right fore-arm while Injury No. 2 is swelling of the wrist joint. The perusal of medico-legal report Ex. PE shows that swelling of the right wrist joint was involved. Both these injuries could be suffered by Smt. Dhanno Devi during the assault while wielding some weapon as according to the version of accused Babu Ram they had arrived at the spot at the fag end and started causing injuries to the complainant party.
29. Dr. P.K. Bhatia, PW 7, had found the following seven injuries on the person of Gullu Ram, PW17:--
1. 1 cm x.2 cm skin deep wound on right side of forehead.
2. 5 cm x 1/2 cm bone deep longitudinally running wound. Lacerated in nature. On the top of scalp, fresh bleeding was present. Advised X-ray and general surgeon's opinion.
3. 5 cm x 1/2 cm lacerated would running transversely posterior to injury No. 2.
4. Diffuse swelling left hand. Advised X-ray.
5. 3 cm contusion on the back in the mid line in lower orsal region running obliquely.
6. Difuse swelling right leg. X-ray was advised.
7. 2 cm x 1/2 era lacerated wound on right leg, on the auterior aspect.
On X-ray examination fracture of 3rd and 4th metacarpal bones was detected by this doctor.
Dr. P.K. Bhatia, PW 7, had observed the following three injuries on the person of Moti Lal, PW 18:--
1. 5 cm x 1/2 cm lacerated wound on right side of interior aspect of scalp. Fresh bleeding was present. Advised X-ray and general Surgeon's opinion.
2. I cm abrasion at chin.
3. 3 cm abrasion on left leg.
All these injuries were found simple in nature.
Later on during his treatment fracture of right Ulna was detected and close reduction of the fracture was done. Thus, it appears that fractaure of Ulna have occurred due to fall and not due to injury as no external injury was found on the right arm.
30. It is noteworthy that the complainant party had given four injuries to Nathu Ram and Babu accused after coming in front of their house. Thus, simply because in the heat of passion these two accused or their companions namely Lala Ram, Rup Lal Dhan Raj and Dhalu Ram had given more simple injuries to the witnesses, it cannot be said that they had exceeded the right of self defence specially when it is not even the case of the prosecution witnesses that they were given more injuries by the accused after the fall of Amir Chand and Laxmi Narain deceased. On the other hand, the presence of three simple injuries on the person of Moti Ram, PW 18, belies the prosecution version that he was waylaid and attacked by these accused persons armed with lathis and sariyas because in that case one would expect numerous injuries on his person. Thus, the accused were justified in causing injuries to the deceased and the witnesses so long the latter insisted in the assault. Consequently, by no stretch of imagination it can be said that the accused had exceeded the right of self-defence.
31. For the foregoing reasons there is no escape but to conclude that the accused had acted in the exercise of their right of self defence within the purview of Section 100 (Secondly) of the Indian Penal Code and are entitled to acquittal. It is ordered accordingly by accepting their appeal and setting aside the order of conviction and sentence of the trial Court.
32. In the light of above findings, the Criminal Revision No. 489 of 1991 preferred by the complainant fails and is hereby dismissed.