Laddu Lal and Others vs State of Rajasthan

Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J—Laddu Lal, his brother Munna, wife Smt. Badam, and two sons namely Suresh and Ramesh were sent for trial for having committed murder of Jagdish and for causing injuries to Kailash (P.W.1) son of Jagdish deceased on the day of Diwali i.e. on 1.11.2005 at 7:30 PM in village Kodyaee. The court of Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Sawai Madhopur vide impugned judgment dated 22.1.2009 held all the above five accused guilty of offences punishable under Section 147, 148, 341, 323, 323/149, 307, 307/149, 302 and 302/149 IPC.

Having convicted the appellants for the aforesaid offences, the trial court vide a separate order of even date sentenced them as under:--

"U/s. 147 IPC- to undergo three months R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo three days additional imprisonment.

U/s. 148 IPC- to undergo six months R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo seven days additional imprisonment.

U/s. 341 IPC- to undergo one month S.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo two days additional imprisonment.

U/s. 323 IPC- to undergo six months R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo seven days additional imprisonment.

U/s. 307 IPC- to undergo five years R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo fifteen days additional imprisonment.

U/s. 302 IPC- to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one month additional imprisonment."

Aggrieved against their conviction and sentence, Laddu Lal, his brother Munna and two sons namely Suresh and Ramesh have preferred D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 503/2009, whereas Smt. Badam wife of Laddu Lal has instituted D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 144/2009. Since in both the appeals common judgment has been assailed and prayer has been made that the appellants be acquitted of all the charges, we shall decide both these appeals together.

Bhura and Sukhdeva were two brothers. Sukhdeva died issueless. Bhura had two sons namely Ram Narayan and Ram Kanwar. Jagdish deceased, Badri (P.W.2) and Hanuman Prasad (P.W.3) are sons of Ram Kanwar. Laddu Lal and Munna are sons of Ram Narayan. Laddu Lal claims that he was adopted by Sukhdeva and the land vested in Sukhdeva devolve upon him to the annoyance of Jagdish deceased, Badri (P.W.2) and Hanuman Prasad (P.W.3). It has come in evidence and it is admitted by the witnesses that the land falling to the share of Sukhdeva was in possession of Laddu Lal and over this land lot of litigation was pending between the parties and on the date of occurrence injunction in favour of Laddu Lal accused was operative.

Having given the root cause of the occurrence we shall proceed to notice the facts of the case.

The statement (Exhibit-P/1) of Kailash (P.W.1) was recorded at Community Health Center, General Ward, Bonli by Nityanand Sharma (P.W.18) the Investigating Officer. Nityanand Sharma (P.W.18) while appearing in the court deposed that on 1.11.2005 at 8:30 PM, he received a telephonic information that in village Kodyaee, a fight had taken place in which one person has received serious injuries. After noting the telephonic information in the Daily Diary Register, copy of which is Exhibit-P/36, the Investigating Officer along with his accompanying police officials proceeded to the spot. On arrival at the spot, he observed that a mob had gathered and one person due to various injuries received, was lying dead at the spot and another person named Kailash was injured. After leaving the constable to guard the spot, the Investigating Officer along with injured Kailash and deceased Jagdish proceeded to UPHC Hospital, Bonli. The doctor declared Jagdish as dead. Kailash was got admitted for treatment and medical check-up. Injured Kailash made a statement (Exhibit-P/1) to Nityanand Sharma (P.W.18). The statement (Exhibit-P/1) when translated into English reads as under:--

"Statement of injured Kailash s/o Jagdish by caste Meena aged 25 years, resident of Sati Ka Jhopada, Kodyaee, Police Station Bonli, at present admitted at CHC General Ward, Bonli Ward No. 2 UPHC Bonli.

