Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

[6] Learned counsel for the appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 408/2000 submits that Pancham Singh, who was armed with ballam and had caused injury to Indrapal close to his eye, has died. It is submitted that accused Baldhari, Brahmanand, Munna Lal and Baburam are real brothers. Accused Brahmanand, Munna, Baldhari and Jagat Singh were armed with lathis, whereas Ramlakhan and Pancham were armed with ballam. According to complainant Indrapal Singh (PW-1), all these persons started beating his brother Ranveer Singh, Bachan, Brajpal and Ramjilal. Ramlakhan hit him a ballam causing injury below his eye. It is submitted that injured Bachan Singh and Parvati sustained simple injuries, whereas Ranveer was referred for MLC vide Exhibit P-4. In the MLC, it was found that patient was in a state of shock. Treatment was given to him and his dying Criminal Appeal Nos. 408/2000, 449/2000, 465/2000 & 545/2000 declaration was taken by Tahsildar. There was a circular wound over right shoulder joint near armpit measuring 1 cm x 1 cm in diameter, edges were inverted and blackened, blood was oozing from wound. Direction of wound was medially inferior and posteriorly. There was a exit wound measuring 6 cm x 6 cm in diameter, margins were irregular and everted, muscle piece. Injury was reported to be grievous in nature caused by gunshot. Ranveer was referred to J.A. hospital Gwalior. In x-ray report Exhibit P-7, fracture of scapula and head of humerus of right side was seen. It is submitted that there was allegation of causing gunshot injury on Baburam, and therefore, offence under Sections 148, 149, 324 was enhanced to 307 IPC. It is submitted that MLC of Parvati widow of Chuttan Singh Exhibit P-6 reveals abrasion on right temporal and one abrasion over scalp of right side and doctor opined injury to be simple in nature caused by hard and blunt object. It is submitted that thus it is apparent that fight had taken place at the spur of moment because of old enmity between two rival parties who had visited house of Indrapal Singh on account of Pata (death ritual) of his father. There was no premeditation, and once trial Court has recorded finding of acquittal under Sections 148, 324/149 and 323/149 of IPC and has also recorded a finding that any of the accused in Criminal Appeal No. 408/2000 had not caused any injury to Bachan Singh and Parvati in furtherance of their common object or common intention, and taking into consideration the fact that Criminal Appeal Nos. 408/2000, 449/2000, 465/2000 & 545/2000 statements of Bachu Singh and Parvati Bai were not recorded before the Court, it is a case where individual act is to be seen, and therefore, there could not have been any conviction under Section 307/149 IPC. [7] Learned counsel for the appellants referring to statement of Indrapal (PW-1) submits that accused Baburam Sharma, Mahendra, Ramjilal, Ramavtar were invited for a family function at his place. There was old enmity between Ramavtar and Baburam Sharma. Accused Babu Sharma abused Ramavtar. Bachu Singh and Raghunath tried to intervene in the matter, when suddenly attack was made by Ramlakhan, Munnu, Baldhari Brahmanand on Ramavtar and Ramjilal who tried to intervene in the matter, when, Baburam Sharma, fired a gunshot from his katta hitting Ranveer. It is alleged that Brajpal sustained lathi blows on his knee whereas Ramjilal Sharma also sustained injuries. Ramlakhan hit him with a ballam below his eye, therefore, a report was lodged at police chowki. It is submitted that Court statements of Indrapal (PW-2) are contrary to his case diary statements Exhibit D-2 inasmuch as in his case diary statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C, this witness has deposed that Pancham Singh had hit him with a ballam causing injury on his left cheek. He had not seen as to who had caused injury to Ranveer Singh and some how he managed to escape so to reach police station. Reading case diary statement of Indrapal, it is submitted that there are several omissions and contradictions in the Court statement of Indrapal Singh (PW-1) Criminal Appeal Nos. 408/2000, 449/2000, 465/2000 & 545/2000 and after gathering fact of death of Pancham, he has improvised his statement so to frame Ramlakhan alleging causation of injury by Ramlakhan with a ballam on his left cheek. It is also submitted that since name of Baburam has not been mentioned in the list of persons who had caused injury with katta to Ranveer in statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C, this is also an improvisation in his court statements. It is submitted that in Para 6 of his court statement, this witness has though denied giving a statement that complainant party had also sustained injuries but this is contrary to the statement (Exhibit D-2). It is also submitted that Mangal Singh (PW-8) has admitted that Baburam had not returned money borrowed from Ramjilal and that was the bone of contention. It is submitted that Ramjilal was serving food whereas Ramavtar was sitting. According to Mangal Singh (PW-8), he had categorically mentioned in his case diary statement that Baburam had caused gunshot injury to Ranveer whereas Baldhari had hit Bachhu Singh with a lathi and Jagat Singh had hit mother of Indal i.e. Parvati with lathi. In view of such testimony of prosecution witnesses, it is submitted that all the accused could not have been convicted under Section 307 IPC with the aid of Section 149 IPC. Therefore, since the incident had taken place at spur of moment, individual act of accused is to be seen as there was no common intention or common object.