Har Sahal and Lallu vs State of Rajasthan

N.C. Sharma, J.—By his judgment dated October 6, 1982, Addl. Sessions Judge No 2, Alwar has convicted the appellant Har Sahai for offence Under Sections 307 and 325, IPC and Lallu appellant for offence u/s 325/34, IPC, Sections 324 and 323, IPC. The former has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for four years and a fine of Rs. 1,00/- for offence u/s 307, IPC and to six months rigorous imprisonment u/s 325, IPC. So far as Lallu appellant is concerned, he had been sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-, for offence u/s 325/34 IPC, to one year''s rigorous imprisonment u/s 324, IPC and three month''s rigorous imprisonment u/s 323, IPC. The sentences awarded to both the appellants have been made to run concurrently.

The injured in this case are--Prabhati Lal PW 3 Ram Kishore PW 4 and Prahlad PW 7 PrabhatiLal and Prahlad are real brothers while Ram Kishore was cousin of these two persons. The incident took place on March 10, 1982 at about 2 p.m. The First Information Report of the incident was lodged by Prabhati Lal PW 3 at Police Station, Malakheda. The version of the incident as given by Prabhati Lal in the FIR Ex.P 11 was that on March 10, 1982, he his brother Prahlad and Ram Kishore were at their house At about 1 p.m. the appellants who are real brothers and their neighbours were also sitting with them. Sometimes thereafter the appellant Prahlad injured got up and went the house of the appellants. After about half an hour Prabhati Lal and Ram Kishore heard the notice about killing from the side of the appellants. Thereupon Prabhati Lal, Ram Kishore and Amar Singh rushed towards the house of the appellants They saw that in the Chowk in front of the house of Patti, Lallu appellant caught hold of Prahlad and Har Sihai inflicted injury on the left side of the head on Prahlad by a wooden-feet of a cot. The First Informant Ram Kishore and Amar Singh tried to rescue Prahlad and during that Lallu appellant inflicted a ''farsi'' blow on the head of Prabhati and Ram Kishore inflicted a ''farsi'' blow from the reverse side on the head of Amar Singh and Har Sahai dealt with another blow with the wooden-feet of the cot. On their raising cry Ram Kishan Meena, Hari Singh Meena. Bhambu Meena etc. others came to the spot and rescued the injured. Prahlad was then taken to Malakheda Hospital in an unconscious condition. Prahlad had injuries on his head. The delay in lodging of the First Information Report was explained in this manner that they had told that they will make the report after Prahlad regains consciousness Prahlad had not regained consciousness. It was mentioned that there was enmity between Prabhati Lal and his family members and the appellant on account of some land dispute. On the basis of this report. Station House Officer, Police Station, Malakheda registered a case and proceeded for investigation. He prepared site-plan. Accused Har Sahai was arrested on March 23, 1982, According to the prosecution, Har Sahai gave an information that the wooden feet of the cot was hidden under Chhapar of his residential house In pursuance of this information, recovery of the wooden feet was made from the ''Chhapar'' of the house of Har Sahai and the same was seized under the seizure memo Ex P/23. After necessary investigation charge-sheet was filed against the appellant in the Court of Special Judicial Magistrate, who committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Alwarand, ultimately, the case came by transfer to the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge Alwar. The Addl. Sessions Judge after trial held both the appellants guilty for the offence already mentioned above and sentenced them as aforesaid.

Har Sahai and Lallu had filed S B. Criminal Appeal No. 445/1982 before this Court against their convictions and sentences. The State of Rajasthan has also filed, by leave, Criminal Appeal No. 582/1983 against Lallu appellant with the prayer that he should have been convicted for the offence punishable Under Sections 307/34. IPC Both these appeals are being decided together.

