State of Haryana vs Ram Avtar .

Harmohinder Kaur Sandhu, J.

The facts giving rise to this appeal as stated by Meena Ram PW, who reported the matter at Police Station, Narnaul, are that he was employed as a Head Constable in Central Reserve Police Force and had come on leave to his village for 10 days. His father Mata Din and uncle had purchased six killas of land from Mst. Shand and Mst. Moorti, daughters of Ram Dayal for a consideration of Rs. 4800/. Mutation was sanctioned in their names and entries in the Khasra Girdawari were also recorded showing them in possession. Raj Singh and other respondents felt aggrieved and they were out to take forcible possession of the land which led to various disputes between the parties and security proceeding as well. 23 days before the occurrence the parties were asked to produce copies of the relevant revenue record in the police station. Father of the complainant obtained copies of Girdawari and mutation from the Patwari on 22.3.1976 at about 7.00 A.M. Mata Din was coming to his house after answering the call of nature and when he reached near the house of Prabhu Dayal and Raj Singh, all the 11 accused respondents were found standing there. On seeing Mata Din, Surinder Singh respondent brought lathis and ''Pharsis'' from the Nohra of Raj Singh. Raj Singh, Atma Ram and Ram Avtar picked up ''Pharsis'' while the other respondents armed themselves with lathis. Mata Din raised an alarm which attracted the complainant, his uncle Raj Singh and Saban Singh to the spot. Ganpat and Durjan PWs also arrived. Atma Ram hit Mata Din with a Pharsi blow on his left knee and all other respondents started beating him. The complainant Raj Singh and Sajjan Singh too received injuries when they came forward to rescue Mata Din. They too wielded lathis in defence as a result of which Raj Singh, Gajraj Singh, Ram Avtar, Atma Ram and Surinder suffered injuries.

The injured were medically examined. Investigation in the case was conducted by S.I. Kidar Singh who recorded the statements of the witnesses and the respondents were challaned for the offences under Sections 326, 324, 148/149 I.P.C. They stood trial for these offences in the Court of Shri M.M. Sharma, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Narnaul.

In defence the version put forward by Surinder Singh accused respondent was as under :

"The land of Ram Dayal was transferred in the name of his daughters who sold the same to Mata Din and Raj Singh. Prabhu Dayal''s son Siri Ram has filed a suit for preemption. Near the Gohara of Prabhu Dayal, Mata Din etc. threw manure and they also allow passed through his land while carrying ploughs to their fields. Prabhu Dayal did not allow them to pass from his land and there used to occur a dispute regarding possession every day. On 22.3.1976 he was called in the morning by Raj Singh and when he reached near his house, Mata Din enquired from him as to what was the matter. He told them that he had no dispute regarding land and they should not abuse him. Mata Din and others then wanted to pick up a quarrel so he ran and climbed a platform from where he fell down. There Raj Singh gave a Pharsi blow on his foot while he was hit by Ram Chander and Mata Din with lathis. Attar Singh was armed with a Pharsi and Meena Ram with a Kulhari. They were causing him injuries when Ram Avtar, Atma Ram and Gajraj Singh reached there, who were also caused serious injuries. The occurrence was witnessed by Shiv Narain and Kishan Lal who intervened and separated them. A case regarding this very occurrence was pending against Mata Din and others."

After going through the record and hearing the parties, the learned trial Court found the accused not guilty and acquitted them vide judgment dated January 20, 1982. Aggrieved by this judgment, the Haryana State has come up in appeal.

We have heard Shri JS. Dhillon, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, for the appellant, Shri Hari Mittal, Advocate, with Shri Prabodh Mittal, Advocate for the respondents and have gone through the trial Court records carefully.

