Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. Gunshot wound of entry with black margins inverted 5 cm x 3 cm on the left side of chest piercing up to lungs.

2. Lacerated wound 10 cm x 8 cm x muscle deep on the left upper arm inner side of axilla and muscle deep.

3. Contusion 5 cm x 3 cm on the middle and back of left forearm.

4. Incised wound 3 cm x 1/2 cm x skin deep on the left side scalp above left ear.

11. On internal examination, pleura and ribs were found to be pierced by injury No. 1. Left lung was punctured with about 1/2 litre blood in the lung cavity. Heart was found to be punctured on the left side. One wadding piece and 23 pellets were recovered from left lung and heart. The injuries were caused by firearm, blunt weapon and sharp edged weapon such as Farsa.

3. Wound of exit 5 cm x 4 cm on the left thigh middle anteriorly.

4. Incised wound 3 cm x 1/2 cm x skin deep on the left side of forehead.

5. Incised wound 3 cm x 1/2 cm x skin deep on the left side forehead 4 cm below injury No. 4 posteriorly.

13. On internal examination, one wadding piece and 16 small pellets were recovered from the abdomen. The injuries could be caused by firearms as also by Farsa.

14. So, taking cumulatively, four deceased sustained injuries of firearms, sharp edged weapons as well as blunt weapons.

31. Mere relationship or interestedness is not sufficient to discard the testimony of Sher Singh PW 1 and Om Prakash PW 3. Their presence on the spot cannot at all be doubted. A close relative is to be treated as a normal witness, particularly when his presence at the spot is natural and beyond doubt and none else was there to witness the incident.

32. True, the testimonial assertions of the two eyewitnesses reconciled with the medical evidence as we indicated a little earlier, inasmuch as the injuries of firearms, sharp edged weapons and blunt weapons had been sustained by the four deceased. However, on careful and critical scrutiny of testimony of the two eyewitnesses Sher Singh PW 1 and Om Prakash PW 3, we are of the opinion that the benefit of doubt has to be afforded to the two accused, namely, Budhiram and Rama Kant. We shall spell out our reasons for such approach. As we said, enmity between the two sides is an admitted fact in this case. At times, inimical relations between the prosecution and the accused side serve as an inducement to the members of the family of the prosecution side to falsely implicate their enemies. Even when only some members of the rival group are involved in the offence, some innocent persons are also roped in. The court has to be circumspect in the appreciation of the evidence so that over-emphasis on the enmity factor does not cause either the innocent to be wrongly convicted or the guilty to be wrongly acquitted. The only real safeguard against the risk of connecting the innocent with the guilty lies in insisting on acceptable evidence which in some cases implicates such accused and satisfies the conscience of the court. In such cases, no doubt the prosecution witnesses clam to have seen the occurrence involving all the accused but it is safe only to convict those who are stated to have taken active part and about whose identity there is no reasonable doubt. This is the gist of what the Supreme Court held in the case of Bajwa v. State 1973 Criminal Law Journal Page 769.

33. In the present case, cumulatively taken, four deceased sustained only three blunt weapon injuries. One was lacerated wound on the left upper arm inner side of axilla sustained by Mahipal. The other blunt weapon, injury, sustained by him was contusion on the middle and back of left forearm. Third blunt weapon injury was traumatic swelling with contused marks on the right side face, scalp and right ear with bleeding from right ear sustained by Veerpal. It was the sole injury sustained by him. But the prosecution case was. that the four assailants, namely, Veerpal, Rama Kant, Rudhiram and Har Bhajan were armed with blunt weapons. Out of them Veerpal accused, who died during the pendency of the trial, was armed with hockey. Had four, persons armed with blunt weapons taken part in the assault of four deceased, they would have ordinarily received much more blunt weapon injuries than only three as discussed above. Doubtless it is that blunt weapon/weapons, were definitely used, but the identity of blunt weapon assailant, other than that of Veerpal, is somewhat doubtful. It would be recalled that both the eyewitnesses specifically spoke about Veerpal accused being armed with hockey, but as regards other lathi wielding accused, their statement is omnibus in nature. Therefore, so-called lathi wielding accused appellants Budhiram and Rama Kant should be afforded the benefit of doubt. Veerpal accused who wielded hockey as specifically stated by both the eyewitnesses died during the pendency of appeal" and the same on his behalf abated. The specific role and participation of the accused Ramesh, Jagdish, Jagat Singh, Veerpal Lakhpat, Run Singh, Jeet Singh and Har Kishan has come in the testimony of the two eyewitnesses. Out of them, Har Kishan died during the trial itself and Jagdish died during the pendency of the appeal. Jagat Singh and Lakhpat had wielded Farsas and it should be stated at the risk of repetition that the deceased did receive injuries of sharp edged weapons. Others just named by us had used firearms and all the deceased excepting Veerpal deceased had received gunshot injuries.