Rajrup and Others vs State of Haryana

Jora Singh, J.—Rajrup alias Babli, Rajpal alias Palu sons of Kanwar Lal and Kanwar Lal son of Ram Dhan ( since deceased) through this instant appeal have impugned the judgment/order dated 31.10.1998/2.11.1998 respectively rendered by Additional Sessions Judge, Jhajjar in Sessions Case No. 6 of 12.1.1993 in case FIR No. 171 dated 22.9.1992 under Sections 302/325/323/34 IPC, Police Station Beri, whereby Rajrup, Rajpal and Kanwar Lal were convicted under Sections 302/325/323/34 IPC and were sentenced to undergo imprisonment as under:

(1) Life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- each under Sections 302/34 IPC. In default of payment of fine to undergo further imprisonment for a period of one year.

(2) RI for 6 months and a fine of Rs. 500/- each under Sections 323/34 IPC. In default of payment of fine to undergo further imprisonment for three months.

(3) RI for three years and a fine of Rs. 2000/- each under Sections 325/34 IPC. In default of payment of fine to undergo further imprisonment for six months. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

During the pendency of trial, Rajender Singh had expired. During the pendency of appeal, Kanwar Lal, one of the appellants had also expired.

Prosecution story, in brief, is that Sube Singh son of Ram Dhan, resident of Village Gwalison lodged report with the police to the effect that he had four sons and one daughter. Three sons had already expired. Fourth son namely, Ranbir Singh was residing with his family at the house of his in-laws at village Rawaldi for the last 20 years. Sube Singh-complainant used to live with his daughter-in-law, Shanti widow of Dharambir along with her children. His daughter Prem had come to his house from the house of her in-laws and was staying with him. At about 10:00/11:00 A.M, Ranbir Singh came and reported that death of a relation has taken place at village Kharkhari and in that connection he has come to the house of the complainant. On 25.9.1992, complainant-party is to visit village Kharkhari for paying condolence. Kanwar Lal is the brother of the complainant. Six months ago, Kanwar Lal and his sons had a dispute qua water and passage of land with the complainant-party. But the dispute was settled in the Panchayat. Ranbir was also present at the time of compromise. Even after the compromise, Kanwar Lal and his sons continued to harass the complainant-party. At 3:00 P.M, he along with his son Ranbir Singh was going towards the bus stand of the village because Ranbir Singh was to go back to village Rawaldi. They were present near the shop of Joravar. Kanwar Lal, Rajinder Pal, Rajrup and Rajpal came from the backside. Kanwar Lal was armed with an iron pipe, Rajinder was holding a jaili, Rajrup was holding a pharsa and Raj Pal was holding a jaili with small prong. Rajrup gave a lalkara to catch hold of Ranbir and decide the dispute regarding water and passage of land because Ranbir whenever visited the village then raised a dispute. Rajrup gave three blows with a pharsa on the head of Ranbir. Rajinder gave a jaili blow thrustwise on the back of Ranbir and again a jaili blow on the leg of Ranbir. Kanwar Lal gave blow with a steel pipe on the back of Ranbir. Rajpal had waived the jaili and gave a lathiwise blow on the left thigh of Ranbir. Ranbir fell down on the ground. Complainant tried to intervene and raised an alarm. Then Rajinder gave jaili blow on the head and second blow on the thigh of the complainant. Kanwar Lal gave blows with a pipe to the complainant. Rajpal gave four jaili blows to the complainant. Raula was raised. Daughter of the complainant, Prem and his grandchildren Sunil, Jai Pal and Vijay also came to the spot. Sunil was also injured with a pipe by Kanwar Lal. After that accused had fled away from the spot. Injured was shifted to Civil Hospital, Jhajjar on the tractor of Saheb Singh. Ranbir was declared dead by the doctor. Complainant and his grand-daughter were medico-legally examined.