The medical evidence on record of this case consisted of the statements of Dr. Raj Kumar PW 1 Radiologist and Dr. K.C. Singal, Senior Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Narnaul, who appeared as PW 7. Dr. Single examined Raj Singh on 22.3.1976 at 11.30 A.M. and found nine injuries on his person. Out of these injuries, injuries Nos. 1 and 3 were caused by sharpedged weapon and the rest were the result of blows by blunt weapon. All the injuries were simple. Menna Ram received eight injuries as per statement of the doctor which were simple in nature but injury No. 3 which he received on his right upper arm was caused with a sharpedged weapon Sajjan Singh PW received three injuries out of which one was grievous. As statement of Raj Kumar PW 1 he had found fracture of right radius. Mata Din PW I suffered four injuries one with a sharpedged weapon and the rest with blunt weapon. Dr. K.C. Singla also examined of the respondents on the same day and he found 11 injuries on the person of Surinder Singh, four injuries on the person of Ram Avtar and nine injuries on the person of Raj Singh. Atma Ram and Gajraj Singh suffered 5 and 6 injuries respectively. In all the respondents party sustained 35 injuries, some of which were the result of sharpedged weapons and according to the doctor the injuries could not be self suffered.

The prosecution examined a number of witnesses in support of its case but they did not explain the injuries on the person of the respondents. If we advert to the statement of Mata Din PW 2 it becomes clear that he did not own any injury having been caused by him to the respondents. He stated that he was holding a piece of wood in his hand which he wielded in selfdefence but did not inflict any blow to the respondents. He was unable to say whether his brother Raj Singh was armed with any weapon. According to him Ganpat and Durjan PWs were also emptyhanded. Raj Singh PW 2 did not state anything in his examinationinchief regarding the injuries found on the persons of the respondents. His crossexamination revealed that he was holding a Danda which he wielded and it hit Ram Avtar and Atma Ram but he denied that Mata Din too was having a piece of wood. He stated that Mata Din was not armed with any weapon. He denied the fact that any one of his party members was armed with a sharpedged weapon. Sajjan Singh PW 4 also did not state anything about the injuries on the person of the respondents. He admitted that he was an accused in the cross case but persisted that he did not cause injuries to Gajraj, Atma Ram, Surinder etc. In his statement before the police he was silent about the injuries on the person of Mata Din and other PWs. PW 5 Durjan who was an eyewitness according to the prosecution did not support its case and stated that he had not witnessed the occurrence nor he made any statement before the police. Similarly Ganpat PW 6 could not say how many injuries were received by the respondents and who caused the same.

It is proved on record that respondents received injuries in the same occurrence and as per statement of Kidar Singh SubInspector, Surinder Singh respondent lodged F.I.R. No. 40 on the same day which was recorded at 8.15 A.M. Admittedly there was a dispute between the parties regarding some land which was purchased by Mata Din and his brother from two ladies. The land had been prempted and there was apprehension on the part of the complainant party about their dispossession. It is on account of the land dispute that the parties were at daggers drawn and some fight took place in which both the parties received injuries, but the occurrence had not taken place in the manner suggested by the prosecution. The omission on the part of the prosecution to explain the injuries on the person of the respondents assumes much greater importance where the defence gives a version which competes in probability with that of the prosecution. Non, explanation of the injuries on the persons of the respondents by the prosecution was an important infirmity in the case of the prosecution which could not be ignored. In the case of Lakshmi Singh and others v. State of Bihar, A.I.R. 1976 Supreme Court 2263 it was observed that when injuries sustained by the accused at about the time of occurrence or in the course of altercation are not explained, the following inferences can be drawn :

(1) That the prosecution has supposed the genesis and the origin of the occurrence and has thus not presented the true version;

(2) that the witnesses who have denied the presence of the injuries on the person of the accused are lying on a most material point and therefore their evidence is unreliable;

(3) that in case there is a defence version which explains the injuries on the person of the accused it is rendered probable so as to throw doubt on the prosecution case.

In the instant case the injuries suffered by the respondents were neither minor nor superficial. The respondents sustained numerous injuries out of which some were caused with sharpedged weapons while the prosecution witnesses denied being armed with any weapon having sharpedges. So this serious infirmity could not be brushed aside and the learned trial Court rightly acquitted the respondents by giving them the benefit of doubt.

As a result we do not find any force in this appeal and consequently the same is dismissed.