Stated that I am resident of Kodyaee. Today on 1.11.2005, on Diwali day, at about 7:00/7:30 PM, I and my father after lightening lamp of Hanumanji were returning to our house. Then suddenly, Laddu Lal s/o Ram Narayan, his wife Badam w/o Laddu, Suresh s/o Laddu, Ramesh s/o Laddu, Munna s/o Ram Narayan by caste Meena, R/o Sati Ka Jhopada, Kodyaee, with common intention were sitting near the place of Sati armed with lathi, gandasi and axe. Accused restrained both of us and took us into their house (Emphasis Supplied). First of all, they caused injuries to my father with gandasi and axe. My father raised noise and then I came forward to save him. Then Laddu Lal gave a gandasi blow on my head. Badam gave an injury on the back of my shoulder. Suresh s/o Laddu Lal caused a lathi injury on my left palm. Ramesh caused lathi injury on my nose. I while crying ran from there in order to save my life. My uncle (chacha) Hanuman and Badri Lal s/o Ram Kunwar Meena met me on the way. I told them that they are causing injuries to my father. They also went to the spot. Meanwhile, villagers arrived at the spot. Since my condition was precarious, I remained at home. A dispute is pending between us and family of Laddu Lal over the land. For this reason, they with common intention have committed murderous assault upon me and my father. My father received serious injuries on the head and died at the spot. The statement was read to the complainant, he having heard and understood the same to be correct, and appended his signatures.

Sd/- Kailash Chandra Meena

SHO P.S. Bonli dt. 1.11.2005 Time-10:00 PM"

On the basis of above statement (Exhibit-P/1), a formal FIR (Exhibit-P/30) bearing No. 207/2005 was registered at Police Station Bonli, District Sawai Madhopur. A perusal of the statement of Kailash (P.W.1) reveals that he along with his father was returning from Hanumanji Ka Mandir. When they reached near the place of Sati, he along with his father was attacked and thereafter both were taken by the accused to their house.

The prosecution in all had examined nineteen witnesses. Kailash (P.W.1), Badri Lal (P.W.2), Hanuman Prasad (P.W.3), Smt. Foranti (P.W.4), Smt. Rampati (P.W.5), Lalli (P.W.6) and Hansa (P.W.7) appeared as eyewitnesses of the occurrence.

Jagdish had died at the spot. The post mortem of Jagdish was carried on 2.11.2005 at 8:00 AM, by Dr. K.N. Gupta. Before his examination by the court Dr. K.N. Gupta expired and thus, Post Mortem Report (Exhibit-P/43) was proved on record by Dr. Mohan Singh Rathore, who was conversant with his signatures having worked with Dr. K.N. Gupta. In the Post Mortem Report (Exhibit-P/43) following injuries were noted:--

"Multiple sharp incised wound, over head, eye, lower jaw, neck, some wounds are lacerated, all wounds are of different size and shapes, some are skin deep and some are bone deep (esp. over head in occipital region 7" length, 1.0 cm width and 12.0 cm in depth). Pupils - dilated and fixed with sub-conj. Haemorrhage. Bleeding from ENT (profuse). Deep Incised wound over upper part of neck, forehead (Rt side). Total eight wounds, two over scalp (head) and jaw (lower). (All wounds from 7.0 cm to 12.0 cm in length and bleeding present)."

In the opinion of the doctor, the cause of death was shock (hemorrhagic) due to bleeding (profuse) from multiple wounds and duration of death from time of examination was 12-24 hours.

Even though, in the post mortem report (Exhibit-P/43), it is mentioned that Jagdish had suffered eight injuries, no specific dimension of injuries and seat has been given in the post mortem report. Furthermore, according to counsel the defence has been denied the opportunity to cross-examine the doctor as he could not step into witness box due to his death.

Kailash (P.W.1) on the day of occurrence i.e. on 1.11.2005, was medico-legally examined and as per injury report (Exhibit-P/2) only one injury was found on his person. On the complaint made that medico-legal examination has not been rightly conducted, Kailash (P.W.1) was again medico-legally examined by Board of Doctors on 11.11.2005, after ten days of the occurrence and in the injury report (Exhibit-P/3), following injuries were found on his person:--

"(i) Old semi healed wound- 3.5cm x 0.5cm, 2cm away from occipital protuberance left side, margin not clear, swelling & tenderness present mildly, reddish brown black in colour, injury is simple blunt in nature.

