Sansar Singh vs State of Haryana

Harbans Singh, J.

Sansar Singh, Lachman Singh, Jayant Kumar and Ashok Kumar were prosecuted and tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak, for causing injuries to Maha Singh and Raj Mal. The trial Court found Sansar Singh guilty for the offence under sections 325/452, of the Indian Penal Code, and sentence him to two years, rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/ on each count or in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months, vide his order dated 14.9.1985. The other three accused were, however, acquitted of the charges. Sansar Singh appellant, feeling aggrieved, has filed this appeal.

According to the prosecution wife of Sansar Singh appellant was washing dirty clothes on 25.10.1983 at about 4.00 p.m. on the water course maintained by the Municipal Committee Raj Mal (PW 2) asked her not to wash such dirty clothes there. She persisted. Raj Mal further requested her that it is highly improper wash such dirty clothes on this water course because water of this water course is consumed by the inhabitants of the city, but she did not desist.

At about 8.00 p.m., the same day Sansar Singh appellant came in front of the house of Raj Mal and started abusing Raj Mal PW who asked him to so and instead abusing should advise his wife to behave. However, Sansar Singh threatened Raj Mal.

On the same night at about 1.00 a.m., one Maha Singh, PW his son Raj Mal (PW2) and their relations Ramesh (PW4) and Jagdish were sleeping in separate rooms of their house. There was barking of dogs. Maha Singh got suspicious, came out of the house and saw that the abovementioned four persons i.e. Sansar Singh and the there other accused along with three more persons had entered the house after scaling over the wall. Sansar Singh appellant at the time was armed with a hockey, Jayant Kumar with an iron pipe, while Ashok Kumar and Lachhman Singh had lathis. Seeing Maha Singh, Sansar Singh appellant gave two hockey blows on his head. Maha Singh raised an alarm. On hearing the alarm, Raj Mal, Ramesh and Jagdish also came out. On receipt of the injuries, Maha Singh fell down on the ground and while he was lying on the ground all the accused inflicted injuries to him with their respective weapons. Raj Mal tried to intervene. Jayant Kumar accused gave him blows on his arms, back and thighs. Thereafter all the accused and their companions left and ran away after scaling over the wall.

Raj Mal and Maha Singh started for the hospital. On the way Assistant SubInspector Partap Singh alone with other police officials met them at the railway crossing. Raj Mal PW, gave statement Exhibit PC to ASI Partap Singh, which was sent to the Police Station for registration of a case. Both the injured i.e. Maha Singh and Raj Mal were taken to the Civil Hospital, Rohtak, where Dr. P.D. Garg (PW1) examined them. He found the following six injuries on the person of Maha Singh :

(i) Incised wound 9 x 1/12 cm. x bone deep over the left side of head 8 cms. from ear pinna and 5 cm. from the left eyebrow. Blood on cleaning.

(ii) Incised wound 6 x 3/4 cm. bone deep over the right side of the head 41/2 cms. from the right pinna. Blood on cleaning.

(iii) Incised wound 4 x 1/2 cm. x 1 cm in the web of left middle and index finger. Blood on cleaning.

(iv) Complained of pain in the left foot. There was defused swelling.

(v) Abrasion 3 x 3 cms. over the left knee.

(vi) Reddish bruises all over the back of chest and abdomen.

Injury No. 2 was declared grievous, after the receipt of the result of the Xray while the other injuries were declared simple in nature. Nature Nos. 1, 2 and 3 were opined to have been caused by a sharpedged weapon while the other injuries were caused by blunt weapon. The said doctor also examined Raj Mal, PW, and found the following four injuries on his person :

(i) Bruise 7 x 1/2 cm. over the front and lateral part of right upper arm near the elbow joint. Reddish in colour.

(ii) Complained of pain in the right upper arm and right thumb but the overlying skin had no mark of injury.

(iii) Reddish bruise 8 x 1 cm. over the front of left thigh in the middle.

(iv) Reddish bruise 6 x 1 cm. over the front of right thigh near inguinal ligament.

All the injuries were declared simple and caused by blunt weapon.

ASI Partap Singh visited the spot in the morning, prepared the rough site plan Exhibit PG, attested the accused and after completing of the investigation challaned them. They were tried and Sansar Singh appellant was convicted and sentenced by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak, as mentioned earlier. Hence this appeal.

The prosecution in support of its case examined Dr. P.D. Garg (PW1) who had medicolegally examined Maha Singh and Raj Mal and found injuries on their persons as referred to above. Raj Mal (PW2) narrated the entire prosecution case and has given details how he and his father Maha Singh received the injuries. Maha Singh (PW3) has supported the version given by his son Raj Mal and has also stated how he had received the injures Ramesh (PW4) is also an eyewitness and has supported the prosecution case Ranbir Singh Tehsildar (PW5) has proved the statements of Jayant Kumar and Ashok Kumar accused (since acquitted) to the effect that they did not want to participate in the identification parade. ASI Raghbir Singh (PW6) has deposed about the registration of the case. Anil Kumar (PW7) is also an eyewitness and has supported the prosecution version. ASI Partap Singh (PW8) is the Investigating Officer.

The accused when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., denied the prosecution allegations and pleaded false implication due to political rivalry. No evidence in defence was, however, led.

I have carefully gone through the record and head arguments of the learned counsel for the parties.

The trial Court do not accept the prosecution case qua Lachman Singh, Jayant Kumar and Ashok Kumar and acquitted them of the charges as mentioned. The Court also gave a finding that the name of the three accused were introduced later on as they are relations of Sansar Singh appellant. It did not accept the testimony of the eyewitnesses qua their participation. There is no State appeal.

Raj Mal, (PW2) in his statement specifically attributes injuries to Jayant Kumar accused stating that Jayant Kumar had assaulted his father, hitting him twice with an iron rod on his head. He further states that Ashok Kumar and Jayant Kumar accused caused him injuries with their respective weapons on his arms, back on thighs. Similarly, Maha Singh also attributes specific injuries to the acquitted accused. It is the case of the prosecution that when Maha Singh, PW, fell down, all the accused caused him injuries with their respective weapons.

The version of the prosecution qua the participation of Lachhman Singh, Jayant Kumar and Ashok Kumar accused being not accepted by the trial Court makes the whole case doubtful. When the prosecution version is not accepted by the learned trial Court qua a number of accused, who had caused actual injuries and the witnesses qua the acquitted accused are not found reliable, there is no assuring circumstance to hold that the appellant is guilty of the charge. The same set of witnesses who are not accepted qua the three accused, cannot be accepted qua the fourth accused unless there is some corroboration from some other source. In this case there is none. Rather the medical evidence contradicts the ocular version. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused were armed with hockey, lathis and iron rod which are all blunt weapons. Three injuries out of the injuries found on the person of Maha Singh are incised and the doctor testified that they are caused with sharpedged weapons. There is no explanation how these injuries were caused and from where sharpedged weapons came. This contradiction with the medial evidence makes the prosecution case further doubtful.

Taking all the circumstances into consideration, I amd of the view that case against Sansar Singh appellant is not free from doubt. His conviction, therefore, cannot be upheld. Consequently, the judgment and order of the learned trial Court is set aside, and the appellant is acquitted of the charges. This appeal is accordingly accepted.