Mool Raj and others vs State

This appeal is directed against the judgment/order dated 26.05.2000 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Udhampur, whereby the Appellant

No.l Mool Raj has been convicted under Section 307 RFC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to

pay a fine of Rs. 1000/. In default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo simple imprisonment for six months. The appellants 2 and 3 have

been convicted under Sections 307/ 109 RFC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year each and to pay a fine of

Rs. 500/ each. In default of payment of fine, they shall further undergo simple imprisonment for three months each.

The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 10.12.1989Charan Dass, brother of Smt. Ranu Devi had come to Lansi to the house of Makaru Ram

in connection with the marriage ceremony. After participating in the marriage function, he came to the house of Ranu Devi to enquire about their

welfare. Charan Dass left for his house at about 6.30 PM. Mansa Ram accompanied him towards Birwanh Nallah. Mansa Ram did not return

back for a pretty long time. Satya Devi alongwith Ranu Devi and Gopi Chand went to find out as to why her husband Mansa Ram had not

returned back. When they went towards Birwanh Nallah and on reaching near the banks of Birwanh Nallah, they heard shrieks coming from that

side. On reaching the place wherefrom the shrieks were coming, they saw appellant Mool Raj alias Darshan Lai assaulting Mansa Ram with darat

on his head. The other appellants were also present on the spot and were instigating appellant Mool Raj to kill Mansa Ram. Mansa Rain sustained

multiple injuries. Ranu Devi and others raised alarm on which Sadhu Ram, Prem Chand and Kapoor Chand attracted to the spot and the

appellants ran away from the scene of occurrence alongwith weapon.

The injured was brought to hospital and the intimation was sent to the police at about 9.00 PM. On receipt of information, ASISurjit Singh went

to the hospital, where Mansa Ram was found to have been admitted but he was unable to make statement. ASISurjit Singh recorded the statement

of Smt. Satya Devi, which was read over to her, on the basis of which FIR under Sections 307/109 RPC was registered. ASISurjit Singh also

visited the place of occurrence, prepared the site plan, seized the blood stained clothes of the injured and arrested the appellants. Weapon of

offence was also got recovered. After completion of the investigation, the challan was presented before the Court of learned Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Udhampur, who committed the same to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Udhampur, for trial.

The appellants were charge sheeted under Sections 307/109 RPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

To prove the case, the prosecution examined PWs Mansa Ram (injured), Satya Devi, Ranu Devi, Gopal Krishan, Prem Chand, Kapoor

Chand, Dr. Veena Gupta and ASISurjit Singh as its witnesses.

Dr. Veena Gupta, who had medically examined the injured, found the following injuries on his person :

1) An incised wound about 8"" long, 3/4"" wide, bone cut under lying on the top of scalp extending from frontal to parietal region, wound was

bleeding profusely.

, 2) Incised wound 4'' long 1/4"" wide, bone cut in is frontal part, present on the parietal region of the scalp by the side of first injury. The wound

was bleeding profusely.

3) An incised wound 3 1/2"" long running semicirculatory on the medical aspect of left forearm on its lower end, wound was bleeding, flap of cut

skin was hanging.

The Doctor points that injuries 1 and 2 were grievous in nature, injury No.3 was simple in nature and all the injuries were caused by sharp

object. The doctor also proved the medical legalreport exhibited as EXP WVG.

When the appellants were examined under Section 342 Cr.P.C. to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution case,

they denied simplicitor and false implications. Appellant Mool Raj pleaded that he has appeared as a witness against Mansa Ram in which Mansa

Ram was convicted under Section 325 RPC. Due to that grouse, false complaint has been lodged against them.The appellants were called to lead

defence evidence. In their defence, they examined DWs Prem Chand, Gian Chand andKakaRam.

The learned Sessions Judge after appreciating the evidence on record, convicted and sentenced the appellants, as stated in paragraph No. 1 of

the judgment, aggrieved by which the present appeal has been preferred.

Mr. J.P. Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the learned Trial Court has not appreciated the evidence on record in its

right perspective and convicted and sentenced the appellants on surmises and conjectures. He submitted that the prosecution has concocted false

story and introduced false witnesses who has not witnessed the occurrence because Mansa Ram had been convicted and sentenced under Section

325 R.P.C. He further submitted that the prosecution has not examined any independent witness, only related and interested wit, nesses have been

examined. Satya Devi and Ranu Devi are the close relatives of injured Mansa Ram but there are material discrepancies in their statements. No

reliance can be placed.

On the other hand, Mr. B.S.Salathia, learned AAG appearing for the respondents has submitted that Ranu Devi is the wife Of Kapoor Chand

who is the real brother of injured Mansa Ram. She has no enemious to depose against the appellants. He submitted that Kapoor Chand has

appeared as witness to prove that the occurrence has taken place near Birwanh Nallah. He further submitted that there are no material

discrepancies in the statement of the prosecution. He also supported the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge.

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

The contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants that prosecution has examined related and interested witnesses, is without any

substance. There is no law that the testimony of related and interested witnesses cannot be relied upon without independent corroboration. When

the case is based on the evidence of related and interested witnesses, it puts the Court on its own guard and scrutinize the evidence with care and

caution as it has been laid down in Dalip Singh v/s State of Punjab, AIR 1953 SC 364.

