Satbir and anr. vs State of Haryana

Pritpal Singh, J.

Satbir and Mange, residents of village Sanwar in District Bhiwani, have questioned the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Bhiwani. dated 3rd of December, 1983, by which they were convicted under section 302, read with section 34, Indian Penal Code, and each of them was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.

Substance of the prosecution case is that the deceased, Krishan Lal, who was called as Baba in village Sanwar, was living in the house of Sunder Lal (PW 6) for the last many years. The latter and the deceased spent the night between 21st and 22nd February, 1983, at the tubewell of Sunder Lal. In the morning of 22nd February. 1983, the deceased left the tubewell at about 7 A. M saying that he was going to attend a court hearing. Sunder Lal (PW 6) later on proceeded to the village at about 8.30 A.M. and on the way he came across the deadbody of Krishan Lal near the fields of one Nand Lal. He went. to Police Post. Baund, to lodge the report and his statement (Exhibit PL) was recorded by A.S.I. Surjit Kumar (PW 11). On the basis of this statement, a formal First Information Report (Exhibit PL/2) was recorded at Police Station, Dadri. A.S.I. Surjit Kumar (PW 11) went to the place of occurrence and prepared the Inquest Report (Exhibit PJ). The investigation'' was taken over by S.I. Raj Singh (PW 12) at about 350 P. M. He discovered that Manohar Lal (PW 1) and Sat Narain (PW 2) had witnessed the occurrence at about 9 A.M. on that day. The Sub Inspector recorded their statements at about 5 P M. According to the eyewitnesses, they had gone to the fields of Manohar Lal (PW 1) in the morning to take turn of water. At about 8 A.M. they saw the deceased. Krishan Lal. coming from the direction of the field of one Hukam Chand and lie was followed by the appellants At that time Satbir appellant was armed with a Jaily and Mange appellant was holding a lathi. The appellants shouted at the deceased saying that either he should withdraw the case of partition of land or they would kill him. Thereafter the appellants showered blows on the person of the deceased with their respective weapons. After the occurrence, Manohar Lal (PW 1), who is a school teacher, proceeded to his school to attend to his duties. Sat Narain (PW 2) went away to Dadri, where he had to, attend a hearing in the Court of the Sub Divisional Magistrate. They returned to the village at about 4 P. M. when they learnt that the deceased Krishan Lal, had succumbed to his injuries in the Morning and that thepolice was investigating the case. On being called by the police, they gave their statements at about 5 P.M.

Autopsy on the deadbody of Krishan Lal was performed by Dr. Subhash Bansal (PW 4) on 23rd February, 1983, at 11.55 A.M. and he found the following injuries thereon :

A lacerated wound of. the size of 6 cm x 1 cm x 1/2 cm. Clotted blood was present on the left parietal bone, 8 cm from the left car. On dissection, fracture of left parietal bone was present and corresponding haematoma was present on the left hemisphere of brain corresponding to the. injuries.

A lacerated wound or the size of 7 cm x 1 cm present on the left forearm. On dissection, fracture of the both bones of the left forearm was seen.

A bruise of the size of 3 cm x 3 cm was present on the middle of the left arm. On dissection haematoma was present and fracture of humerus left side was present.

An abrasion of the size of 3 cm x 2 cm was present on the left elbow joint.

A lacerated wound of the size of 2 cm X 2 cm was present on the left thigh. Clotted blood was present.

A bruise of the size 4 cm x 3 cm was present on the left hip joint, on its lateral side. On dissection haematoma was present and fracture of neck femur left side was present.

Two abrasions of the size 4 of cm x 1 cm and 3 cm x 1 cm present on the lateral aspect of left leg.

An abrasion of 2 cm x 3 cm was present on the medial aspect of left leg. Clotted blood was present.

A lacerated wound of the size of 3 cm x 1 cm x 1/2 cm was present on the right leg in its middle on the anterior side.

Multiple bruises wore present on the back left side.

The doctor opined that these injuries were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.

At the trial the prosecution relied upon the medical evidence and the ocular testimony of Manohar Lal (PW 1) and Sat Narain (PW2).

The appellants, when examined under section 313, Code of Criminal Procedure, denied complicity in the crime and pleaded innocence. They examined Raghbir Singh Sarpanch of village Sanwar (DW 1)and Mahabir, Panch of the village (DW 2), who deposed that they saw the deadbody of Krishan Lal in the fields at about 7 A.M.

The trial Court placed reliance on the prosecution evidence and spurned the plea of innocence raised by the appellants. As a result thereof, the appellants wore convicted and sentenced as indicated above.