It cannot be disputed that the incident took place in front of the house of the appellant and during that incident Prabhati Lal (PW/3), Ram Kishore (PW/4), Prahlad (PW/7) and Amar Singh received injuries. Dr. Rajendra Singh Kaushik was the Medical Officer of the Police Station, Malkheda on March 10, 1982 He examined the injured He found that Prahlad had lacerated wound 10 x 1 cm. x 1.5 cm. on scalp on left temporal bone 7 cm above left eye brows. Tender swelling circular in shape 10 x 10 cm over right eye and adjoining frontal bone and zygomatic bone and right temporal bones. Apart from that, there was an abrasion 3 x 2 cm on left check 3 cm below left eye. All the injuries were caused by blunt weapon For 1 and 2 injures, he advised X-ray and the X-ray report Ex P/3 show that there was fracture of frontel temporal region left side extending towards right orbital region. This is proved by Dr. M.K Singhal (PW/1) on the basis of the X-ray report Ex. P 3. So far as PrabhatiLal is concerned, he had incised wound 9 x 1 cm x 1.5 cm on scalp 18 cms above the tip of nose. The injury was simple in nature and was caused by sharp object within in nature and was caused by sharp object within a duration of 12 hours. Ram Kishore had lacerated wound 6 cm x 1.5 x 1.5 cm. on scalp 22.4 cm. above the tip of nose. This injury was simple in nature. Amar Singh had tender swelling 3"x 2" on left fore-arm 3" above left wrist joint and another tender swelling 1"x 1" on left elbow joint. On being X-rayed, first of the above injury was found to be grievous as per the X-ray report (Ex P/8). These were the injuries sustained by four injured.

On the same day, Dr. Rajendra Singh Kaushik had also examined injuries on the body of the appellants, and he found that incised wound 3 x 1/2 x 1 cm on the scalp left side to the mid line 10.5 cm above the pinna of left ear and tender welling circular in shape 5 x 5 cm. on right knee joint The injuries were simple and were caused by blunt object. Lallu appellant was also examined He had two lacerated wounds on the nose and mid line and on the palm of left hand and multiple abrasions varying in size from .5 to 25 cms on the dorsal aspect of idex middle and ring fingers of right hand at middle and distal phalynx. The first lacerated wound was found to be grievous as per X-ray report. Thus during this incident, the appellants had also received injuries.

The learned Counsel for the appellants contended that the incident had taken place on March 10, 1982 at about 2 p.m, but the First Information report Ex. P/11 was lodged at the Police Station, Malakheda on the next day i.e. March 11, 1982 at 9.15 p.m. It was pointed out by the learned Counsel for the appellants that the four injured were directly taken to the Malakheda Hospital and the Medical Officer, Malkheda intimated to the Station House Officer, Police Station, Malakheda that at about 3 p.m. Prahlad son of Mangal Ram had been admitted in the hospital as a result of injuries he sustained. The Station House Officer was request to take immediate necessary action. The learned Counsel stated that on receipt of this communication from the Primary Health Centre, Malakheda. Puran Chand, Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police reached the hospital and wanted to record the statement of Prahlad, and Prahlad was unconscious. There were other injured--Prabhati Lal and Ram Kishore, also at the hospital at Malkheda. They were asked to lodge a report and to give a statement, but both of them refused to lodge a report and to give a statement, and told that they would lodge a report and give statement only when Prahlad would regain consciousness. The learned Counsel urged that both Prabhati Lal and Ram Kishore were also injured during the incident and they have been examined as eye-witnesses also to the injuries inflicted on them and Prahlad. Therefore, there was no reason why they did not lodge First Information Report despite being asked by Puran Chand, Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police and why they postponed the lodging of the report for the next day and lodged it on the next day despite the fact that by that time also Prahlad had not regained consciousness. An argument was advanced that the First Information Report took time to alter the manner in which the incident actually took place.

