Munshi Ram vs State of Haryana

S.S. Dewan, J.—Munshi Ram, Chander and Hukma petitioners alongwith five other accused namely, Darya, Randhir, Fateh Singh, Duli Chand and Jaipal were brought to trial before the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class Sonepat for the offence under Ss. 148 and 325 read with section 149, Indian Penal Code for causing injuries to Brahma, PW Jaipal accused, however, died during the pendency of the trial. All the remaining accused were found guilty for the offences under Ss. 148,325/149 and 323/149, Indian Penal Code, and were accordingly convicted and sentenced to various terms of imprisonment and fine with the direction that their substantive sentences shall run concurrently. On appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat, acquitted Darya. Randhir, Fateh Singh and Duli Chand of the said offences but while acquitted Chander, Munshi Ram and Hukma of the offences under Ss. 148 and 323/149, Indian Penal Code, reduced their sentence of imprisonment from two years to one year each under Section 325, Indian Penal Code. They have now come up in revision.

The prosecution case is that on 3rd September, 1972, Brahma PW 1 was answering the call of nature in a pit in the area of village Purkhas and it was about 7.00 A.M. when all of sudden Duli Chand, Chander having axes, Munshi, Jai Pal (deceased) and Hukma having jalies Fateh, Randhir and Darya having lathies came there and surrounded him. Brahma wanted to run away after trying the knot of the string of his pyjama. In the meanwhile, Duli Chand gave a direct blow with his axe on his head followed by Chander who also caused an axe blow on his head. Prabhu and Mohinder who were attracted to the spot, raised hue and cry and then accused bolted away. Brahma injured was taken to the Primary Health Centre, Ganaur and from there he was referred to the Civil Hospital, Sonepat. Dr. D.B. Raval, PW 4 medically examined Brahma on 3.9.1979 and found as many as 16 injuries on his person as detailed in the medico Legal Report, Exhibit PW 4/A. The accused were arrested. After necessary investigation, they were challanged and sent up for trial. The ocular testimony consists of Brahma, PW 1, Mohinder PW 2 and Prabhu, PW 3. Babu Ram, Assistant SubInspector is the main investigating officer. The remaining evidence is of formal and subsidiary nature. When examined under Section 313, Criminal Procedure Code, the accused denied the prosecution allegations and pleaded false implication in the case. Mange was examined in defence.

The learned counsel for the petitioners strenuously urged that the testimony of Brahma, the injured witness and that of Mohinder and Prabhu, PWs was not worthy of being placed reliance thereon; that the first information report was recorded with inordinate delay and that the medical evidence was in direct conflict with the ocular testimony.

After hearing the learned counsel for both the sides and after perusing the evidence on record as also the judgments of the courts below, I am of the opinion that this revision petition must be allowed.

Mohinder and Prabhu PWs who are related to Brahma PW have no doubt narrated the story which has been summarised above and there can be no presumption against their veracity because of their relationship with Brahma PW yet having regard to the human nature, as it is they are undoubtedly interested in supporting the prosecution version. As such, their statements have to be scrutinised seriously before the same can be acted upon. The deposition of Prabhu and Mohinder PWs who are related to Brahma, an injured witness, may be accepted as dependable evidence if their presence at the scene of occurrence is unquestionable. The extraordinary feature of this case is that the aforesaid two witnesses who happened to be present at the spot at the psychological moment were not examined by the police for about two months for the reasons best known to them. What first catches the eye is the fact that Brahma the stamped witness has categorically stated in the First Information Report lodged by him that Duli Chand and Chander had caused direct axe blows on his head but while appearing in the trial Court he minimized the nature of injuries by stating that the said accused had used their axes from the blunt side. Further he had stated in the trial Court that Munshi, Jaipal and Hukma accused had caused injuries on his chest and back with the prongs of their jallies. If it is so, then there should have been incised or punctured wounds on the body of the injured but medical witness found contusions, abrasions and lacerated wounds only. Thus it is clear that the evidence of Brahma, who is a material witness stands falsified by the medical witness. As such, the medical evidence affords no assistance at all to the prosecution (sic) are the culprits who had caused injuries to Brahma PW.

The occurrence took place on 3.9.1979 at about 7.00 a.m. and the report was lodged on 6.9.1979. The police station was hardly at a distance of 5 Kilometers from the place of occurrence. There, however, cannot be any doubt in my mind that it could not be said with equanimity that the First Information Report was not a delayed one and this delay must have afforded sufficient time to the eye witnesses who were interested to confabulate together and bring forward, that too with the connivance of the Investigating Officer, a concocted story implicating the petitioners and projecting false witnesses as eyewitnesses.

The evidence of the eyewitnesses in regard to participation of Duli Chand, Fateh Singh, Randhir and Dariya was rejected by the appellate Court as unreliable and now if the evidence of these eyewitnesses was disbelieved by the appellate Court in regard to the participation by the four other accused in the incident, it is difficult to see how it could be accepted so far as the role assigned to the petitioners is concerned. The conviction of the petitioners is founded solely on the evidence of the eyewitnesses whose testimony cannot be said to inspire confidence in the mind of the Court. I do not think it safe to convict the petitioners on the basis of the ocular evidence examined by the prosecution.

In view of the above, I hold that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the petitioners. Hence I accept this revision petition, set aside their conviction and sentence as awarded by the Courts below and by giving them the benefit of doubt, acquit them. The petitioners are on bail and as such they need not surrender to their bail bonds.