(ii) Old healed scar, 7cm x 0.3cm, occipito-parietal region of scalp, scar formed, stiches already removed, slightly brown in colour as per scar it seems simple/sharp in nature.

(iii) Abrasion, 1.5cm x 1cm dorso-lateral aspect of left elbow joint, scar formed blackish in colour, margin irregular, simple/blunt in nature.

(iv) Abrasion, 1.5cm x 1cm, middle 1/3 of left lateral aspect of nose, scar formed, margin irregular, simple/blunt.

(v) Plaster of paris covered left forearm lower 2/3 to middle phalanx of left hand, opinion reserved/blunt, for this advised X-ray, left wrist."

The injury reports (Exhibit-P/2 and Exhibit-P/3) were proved on record by Dr. Kailash Chand Soni (P.W.12).

Kailash (P.W.1) the injured witness while appearing in the court deposed that on 1.11.2005, he along with his father at 5:00/5:30 PM, had gone to Hanuman Mandir to lighten lamp. At about 7:00/7:30 PM, when they both were on the way to Sati Mata Mandir, for lightening lamp, Laddu Lal, Munna, Badam, Suresh and Ramesh all five came armed. Laddu Lal was having a gandasi, Munna was armed with lathi, Suresh and Ramesh were armed with axe and Badam was armed with lathi. They encircled both Jagdish deceased and this witness. They started giving beating to Jagdish, father of Kailash (P.W.1). Laddu Lal caused injury to him in the head, Suresh caused injury with axe on the neck of Jagdish, Ramesh caused axe injury on the head of Jagdish deceased. Munna also caused lathi injury on the head, Badam also caused injury with lathi to Jagdish deceased. Laddu Lal had chopped off the face of Jagdish with gandasi. Suresh caused axe blow on the eye of Jagdish deceased. Badam and Munna caused injuries to Jagdish deceased and Kailash (P.W.1) with lathis on the back. Laddul Lal caused gandasi injury to his father Jagdish. While this witness came forward to save his father, Laddu Lal caused gandasi blow on his head. Munna caused a lathi injury on the head of witness Kailash (P.W.1). Suresh caused an axe blow from reverse side on left hand of Kailash, due to which his left hand got fractured. Ramesh caused an axe blow on the nose of Kailash (P.W.1). When witness raised noise in order to save his life, uncle Badri Lal (P.W.2) and Hanuman Prasad (P.W.3) were attracted at the spot. This witness (Kailash P.W.1) admitted that accompanied by Ramji Lal, Badri Lal (P.W.2), Hanuman Prasad (P.W.3) and mother, in a private jeep he was taken to the hospital. This witness admitted that at the place of occurrence no report was handed over to the police. This witness further stated that before his departure, police had arrived at the spot and other witnesses namely Badri Lal (P.W.2) and Hanuman Prasad (P.W.3) and his mother, who were present at the spot had not lodged any report.

This witness (P.W.1) was also confronted with his previous statement regarding improvements made by him in the court as material facts had not formed part of his statement (Exhibit-P/1) recorded by police official at the hospital. This witness regarding the relationship between the parties stated as under:--

This witness (P.W.1) admitted that there is a land dispute between his father and the accused and the disputed land is with Laddu Lal but this witness stated that earlier his father was having possession of the land. The exact words stated by this witness are as under:--

Kailash (P.W.1) further stated that he is not aware that the court of SDM had issued an injunction to restrain them. This witness further stated that he is not aware regarding filing of any suit by Laddu Lal. This witness further stated that he is not aware that in the revenue court, the case was decided in favour of the accused party and a civil suit was also pending.

Badri Lal (P.W.2) in the court also stated that accused were concealing near Sati Mandir and the occurrence had taken place near Sati Mandi itself. This witness further stated that the occurrence had taken place due to dispute over the land.