Puran Chand, Assistant Sub-Inspector, Police Station, Malakheda has been examined as PW 12 and he has deposed that on receiving the letter Ex. P 9 from the hospital, he made entry Ex. P 19 in the Roznamcba and reached the hospital He found that Prahlad was unconscious and was not in a State so as to give any statement, Prabhati Lal, Ram Kishore and Amar Singh did not give any statement and told him that they would give statement after Frablad regained consciousness. He accordingly made entry Ex. P 20 in the Roznamcha. That is also the reason for the delay mentioned by Prabhati Lal in the First Information Report, Ex. 11. It is true that Prahlad was unconscious when Puran Chand PW 12 reached the place of incident. How ever, Prabhati Lal PW 3 professes to have reached the place of incident which was at a distance of about 50 to 60 yards from his house and presents himself as eye witness to the incident and deposes that he had seen that Lallu appellant had caught hold of Prahlad and Har Sahai inflicted a blow on his head by the wooden feet of the cot. Thereafter he narrated the injuries inflicted on him Ram Kishore and Amar Singh. If that statement be correct, the entire incident was known to Prabhati Lal and he could have at least narrated that part of the incident to the police which he had seen. It is not necessary that First Information Report should be an encyclopaedia. The allegations in it should only reveal the commission of a cognizance offence. One has to under stand Prabhati Lal''s explanation for the delay in lodging the FIR in case he would not have put forth himself as eye-witness to the incident. The fact that Prabhati Lal and other injured had denied to lodge the report or to give a statement for the reason that Prahlad was unconscious, can lead to two conclusions viz. either Prabhati Lal was not an eye-witness to the entire incident or that he had gone along with Prahlad and other injured to the house of the appellants. Either of these inferences would prove fatal to the case of the prosecution when it is kept in mind that the appellants had also sustained injuries on their bodies. The prosecution has not at all explained as to how the appellants sustained injuries which even an incised wound on the body of Bar Sahai appellant and two lacerated wounds on Lallu appellant. One of the injuries on Lallu was found grievous. Neither Prabhati Lal nor Ram Kishore or Amar Singh stated that they had gone aimed to rescue. They had only reached on hearing the cry. The fact that the incident took place in front of the house of the appellants can give an indication that Prahlad and his associates had gone to the house of the appellants and that the appellants had sustained injuries. This can reasonably lend support to the theory of private defence to person available to the appellants and urged before this Court, as alleged before the trial Court.

Apart from that, the manner in which the incident is said to have according to the prosecution, appears to be unnatural. Prahlad PW 7 and Lallu appellant both lived at Delhi. Prahlad has said in his cross-examination that prior to this incident he had no enmity with the appellants. The cordiality of the relations was to this extent that the appellants had stayed at the house of Prabhati Lal, Ram Kishore and Amar Singh and had smoked ''Bidi'' and ''Hukka''. Prahlad was invited by the appellants to take dinner at their residence as meat had been cooked on that day. Prahlad went to the appellants and took his dinner there. Thereafter they stayed outside the house and then the entire incident took place. This is so unnatural that the persons who had no previous enmity and who were smoking in the company of the injured and invited Prahlad even for dinner would commit immediately the incident with no reason. The prosecution has not been able to establish by any reliable evidence that Prahlad had raised any objection against the appellants, to obtain sanction for the construction of a house.

Consequently therefore, on account of the delay in lodging of the First Information Report with no reasonable and believable explanation non explanation of the injuries on the person of the appellants and the very unnatural way in which the incident took place creates a reasonable doubt in the prosecution story as regards the manner in which the incident took place and the appellants as entitled to the benefit of doubt.

I, therefore, allow this appeal. set aside the conviction and sentence recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Alwar by his judgment dated October 6, 1982 and acquit both Har Sahai and Lallu, appellants, of the charge for which they have been held guilty by the trial Court As a result of allowing S.B. Criminal Appeal No 445/1982 filed by Har Sahai and Lallu S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 582 /83 filed by the State automatically fails and is dismissed. Both Har Sahai and Lallu appellants are on bail. Their personal bonds and surety bonds are here by cancelled and they need not surrender.