The vital question for determination in this appeal is whether Manohar Lal (PW 1) and Sat Narain (PW 2) bed actually witnessed the appellants causing injuries to the deceased, Krishan Lal. The learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently contended that the presence of these persons at the time of occurrence is extremely doubtful and, therefore, reliance cannot be placed on their testimony. On a close scrutiny of the statements of the eyewitnesses we are of the view that the contention of the learned counsel is not devoid of merit and there are factors in this case which impel us to doubt the ocular testimony of the said witnesses.

Manohar Lal (PW 1) is a school teacher by profession. He stated that his father and uncle had joint land and, therefore. the turn of water in the Varabandi was in their joint name. He said that some time back he was a patient of tuberculosis and normally in the winter season his uncle''s sons used to look after the irrigation of the fields. The occurrence took place in the month of February and, therefore. it is manifest that it was winter season. Manohar Lal was unable to offer any explanation as to why against the normal practice of his uncle''s sons looking after the irrigation work he had himself to go to the fields in the morning to take the turn of water. He further stated that his uncle had three sons who were doing the cultivation work. He himself has five children, the idest of whom is a son aged 23 years. It is improbable that in the presence of his son and cousins he would have gone to the fields in the cold morning of the month of February to take the turn of water, especially when in the recent past he was suffering from tuberculosis.

It is said that Sat Narain (PW 2) is a friend of Manohar Lal (PW 1) and, therefore. he also accompanied Manohar Lal to help him in the taking of turn of water. The conduct of these two persons after the occurrence is so unnatural that it is difficult for us to believe that they the occurrence is so unnatural that it is difficult for us to believe that they were present when the occurrence took place. The deceased was mercilessly beaten by the appellants in their presence. After inflicting the injuries on the deceased the appellants had taken to their heels. In the normal course of events one would have expected these eyewitnesses to approach the deceased to ascertain if he needed immediate help. Even if he had succumbed to the injuries at the spot, the eyewitnesses, in the natural course, would have gone to the village to inform about the occurrence to the Sarpanch and other respectables. However, what we find from the testimony of these witnesses is that instead of approaching the deceased and going to the village, Manohar Lal (PW 1) went away to his school in village, Hindaul which is at a distance of about two kilometres from village Sanwar and Sat Narain (PW 2) proceeded to Dadri to attend a hearing in the Court of the SubDivisional Magistrate. They spent the whole day there and returned to the village in the evening without disclosing the incident to anyone. Sat Narain (PW 2) admitted that Police Station, Dadri, is only at a distance of 400 yards from the Court of the Sub Divisional Magistrate. BLit he never thought of reporting the matter to the police. This conduct is not of normal human being and we will be justified in raising an inference therefrom that they are put tip witnesses who were introduced by the prosecution at a later stage. Both of them are inimically disposed towards the appellants which indicates the reason for their rendering assistance, to the prosecution case Manohar Lal (PW1) admitted that his uncle Chandgi Ram has been litigating with Dwarka and Bishambar. it is proved from a copy of the statement of Mange appellant (Exhibit DF/1) that the latter had appeared as a witness in that litigation against Chandgi Ram Manohar Lal (PW 1), therefore, cannot be considered to be an independent witness. So far Sat Narain (PW 2) is concerned, he admitted that in a case under section 323, Indian Penal Code, instituted against him by one Bhagwan Dass, Satbir appellant had appeared as a witness against him. He did not admit that Mange appellant had also appeared as a witness against him in that case but this fact is proved from a copy of the statement of Mange (Exhibit DJ/1). Apparently, Sat Narain (PW2) is far from friendly towards the appellants.

From what is discussed above. we are unable to place implicit reliance on the testimony of Manohar Lal (PW 1) and Sat Narain (PW 2). They are not only inimical towards the appellants but their conduct leads us to hold that they were in all probabilities not present at the time of occurrence.

It is also pertinent to mention that the alleged motive of crime was non existent at the time of occurrence. It is said that partition of land proceedings were initiated by the deceased against the appellant Satbir. The appellants are reported to have attacked the deceased on that grievance. However, it is proved from the copies of statements of Satbir and the deceased, Exhibits DA and DB respectively, that on February 17, 1983, i.e. five days before the occurrence, they had already arrived at a compromise. Hence there was no motive fox the appellants to have caused injuries to the deceased on February 22, 1983 when the occurrence took place.

Taking this view, the case against the appellants cannot be considered established beyond doubt. Consequently, the appeal of Satbir and Mange appellants is allowed, their conviction and sentence are set aside and giving benefit of doubt to them, they are hereby acquitted