Munshi Ram vs Haryana State

S.D. Bajaj, J.

Long and short of the prosecution case set up against accused petitioner Munshi Ram is that around 3.10 p.m. on November 17, 1979 when victim Phul Kumar had diverted the canal water supply to his own filed from the field of the accused and communicated his having done so to the accused, two other coaccused named Pala Ram and Om Parkash came running and caught hold of Phul Kumar from behind. Munshi Ram the principal accused then gave a Kassi blow on the head of Phul Kumar which hit him on the back portion of his head. On the victim raising alarm of `Maar Diya, Maar Diya'' Ram Chander and Kapur Singh, who were both working in a nearby field, reached there and saw the occurrence. All the three accused then ran away from the place of occurrence on the seeing the two witnesses arrive. Munshi Ram carried the Kassi, the weapon of offence with him, while running away from the place of occurrence after the event.

On being charged with the commission of the offence under Sections 326/34 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, all the three accused pleaded `not guilty'' thereto and claimed to be tried. Vide its impugned judgment dated November 30, 1984 learned trial Court acquitted coaccused Pala Ram and Om Parkash, convicted principal accused Munshi Ram of the commission of the offence under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years. In Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 1984 and Criminal Revision No. 4 of 1984 both decided on March 21, 1986 learned lower Appellate Court maintained the conviction and sentence awarded to accused petitioner by the learned trial Court. Feeling aggrieved therefrom convicted accused Munshi Ram has filed Criminal Revision No. 594 of 1986 in this Court.

I have heard Shri R.S. Dhankar, Advocate, for the petitioner, Shri D.S. Bishnoi, DAG Haryana for the State and have perused the entire relevant material on record very carefully.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner urged with vehemence that Dr. Raj Pal Singh P.W.5 having admitted in crossexamination, "In case the Kassi is lying on the ground with his sharp side on upward side and a person falls on it then the injury in question can be caused" the explanation rendered by the accused in the course of his statement under Section 33 Criminal Procedure Code well fits in for the injury found on the person of the victim and the accused gets absolved of all blemish. There is hardly any merit in this argument. It was held by Hon''ble the Supreme Court in Mohan Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1975 SC 261 that implicit reliance cannot be placed on expert opinion because the expert expresses the opinion given hypothesis of the Kassi lying on the ground with sharp side upward and the deceased falling on it which is contrary to the eyewitness account of the occurrence narrated by the two independent prosecution witnesses. Both the witnesses examined by the prosecution are neighbouring landowners and their presence in their adjoining fields at the time of occurrence is most natural. There is nothing to discredit their eyewitness account of the occurrence. In Punjab Singh v. State of Haryana, 1984 Criminal Law Journal 921 their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed, "Medical evidence cannot override direct evidence about assault by particular weapon when direct evidence is satisfactory and reliable."

Secondly it was urged that both Kapoor Singh PW4 and Ram Chander PW8 were penalised by the Gram Panchayat at the instance of the accused. Since the alleged penalisation came about after the occurrence, it becomes abundantly clear that on the date of occurrence neither of the two witnesses had any bias against the accused nor where they hostile to him.

Author of the FIR victim Phul Kumar PW3 states that about 33/4 years ago from the date of his statement in the court when he tried to irrigate his field, at his turn at 3.10 p.m. and informed Munshi Ram regarding cutting of water, then Pala Ram and Om Parkash accused came there and caught hold of him from backside. Accused Munshi Ram gave a Kassi blow on his head. On hearing the alarm neighbours namely Ram Chander and Kapur Singh reached on the spot and the accused ran away. While running away, the accused threatened him to put to death in future. His version was corroborated by PW4 Kapur Singh and PW8 Ram Chander. PW5 Dr. Rajpal Singh Medical Officer, who medically examined the complainant has also testified that there was one incised wound 5 cms. x 1 cm. x bone deep on the person of the complainant. His opinion is based on the copy of MLR Ex.PX. He has testified the weapon used in the injury was sharp. Dr. P.D. Chaudhary Xrayed the injury and his report is Ex. PW7/A and the skiagrams are Ex. PW7/B to Ex. PW7/D. Xray report Ex. PW7/A reveals that there was fracture in the injury referred for Xray examination. The medical evidence also corroborates the version of the complainant that the injury on the person of the complainant was grievous one and was inflicted by a sharpedged weapon. The complainant and both the eyewitnesses have fully supported the prosecution case. The prosecution case against the accused is thus proved to the hilt. Finding of guilty returned against him by the learned two Courts below is, therefore, upheld.

Sentence awarded to the accusedpetitioner by the learned trial Court for his conviction under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code is also commensurate to his guilt and I see no ground to tinker with it in the criminal revision. Criminal Revision No. 594 of 1986 filed by the convicted accused thus gets wholly bereft of any merit therein and is consequently dismissed.

Revision dismissed.