SHO, Police Station Jhajjar informed PS Beri regarding death of Ranbir Singh. On receipt of message, Brij Lal, ASI along with other police party had gone to Civil Hospital, Jhajjar. Dead body of Ranbir was lying in the emergency ward. Sube Singh was lying admitted in the emergency ward. After obtaining opinion from the doctor regarding fitness of the injured to make statement. Statement of Sube Singh was recorded. Statement was read over and explained to him, who had thumb marked the same in token of its correctness. The statement was sent to police Station on the basis of which formal FIR under Sections 302/323/34 IPC was registered. Inquest report was prepared by ASI, Brij Lal. Application was moved for post mortem examination of the dead body of Ranbir Singh. After that investigation of the case was handed over to Shish Ram- Inspector. Inspector Shish Ram along with the police officials including, ASI, Brij Lal and others had gone to the place of occurrence. But due to darkness and night time place of occurrence could not be inspected. One constable was deputed to guard the place of occurrence. Inspector along with party had gone to the house of the complainant. Statement of Prem daughter of Sube Singh was recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. Investigating Officer had inspected the place of occurrence and prepared a rough site plan. Blood stained earth was lifted and the same was made into a parcel sealed with the seal bearing impression `SR'' and was taken into possession vide memo attested by witnesses. Seal after its use was handed over to PW-Ramesh. Statements of Jai Pal, Vijay, Sumer and Ramesh were also recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. Sunil was also sent to hospital for medico legal examination. Inspector Shish Ram was present at Jahajgarh Chowk on 23.9.92. Constable Raj Karan had produced the sealed parcel containing the clothes worn by the deceased. Sealed parcel was taken into police possession vide separate memo attested by the witnesses. On return to the police station, case property was deposited with the MHC. On 27.9.1992, Inspector Shish Ram was present in the revenue estate of Village Jhajjar. There he received a secret information that Kanwar Lal, Rajpal, Rajender and Rajrup are present at bus-stand Jhajjar. Raid was conducted then the accused were arrested from the Bus stand of Jhajjar. On 28.9.92, accused were interrogated separately regarding the weapons of offence in the presence of Dharambir and Rati Ram. In pursuance of the disclosure statement suffered by Kanwar Lal, an iron pipe was recovered from the specified place. Sketch of the pipe was prepared and the pipe was taken into police possession after making into a sealed parcel.

On the same day i.e 28.9.1992, Rajpal accused suffered disclosure statement. As per disclosure statement got recovered double pronged jaili from the specified place. Recovered weapon was sealed with the seal bearing impression SR and the sealed parcel was taken into police possession vide separate memo attested by the witnesses.

On the same day i.e 28.9.1992, Rajrup was also interrogated then he suffered a disclosure statement. As per disclosure statement suffered by accused, pharsa was recovered from the specified place. Sketch of the pharsa was prepared and the recovered weapon was taken into police possession vide separate memo attested by the witnesses. Rajinder accused also suffered disclosure statement and as per disclosure statement got recovered single prong jaili from the specified place. Sketch of the weapon was prepared and the same was taken into police possession vide separate memo attested by the witnesses. On return to the police station, case property was deposited with the MHC (Mahavir, Head Constable).

7.. After the completion of the investigation, challan was presented.

Copies of the challan were supplied to the accused and the same were found to be correct after scrutiny. Case was committed to the Court of Session for trial.

After hearing learned Public Prosecutor for the State, defence counsel for the accused and perusing documents on the file. Learned trial Court opined that a prima facie case is made out to frame charge under Sections 302/323/325/34 IPC. Charge was accordingly framed to which the accused did not plead guilty and claimed trial I 10. In order to substantiate the charges, prosecution examined as many as twelve witnesses.

Dr. Ram Kumar was examined as PW-1. Dr. Ram Kumar had medico-legally examined Sube Singh on 22.9.92 and found the following injuries on his person:

A lacerated wound 8 x 1 x bone deep on the vertex of the head having fresh bleeding. Margins were irregular and x-ray was advised.

