Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

6. Learned trial court after considering the entire material on the record has convicted and sentenced the appellants as said above.

7. Learned counsel for the appellants has urged that the order of conviction of the appellants is bad in law. The occurrence has been admitted by both the parties and the time of occurrence is at 4 p.m. but only the difference is about the earlier occurence. The prosecution says that in the morning at 8 p.m. the cattle had grazed whereas the defence contention is that the grazing as well as mar-pit had taken place, at 4 p.m. as is made out from the earlier statement (Ext. 4) given by Dwarika Rai (P.W. 4) to A.S.I. Ramekbal Singh at Sadar hospital, Siwan, and therefore the prosecution has not given out the true version about the genesis of the occurrence which creates doubt about the version of the prosecution. Next, it was submitted that three persons from the side of the accused had been injured in the same transaction and at the same time but they have neither been mentioned in the fard-beyan (Ext. 4) by Haricharan Yadav (P.W. 9) nor the witnesses say about the same in the evidence. Rather the same has been denied by them and also it is a fact that the same doctor had examined the injuries of both the sides and had given injury reports (Exts. 7 and 7/1) and for the accused side (Exts. 7/3 and 7/4) and some of the injuries on the side of the accused are grievous for which there is no explanation.

22. The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants is that the prosecution has suppressed the injuries of the accused which are said to have been received in the same transaction and so the prosecution has suppressed the genesis of the occurrence and that creates doubt. Whereas learned Counsel for the State has said that the occurrence had not taken place in this same transaction and so the prosecution case cannot be doubted on that score. In the case of Mohar Rai v. State of Bihar, AIR 1968 SC 1281 : (1968 CriLJ 1479) it has been observed at page 1284 (of AIR) : (at p. 1482 of Cri LJ) in para 6 : --

(1) that the prosecution has suppressed the genesis and the origin of the occurrence and has thus not presented the true version:
(2) that the witnesses who have denied the presence of the injuries on the person of the accused are lying on a most material point and therefore their evidence is unreliable;
(3) that in case there is a defence version which explains the injuries on the person of the accused it is rendered probable so as to throw doubt on the prosecution case.

The omission on the part of the prosecution to explain the injuries on the person of the accused assumes much 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 one....

1. that the injuries on the person of the accused must be very serious and severe and not superficial;
2. that it must be shown that these injuries must have been, caused at the time of the occurrence in question.

In the case of Ahdul Waheed v. The State of Maharashtra, AIR 1979 SC 1828 : (1979 Cri L.J 1196) their Lordships observed in para 2:

... The genesis of the defence case was that there was a grazing dispute in the field of the appellant which led the deceased to assault the appellant and in the course of the mutual scuffle, the deceased was given a knife blow which resulted in his death. Although F.I.R. was lodged by the defence, there was nothing to show that the investigating officer was taken to the field to find out whether any grazing incident had taken place or not. Furthermore, P. Ws. 1,3,4 and 5 have proved the case against the accused as eyewitnesses and out of them P.W. 1, Shekh Chand, is an absolutely independent witness, hence there is no reason to distrust his evidence. It may be, as the Sessions Judge has pointed out, that after the appellant caused the murder of the deceased, there may have been mutual scuffle by way of reprisal and some of the accused were assaulted in that incident. That is why the appellant lodged his F.I.R. more than an hour after the F.I.R. lodged by the complainant. Having gone through the medical evidence and the defence evidence, we are not satisfied that the defence came out in this case with the true version.