The prosecution has examined PWKapoor Chand, who is brother of appellant Mool Raj and injured Mansa Ram. He deposed that on

10.12.1989, Mansa Ram accompanied Charan Dass upto Birwanh Nallah and when he returned from the house of Makodu Ram, he heard

shrikes near Birwanh Nallah. He saw the injured Mansa Ram in a pool of blood. Kaka, Sadhu and his family members were present on spot.

Mansa Ram had head injury and was unable to talk. Injured was brought to hospital.

From the statement of PWKapoor Chand, it is established that occurrence has taken place near Birwanh Nallah. No question has been put to

this witness that Satya Devi, Ranu Devi and Gopal Krishan were not present there.

It is pertinent to mention here that PWKapoor Chand is the younger brother of injured Mansa Ram. PWKapoor Chand has lodged a

complaint against Mansa Ram in which Mansa Ram was convicted by the Court. In the said case appellant Mir Chand, who is elder brother of

Mansa Ram, has supported the case of Kapoor Chand, then in the present case Kapoor Chand would have not deposed against Mir Chand.

PWSatya Devi is the wife of injured Mansa Ram. PWRanu Devi is the wife of PWKapoor Chand. PWSatya Devi has deposed in her statement

that Mansa Ram's brother's brotherinlaw had come at Lansi on the occasion of marriage. After attending the marriage, he came to see his sister

Smt. Ranu Devi. The brotherinlaw of Kapoor Chand did not stay there but left back to his home. Mansa Ram accompanied him upto Birwanh

Nallah in order to see him off and when Mansa Ram did not return for long time, Smt. Ranu, Gopal Krishan and she left to see as to why Mansa

Ram had not returned. When they reached near Birwanh Nallah, they heard shrieks and on hearing shrieks, they ran towards the place of

occurrence, where they saw accused assaulting Mansa Ram. Mool Raj gave a blow with darat on the head of Mansa Ram, whereas, other two

accused were beating him with hands and fists. They raised alarm upon which the accused ran away from the scene.

To the same effect are the statements of Smt. Ranu Devi and Gopal Krishan. These witnesses were crossedexamined at length but the defence

has failed to make any dent in their evidence.

It is pertinent to mention herein that Mansa Ram had given injury to Kapoor Chand who had lodged a complaint against Mansa Ram. Ranu

Devi is the wife of Kapoor Chand, therefore, she would have not supported the case of prosecution as Mansa Ram has given injury to her

husband.

The contention raised by learned counsel for the appellants that some unknown person has caused injury to Mansa Ram when Mansa Ram

had"" gone to see off brotherinlaw of Kapoor Chand near Birwanh Nallah. This contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants does not

appeal to reason. Appellant Mir Chand is the real brother of Mansa Ram. Appellants Mool Raj and Mohan Lai are the sons of Mir Chand and

nephews of Mansa Ram. If the appellants have not caused injuries to Mansa Ram, then Mansa Ram would have not falsely implicated them being

close relatives as blood is thicker than water. Even if, it is taken that Mansa Ram and Satya Devi want to falsely implicate them then Satya Devi

and Mansa Ram will not leave real assailants. The appellants could be implicated with real assailants, as there were three injuries on the person of

Mansa Ram.

PWMansa Ram is a stamped witness. He deposed that on 10.12.1989, he accompanied Charan Dass towards Birwanh Nallah in order to see

off him and when he was returning from Birwanh Nallah, accused Mir Chand, Mohan Lai and Mool Raj bounced upon him and accused Mool Raj

attacked him with darat, gave blows upon his head and on other parts of the body. This version given by Mansa Ram cannot be disbelieved

because if he has to falsely implicate, he can attributed one of the each injury to the appellants No.2 and 3 Mohan Lai and Mir Chand, by stating

that they were also armed with darat. Mansa Ram gave detail of the occurrence with regard to the date, place and the manner in which the

occurrence had been occurred. The version given by Mansa Ram has been fully corroborated by Satya Devi, Ranu Devi and Gopal Krishan.

When their evidence is scanned, it strikes nothing but truth. The evidence given by the witnesses has also been corroborated by the medical

evidence. The learned Trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence and convicted the appellants.

As regarding sentence, it is the case of the prosecution that Mool Raj has given three injuries with darat. Only part attributed to the appellants

Mohan Lai and Mir Chand is that they have given fist blows with hands and also abetted the offence. Appellant Mir Chand has given his age as 60

years when the statement under Section 342 CrPC was recorded. Now, he is above 67 years. The case against the appellants was registered 16

years back. Therefore, substantive sentence of Mir Chand and Mohan Lai is reduced to already undergone. However, the fine is' enhanced from

Rs. 500/ to Rs. 3000/ each. The sentence of Mool Raj is reduced from three years to two years and the fine is enhanced from Rs.

1000/toRs.3000/.

In default of payment of fine, the appellants shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months each. On deposit of the fine, the same be

converted into compensation and be paid to the injuredMansa Ram.

With these modifications in the sentence, the appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.