A contusion 15 x 6 cm. On the right side of the chest just above the costal margin and it was reddish in colour. Patient was complainant swear pain in it and x-ray was advised.

A swelling 7.5 x 4 cm on dorsal aspect of right hand at the base of middle and ring finger. Swelling was hot and tender and patient was unable to move the finger. Xray was advised.

A contusion 9 x 2.5 cm on the back of the right thigh just above the knee joint which was reddish in colour.

A contusion 12 x 2.5 cm on the back of the right thigh 6 cm. above the injury No. 4. It was reddish in colour.

A contusion 10 x 3 cm on the back of the right thigh 7 cm above the injury No. 5. It was reddish in colour.

A contusion 5 x 2.5 cm on the back of the right shoulder joint. It was reddish in colour and patient was referred to Medical College, Rohtak for treatment.

Injury No. 2 on the person of Sube Singh was declared grievous. Other injuries were found to be simple in nature.

PW-2, Dr. Ajay Sharda stated that Sube Singh remained under his treatment. Ex.PE is his bed head ticket. Vide police request Ex.PF, he gave his opinion Ex.PF/1.

PW-3, Dr. S.K Bhutani had conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of Ranbir on 23.9.92 and found the following injuries on the person of Ranbir:

Incised wound on front of forehead in the middle 3 cm x 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm. Transversed.

Incised wound on right parietal in the middle vertical, along medial line, 6 cm x 2 cm x 1.5 cm and on cut section bone underline was fractured and grey matter oozing out.

Incised wound of right side of occipital back, semi circular, 4 cm x 1.5 cm x 1.5 cm and on cut section bone underline was fractured and grey matter was oozing out.

Incised wound on left occipital, transverse 4 cm x 1.0 x1.5 cm.

Abrasion on right abdomen, laterally lower limb vertical 3 cm x 1 cm.

Pointed wound on right renal area back above upper part of right hip bone in the middle, 2 cm x 2 cm x cavity deep and bone underline (10th rib was fractured and liver on posterior part lower end was ruptured and cavity was full of blood).

7.Contusion of right knee lower limb transverse 2 cm x 1.5 cm.

8.Contusion on right leg in the middle, anteriorly vertical 3 cm x 2 cm.

Multiple contusions of back of chest four in number 6 cm x 2 cm each.

10.Contusion on left knee upper and laterally 2 cm x 2 cm.

Injuries were found to be ante mortem in nature and sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Death was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of injuries. Probable duration between injuries and death was within six hours and between death and post mortem was within 24 hours.

PW-4, Chander Parkash Bhatnagar, Draftsman had prepared a scaled site plan Ex.PM.

PW-5, Sube Singh and PW-6, Sunil are the injured eye witnesses. Both on oath stated that Prem had come to her parental house. Ranbir came to Village Gwalison due to the death of a relative at Village Kharkhari and in that connection he was to visit Kharkhar on 25.9.1992. The accused party had dispute qua water and passage of land six months earlier with the complainant-party and that dispute was settled in the Panchayat. Ranbir was also present in the Panchayat. But even after the compromise, accused party used to harass them. On 22.9.1992 at 3:00 P.M, Ranbir was to visit village Rawaldi. Ranbir along with Sube Singh while going to the Bus Stand were present near the shop of Joravar. Accused fully armed came from the backside. Kanwar Lal was armed with an iron pipe, Rajinder was holding a jaili, Rajrup was holding a pharsa and Raj Pal was holding a jaili with small prong. Rajrup gave a lalkara to catch hold of Ranbir and decide the dispute regarding water and passage of land because Ranbir whenever visited the village then had raised a dispute. Accused armed with different weapons had caused injuries to Ranbir. Sube Singh further stated that when he intervened to save Ranbir, then Rajinder, Kanwar Lal and Rajpal gave injuries to him with their weapons. Raula was raised. Prem daughter, Sunil grand daughter, Jaipal and Vijay grandsons of Sube Singh came to the spot. Sunil was also injured with a pipe by Kanwar Lal. Injured were shifted to hospital where Ranbir was declared dead. On the statement of Sube Singh, main case was registered.