To similar effect are the statements made by Hanuman Prasad (P.W.3), Rampati (P.W.5) wife of Badri Lal, and Lalli (P.W.6) wife of Jagdish deceased. We need not give gist of the testimony of other witnesses, as nothing hinges upon their testimony, and they are only repetitive.

Suffice it to say that Nityanand Sharma (P.W.18) being Investigating Officer in the court deposed that on the receipt of telephonic information, he had reached at the spot. One person had died in the occurrence and another got injured, whose name is Kailash (P.W.1). This witness took injured Kailash (P.W.1) and Jagdish deceased in security to UP Health Center at Bonli. The Investigating Officer further admitted that as per site plan (Exhibit-P/9) the occurrence had taken place in the Bada of the accused.

We have perused the site plan (Exhibit-P/9). The occurrence had taken place at point ''X'' which is an open space i.e. the Bada of Laddu Lal. Laddu Lal was arrested on 3.11.2005 vide arrest memo Exhibit-P/10. In arrest memo Exhibit-P/10, the injuries on the person of Laddu Lal have been noticed as under:--

The statement of the accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. All other accused except Laddu Lal have stated that they were not present at the spot. Laddu Lal in the court stated that opposite party was restrained by the SDM not to interfere in his possession. The complainant party wanted to take possession of the land and proceedings under Section 107 were also initiated.

In defence accused had examined three witnesses. Jamna Lal (D.W.1) was examined to say that in their village flour grinding machine is run by the electricity and the accused Badam had met on the way of village Galad Kalan with flour at 6:00 PM. This witness was examined to prove alibi of Badam. Morpal (D.W.2) deposed in the court that Munna had met him in his village Pipalda at about 6:00/6:30 PM. Gulsher (D.W.3) was examined to prove alibi of Suresh and Ramesh.

We have heard Mr. B.S. Chouhan, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, Ms. Meenakshi Pareek, the learned Public Prosecutor and Mr. Biri Singh Sinsinwar Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Rajesh Choudhary appearing for the complainant.

An analysis of the case reveals that in the initial version given by the injured complainant Kailash (P.W.1) to the police in statement (Exhibit-P/1), it has been stated in categoric terms that the accused apprehended Jagdish deceased and Kailash (P.W.1) near Sati Mandir and then they took both Jagdish deceased and Kailash (P.W.1) injured inside their house. Neither any blood trail was found at the spot nor any drag marks were found from Sati Mandir to the house of the accused. Thus, out of compulsion, in the court the witnesses deviated from the earlier version and stuck to the position that the occurrence had taken place on the passage near Sati Mandir. The earlier story that Jagdish and Kailash (P.W.1) were taken by the accused to the house of Laddu Lal was given up. This was done out of necessity as the complainant intended to wriggle out of the injunction granted against them. It is admitted by the injured witness Kailash (P.W.1) that the occurrence had taken place at the disputed land, which was in possession of Laddu Lal and Laddu Lal had obtained injunction against the complainant party.

We also cannot become oblivious of the fact that out of five accused named, at the time of arrest only Laddu Lal had injuries on his person. Laddu Lal was arrested on 3.11.2005, whereas the occurrence had taken place on 1.11.2005. No medico-legal examination of Laddu Lal was conducted. Thus we have to refer that injuries on his person are superficial and simple in nature. Nonetheless, the injuries on the person of Laddu Lal ensure his presence at the spot and stamp him as the one who was present at the place of occurrence. There are no injuries on the person of Munna, brother of Laddu Lal, Suresh, Ramesh and Badam wife of Laddu Lal. It has been consistent version of the defence that except Laddu Lal other accused had not participated in the occurrence. We cannot ignore material fact that all five members of the family have been named as accused. No person of the family has been spared.

