Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Statement has been heard which is correct. RTI Suman. Attested Sd/- Bharat Singh, SI SHO, PS: Khol 11.10.98."

6. On the basis of the statements of the prosecution witnesses and after taking into consideration the defence version of the accused party who examined as many as 8 witnesses, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the prosecution had been able to prove its case and the manner in which the occurrence had taken place. The injuries sustained by the injured had been explained and the trial Court, accordingly, rejected the plea that the accused were entitled to the benefit of doubt and that the evidence advanced by the prosecution was not reliable and trustworthy. The right of private defence was also rejected as it was noticed that false medical reports were sought to be prepared by the accused. However, the applicability of Section 149 IPC was rejected regarding the second part of the occurrence in which the deceased-Siri Ram had been assaulted along with Om Parkash, Dharambir and Krishan. Accordingly, it was held that Siri Ram died as a result of head injuries which were caused by Attar Singh and injury No.2 which was commuted fracture of left parietal bone was inflicted by a lathi and was fatal in nature. Attar Singh was also held liable for injury to Jag Ram and injury No.1 on the anterior part of left parietal area of scalp in the form of a lacerated wound to Dharamvir, the complainant apart from causing injuries to Om Parkash. It was further concluded that the medical evidence supported the ocular version and that Jag Ram suffered 3 fractures with blunt weapons, regarding the fracture of the 7th and 9th rib fracture on the left and right side of the chest respectively and also at the head of the 5th metacarpal of the left hand which was proved by PW5, Dr.Karan Singh. Suman was held liable under Section 323 IPC and Ram Kala had caused simple hurt with lathi along with Shakuntla and were held to be liable under Section 323 IPC. Bhur Singh had cause simple injuries to the complainant on his right hand whereas Mahabir caused simple injuries to Dharamvir and PTI Krishan. Accordingly, they were sentenced as noticed in the opening para of the judgment.

7. In the cross case lodged on the next day, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the accused party (in the cross case) had received far more serious injuries and Siri Ram, father of Dharamvir had died in the said incident and the complainants had managed the false report to prepare false case and projected fracture on the skull of Suman on the strength of a medical report given by Karan Singh and an enquiry had also been conducted by Dr.H.R.Yadav, Senior Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Rewari wherein allegation made by Dharamvir etc. were found to be true. The re-medico-legal examination of injured Suman, Ram Kala and Attar Singh had been ordered on the said persons but they had refused to be medico-legally examined and accordingly, the accused therein had been acquitted.

"1. A lacerated wound 1.5 cms x 1.2 cms on the fore- head, on the left side, 2 cms above the left eye brow. Clotted blood was present. Ragged margins.

2. Diffuse swelling on left parietal region on dissection blood was present in sub cutaneous region, comminutted fracture of left parietal bone was present. Underline left parietal lobe was lacerated surrounded by massive haemotoma (clotted) about the size of a fist. On exploring further fracture of base of skull was present.

20. The trial Court has also, in the cross case in FIR No.267 dated 11.10.1998, given valid reasons to justify the acquittal of Om Parkash, Jag Ram, Ram Saran, Krishan and come to the conclusion that it was the appellants who were the aggressors and inspite of the fact that Suman had suffered no fracture on her head, the evidence was created to lodge the FIR and in an attempt to save themselves from the criminal liability of FIR No.266 dated 10.10.1998. A perusal of the statement of Dr.H.R.Yadav PW 18 would go on to show that he was appointed the enquiry officer by the then Civil Surgeon on the complaint of Dharamvir and it was found that the allegation made in the complaint was correct as per his enquiry report (Ex.PZ) wherein he came to the conclusion that the skull fracture of Smt.Suman was shown despite there being no fracture and which was the proof of utter negligence of Dr.Karan Singh. Similarly, it was held that there was no fracture on the hands of Smt.Ram Kala and the fracture was shown with the motive to entangle the other side and false serious allegations would have put the other side to face great injustice. Similar is the deposition of Dr.P.K.Paliwal, Associate Professor, Department of Forensic Medicines, PGIMS, Rohtak (PW16), before whom the accused, Attar Singh was produced in pursuance to the orders dated 29.10.1998 of the JMIC 1st Class, Rewari to re-examine Attar Singh whereby he had refused to give his consent for medical re-examination. Similarly, even Suman and Ram Kala had also refused to give their consent for re-medical examination and they were not medically re-examined despite of the order of the JMIC 1st Class, Rewari. These facts would go on to show that they were apprehensive of their false complaints being exposed on re- examination and therefore, refused to give their consent for re-examination.