PW-7, ASI, Brij Lal on receipt of message from SHO, Police Station, Beri had gone to Civil Hospital, Jhajjar where dead body of Ranbir was lying. Sube Singh was also lying admitted in the hospital. Statement of Sube Singh was got recorded. Brij Lal had also prepared inquest report. Dead body was also handed over to the police officials for post mortem examination.

PW-8, ASI, Sumer Singh stated that on 23.9.1992, he was with the party of SI, Shish Ram and in his presence, blood stained earth was lifted from the spot.

PW-9, Constble Raj Karan had tendered his affidavit Ex.PV.

PW-10, U.G.C Sardara Singh had handed over special report to the Illaqa Magistrate.

PW-11 Dr. Anamika deposed that on 23.9.92, Sube Singh was medico legally examined.

After the close of prosecution evidence, statements of the accused were recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. Accused denied all the allegations of the prosecution and pleaded to be innocent.

Defence version of Rajrup alias Babli was that in the month of September 1992, he had come on leave from Bangalore. He was serving in the Air force. He was not present at the time of occurrence. He was taken by the police on 22.9.1992 but his formal arrest was shown on 27.9.1992. Recovery of pharsa was planted on him. His signatures were obtained in the police station. His wife had approached the high officials regarding his illegal detention w.e.f 22.9.1992.

Defence version of Kanwar Lal and Raj Pal was that on the date of alleged occurrence, dispute arose between Sube Singh and his son Ranbir Singh. Earlier to that also, Sube Singh and Ranbir Singh had strained relations. Grand sons and other members of the family of Sube Singh gave beatings to Ranbir Singh outside the baithak. On receipt of injuries, Ranbir Singh had died. After the death of Ranbir Singh, Sube Singh with the connivance of the police, had falsely implicated the accused.

In defence, Mahabir appeared as DW-1 and stated that Rajrup is married with his sister''s daughter Anita. Rajrup was falsely implicated in a murder case. On the date of occurrence, Rajrup and Anita were present in his house from 10:00 A.M to 5:00 P.M. After seven days, he came to know that Rajrup was falsely implicated in a murder case. He had gone to the police station to enquire as to why Rajrup was implicated in this case. He was also threatened by a police official to be implicated in the case.

DW-2, Bijender Singh stated that on 7.10.1992, complaint was received from Anita Devi. Entry was made in the register. Complaint was regarding illegal detention of Rajrup.

DW-3, Anita Devi has supported the version of DW-1, Mahabir by saying that on the day of occurrence, she alongwith her husband, Rajrup was in the house of Mahabir from 10:00 A.M to 5:00 P.M. Rajrup was arrested at 6:00 P.M while present in front of Civil Hospital, Jhajjar. On 26.9.1992, a complaint was sent to Deputy Commissioner regarding illegal detention of Rajrup.

DW-4, Amarjeet Singh, Assistant Complaint Clerk, SP Office stated that no complaint was received from Anita from 26.9.1992 to 28.9.1992 but on 5.10.92, a complaint was received on behalf of Ranbir regarding implication of Rajrup in FIR No. 171.

After hearing learned Counsel for the State, defence counsel for the accused, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jhajjar had convicted the accused under Sections 302/325/323/34 IPC and were sentenced to undergo imprisonment as stated above.