In the present case, the occurrence had taken place on 1.11.2005 at 10:30 PM, the case was registered at Police Station Bonli on 1.11.2005 at 10:45 PM, whereas special report had reached Illaqa Magistrate after six days on 7.11.2005 at 11:30 AM. The delay in reaching of the special report has not been explained. The site plan (Exhibit-P/9), also clearly depicts that the occurrence had taken place in the Bada of Laddu Lal. Taking site plan (Exhibit-P/9), absence of blood trail and drag marks into consideration we have already doubted version given by the prosecution that injury was caused to Jagdish deceased and Kailash (P.W.1) injured, near Sati Mata Mandir. Admittedly, Jagdish deceased and Kailash (P.W.1) have trespassed into disputed Bada, which is part of residence of accused Laddu Lal and Laddu Lal taking offence thereof, had caused injuries to Jagdish deceased and Kailash (P.W.1). This fact is also borne out from the injuries noticed on the person of Laddu Lal in arrest memo (Exhibit-P/10), absence of injuries on the person of Munna, Suresh, Ramesh and Badam, make their presence doubtful. Hence, it can safely be inferred that delay in reaching the special report was used for consultations and deliberations to widen the net and involve all family members of the accused.

In the written report (Exhibit-P/1), Kailash (P.W.1) has assigned no specific injury to Laddu Lal on the person of deceased, however, witness has stated that Laddu Lal was armed with gandasi. Thus, one injury noticed on the head of Kailash (P.W.1) in injury report Exhibit-P/2 and subsequently, after ten days the injuries noted in the injury report Exhibit-P/3, can be caused by Laddu Lal with gandasi. It is to be noted that the injury Nos. 2, 3 and 4 in injury report (Exhibit-P/3) are insignificant injuries and injury No. 1 is correspond to the only injury noted in injury report Exhibit-P/2 and injury No. 5 in injury report (Exhibit-P/3) is fracture of forearm and said injury can also be caused by gandasi.

In Post Mortem Report (Exhibit-P/43), dimension of each injury at its seat has not been given. Be that as it may, eight injuries on the person of Jagdish deceased can also be caused with one weapon by Laddu Lal.

Taking totality of circumstances, we as a matter of abundant caution, we shall extend benefit of doubt to Badam, Munna, Suresh and Ramesh, as we cannot rule out that they are victims of false implications.

The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that since the complainant had entered and had trespassed into the land in possession of Laddu Lal, and have caused him injuries, therefore, we should extend right of complete self defence to the appellant Laddu Lal.

Though the injuries have been mentioned in arrest memo (Exhibit-P/10), no medico-legal examination of Laddu Lal was carried. Furthermore, injuries on the person of Laddu Lal are to be assumed as superficial and simple in nature. It has been nowhere stated by the defence that deceased Jagdish or Kailash (P.W.1) were armed with any weapon. Parties are closely related, as father of Laddu Lal and Jagdish deceased are brothers. It was a Diwali day. Mere entry of Jagdish deceased and Kailash (P.W.1) empty handed in the open Bada in front of residence of Laddu Lal will not vest right in Laddu Lal to cause them injuries. It has nowhere come that the entry of Jagdish deceased and Kailash (P.W.1) into Bada in possession of Laddu Lal was not innocent. Consequently, we hold that Laddu Lal had no right to cause them injuries.

Consequently, the present appeal (D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 503/2009) on behalf of appellant Laddu Lal being devoid of merit is dismissed.

As a result of above discussion, D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 503/2009 qua Munna, Suresh and Ramesh and D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 144/2009 preferred by Badam are accepted. The judgment of conviction and sentenced recorded by the trial court qua the appellants namely Munna, Suresh, Ramesh and Badam is set aside and they are acquitted of all the charges.

In view of above, we order that the appellants namely Munna, Suresh, Ramesh and Badam be released forthwith, if in custody and not required in any other case. However, by dismissing the appeal preferred by Laddu Lal, we affirm his conviction and sentence.

Keeping, however, in view the provisions of Section 437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the appellants namely Munna, Suresh, Ramesh and Badam are directed to forthwith furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- each and surety bond in the like amount, before the trial court. The bonds so furnished shall be effective for a period of six months. The bonds shall contain an undertaking that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against the judgment or on grant of leave, the appellants namely Munna, Suresh, Ramesh and Badam on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Hon''ble Apex Court.