Defence counsel for the appellant-accused argued that occurrence had taken place on 3:00 P.M on 22.9.1992. Ruqa was sent at 5:45 P.M but statement of the injured was recorded at 9:30 P.M. FIR was recorded at 10:30 P.M. There was a delay in lodging the FIR. Distance of the place of occurrence from the police station was hardly 15 kilometers. Story was concocted to implicate the appellants. Delay is fatal. There was no motive to commit the crime. For the last 20 years, Ranbir was staying at his in-laws house. Sube Singh had given property to his son. No question of dispute of water and passage of land with Ranbir Singh. In fact Ranbir Singh had dispute with Sube Singh. Ranbir Singh was demanding property. Sube Singh and his family members had caused injuries to Ranbir Singh. Later on with the connivance of police, appellants-accused were falsely implicated. In case a dispute was earlier settled before the Panchayat then one or two Panchayat Members could easily be produced to show that earlier there was a dispute amongst the parties. Medical evidence is contrary to the ocular evidence. Rajpal was armed with a jaili and as per story he gave jaili blow on the left thigh of Ranbir. If Rajpal had the intention to cause injuries then there was no idea to give jaili blow thrustwhile. Presence of Rajpal is doubtful. Rajrup was also not present at the time of occurrence. He was present at the house of Mahabir. In fact Sube Singh and his family members had caused injuries to Ranbir Singh. After the death of Ranbir Singh, whole story was concocted. Learned Counsel for the appellants requested to acquit the appellants-accused.

Ms. Navin Malik, Additional Advocate General, Haryana argued that deceased along with Sube Singh was present near the shop of Joravar. Accused fully armed came from the backside and had caused injuries to the deceased and Sube Singh. Appellantsaccused had the intention to commit the crime. Occurrence had taken place on 22.9.1992. If Rajrup was at the house of Mahabir then why complaint was not sent on the same day. Ex.DB is the copy of the complaint dated 26.9.1992. DW-1, Mahabir and the wife of Rajrup were very much interested in the acquittal of appellantaccused. Rajrup when examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C then he did not state a word that he had gone to the house of Mahabir. Occurrence had taken place near the shop of Joravar but no independent witness came forward to say that Sube Singh and his family members had caused injuries to Ranbir Singh. If the defence version is correct one than the question is how the injuries figured on the person of Sube Singh and Sunil. Learned Counsel for the respondent-State further argued that evidence on the file was rightly appreciated. She requested to dismiss the appeal.

First submission of the learned defence counsel is that there is delay in lodging the FIR and delay is fatal. But we are not in a position to agree with the submission of the learned defence counsel because occurrence had taken place at about 3:00 P.M near the shop of Joravar. After the occurrence injured was shifted to Civil Hospital, Jhajjar, where Ranbir Singh was declared dead. From Civil Hospital, Jhajjar, V.T message was sent to police Station, Jhajjar and from police station Jhajjar, message was sent to Police Station Beri. On receipt of message, ASI, Brij Lal, incharge PP Chuchakwas reached Police Station, Jhajjar. Thereafter he went to Civil Hospital, Jhajjar. Dead body of Ranbir Singh was lying in the emergency ward. Sube Singh was lying admitted in the emergency ward. After obtaining opinion from doctor as to whether injured is fit to make a statement or not, statement of Sube Singh was recorded. After making endorsement at 9:30 P.M on 22.2.1992, statement was sent to police station, Beri. On the statement of Sube Singh, formal FIR was recorded. Sunil was also injured. Ten injuries were noted on the person of Ranbir Singh. Seven injuries were noted on the person of Sube Singh. When there are number of injuries with sharp edged weapons then an effort is made to shift the injured to the nearest hospital for medical aid. Eye witnesses/close relations are not expected to approach the police station by leaving the injured on the spot. Appellants-accused were related to the deceased. By leaving the real culprit particularly, when the occurrence was during the day time, complainant-party was not expected to implicate the appellantsaccused. Delay was fully explained. In case we presume that there is delay in lodging the FIR then delay itself is not sufficient for acquittal of the accused. Delay is one of the suspicious circumstances to scrutinize the evidence with great care and caution. Delay is not sufficient for acquittal of the accused.

Second submission of the learned defence counsel for the appellants-accused is that there was no motive/enmity to commit the crime. In fact, Ranbir Singh was residing at his in-laws house. Father-in-law of Ranbir had transferred his property in the name of the sons of Ranbir Singh. Ranbir Singh was pressurizing his father to give his share. Complainant-party had a dispute with Ranbir Singh. Ranbir Singh was given injuries near the baithak. Appellantsaccused were falsely implicated.

We have considered the submission of the learned defence counsel but we are not in a position to accept the same. Evidence on the file shows that earlier to the present occurrence, there was a dispute qua water and passage amongst the parties and that dispute was settled in the Panchayat. In case there was no dispute six months earlier, then any Member of the Panchayat could be produced in defence to state that there was no dispute amongst the complainant party and the accused. As discussed earlier, appellants are related to the complainant-party and if there was no dispute then there was no idea to implicate the appellants-accused. Sometimes without motive, heinous crimes are committed. In case prosecution fails to prove motive then only on this short ground, story is not to be ignored. In the present case, six months earlier to the present occurrence, there was a dispute amongst the complainantparty and the accused qua path and water course but that dispute was settled. Appellants-accused were of the opinion that whenever Ranbir Singh came to the house of his father then his family members were instigated to have dispute with the appellantsaccused. To settle the dispute, accused-party came fully armed and had caused injuries to Ranbir Singh and Sube Singh. All injuries on the person of Ranbir Singh and Sube Singh cannot be self-suffered or self-inflicted, particularly, when some of the injuries were on the vital parts of the body.

Defence counsel further submitted that presence of Rajpal at the time of occurrence is doubtful. Rajpal was armed with small pronged jaili. One injury was caused on the left foot of Ranbir Singh. Some injuries were given to Sube Singh with a jaili by using the same dangwise. In case Rajpal had the intention to cause injuries then injuries could easily be caused with his jaili thrustwise. There was no idea to cause injury with a jaili like dangwise. Submission of the learned defence counsel seems to be reasonable one. Rajpal was armed with small pronged jaili and as per story only one injury was given to Ranbir Singh by using jaili dangwise and the injury was on the left foot. Four injuries with a jaili were given to Sube Singh. Jaili was used like dangwise. Dr. S.K Bhutani had conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of Ranbir Singh. But no injury on the left foot. Dr. Ram Kumar had medico legally examined Sube Singh. There were four injuries alleged to be caused by Rajpal i.e one on the thigh second on the right side of stomach, third on the right hip and last on the right side of the shoulder. On cross-examination, doctor admitted that injuries alleged to have been caused by Rajpal with a jaili used dangwise are possible by fall. Sube Singh while appearing in the Court as PW-5, in chief, stated that Rajpal waived the jaili and gave lathiwise blow on the right thigh of Ranbir Singh and then again on the left thigh. But as per doctor, no injury on the left thigh of Ranbir Singh was noticed. On cross-examination, Sube Singh admitted that on receipt of injuries, he had a fall on the left side touching the ground. But, not even a single word has been mentioned in the FIR that on receipt of injuries, Sube Singh had a fall on the ground. Injuries alleged to have been caused by Rajpal as per doctor were possible by fall. Rajpal was armed with a jaili but only one blow was given to Ranbir. If Rajpal had the intention or he was present at the time of occurrence then number of injuries were expected to have been caused with a jaili by using the same thrustwise not dangwise. Due to previous enmity, Rajpal was expected to repeat the blow but blow was not repeated. Before the present occurrence, complainant-party had a dispute with the accused-party. No jaili blow alleged to have been given to Ranbir Singh by Rajpal was noticed by the doctor at the time of post mortem examination. Injuries alleged to have been caused by Rajpal on the person of Sube Singh were possible by a fall. Rajpal was implicated being the brother of Rajrup and son of Kanwar Lal, who died during the pendency of the appeal. Sunil, second injured was examined on 23.9.1999. But injury on the person of Sunil was possible by fall. Sunil when appeared in Court then stated that Rajpal gave two jaili blows on the right leg of Ranbir. Rajpal gave three jaili blows to Sube Singh. One on the right foot, second on the shoulder and third on the right side. Statement of Sunil is contrary to the sttement of Sube Singh and medical evidence as suggestion was given to Sunil that she had not witnessed the occurrence. Presence of Rajpal at the time of occurrence is doubtful.

Defence counsel further argued that presence of Rajrup is also doubtful at the time of occurrence. Rajender Singh had died during the pendency of the trial. Kanwarl Lal had died during the pendency of the appeal. On the day of occurrence, Rajrup was away to the house of Mahabir. Mahabir appeared as DW-1 and stated that at the time of occurrence, Rajrup was present in his house. But after going through the evidence on file, we are not in a position to agree with the submission of the learned defence counsel. No suggestion to the witnesses that at the time of occurrence, Rajrup was not present and in fact he was present in the house of Mahabir. Rajrup when examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C, then stated that on the day of occurrence, he was on leave. He was arrested by the police on 22.9.1992 but his formal arrest was shown on 27.9.92. His wife had moved the higher authorities for his illegal detention from 22.9.92. In case Rajrup was present in the house of Mahabir at the time of occurrence, then Rajrup when examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C should have stated that he was present in the house of Mahabir situated in the revenue estate of village Chhara. Mahabir, in examination-in-chief stated that Rajrup is married with Anita, daughter of his sister. After seven days he came to know that Rajrup was involved in a murder case. He had gone to police station to enquire as to why Rajrup was implicated in a murder case. That means after seven days, Mahabir came to know that Rajrup was taken away by the police. In case Rajrup was arrested on 22.9.92 then Mahabir being the relative of Rajrup should have approached the police immediately. Statement of Mahabir was not recorded by the police. Mahabir did not file any complaint against the police officials. In cross-examination, Mahabir admitted that after two days he came to know from Anita that complaint was sent to the higher authorities qua false involvement of Rajrup. Anita appeared as DW-3 and stated that from 10:00 A.M to 5:00 P.M on 22.9.92, she along with Rajrup was present in the house of Mahabir. But Rajrup was arrested on the same day while present in front of Civil Hospital, Jhajjar. On 26.9.1992, she had sent complaints to the Deputy Commissioner. Her grandfather had sent complaints to Deputy Commissioner on 28.9.92. In case Rajrup was arrested on the same day and was detained illegally, then why complaints were not sent on the same day. On 24.9.1992 or 25.9.1992, Mahabir came to know from Anita that complaints were sent to the higher authorities but Anita stated that complaints were sent to the higher authorities on 28.9.1992. Anita, in cross-examination, admitted that she along with her grand father had gone to police station on 24.9.92 to enquire as to why Rajrup was arrested. Rajrup was armed with pharsa and gave three blows to Ranbir Singh. Blows were on the vital parts of the body. Blows on the vital parts cannot be self-suffered or selfinflicted. As per defence version of Kanwar Lal, Ranbir Singh had dispute with Sube Singh and other family members. Sube Singh and his family members gave beatings to Ranbir Singh outside the baithak. But Sube Singh and Ranbir Singh had no dispute with anybody else. Prior to the present occurrence, Ranbir Singh had not filed any civil suit or complaint against Sube Singh and others to get his share from Sube Singh. When Ranbir Singh or his sons were not demanding property from Sube Singh and there was no dispute then Sube Singh and his family members were not supposed to give beatings to Ranbir Singh. All this shows that Rajrup fully armed was present at the time of occurrence and had caused injuries to Ranbir Singh.

No other submission was put forward.

In view of the all discussed above, appeal filed by Rajpal is accepted, whereas of Rajrup is dismissed.

Registry to send intimation to the concerned authorities for the release of appellant, Rajpal forthwith, in case he is not wanted in any other Court.