State of H.P. vs Madan Lal and Others

Surjit Singh, J.—State has appealed against the judgment dated 3rd January, 1998, of learned Sessions Judge, Una, whereby, Respondents, who were tried for offences, under Sections 148, 452, 506, 326 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, have been acquitted.

Prosecution case may be stated thus. Ram Dass (PW-6) is resident of village Sasan in Una District. He lives in the village along with his sons Ashwani Kumar (PW-1), Nand Kishore (PW-5), wife Jeeto (PW-3), daughters Raj Kumari (PW-4) and Baksho (PW-7). He had constructed a room adjacent to the field of Madan Lal (Respondent No. 1). On 1st July, 1994, PW-6 Ram Dass accompanied by his son Ashwani Kumar, wife, two daughters and other family members went to work as labourers in the field of one Ramesh Chand of a different village. His wife Jeeto (PW-3) returned home, a little before the return of other members of the family. On reaching home, she saw that foundation of their newly constructed room had been dug by the Respondents and the stones of the dug foundation had been taken away. She asked the Respondents, who were present nearby, why damage to her room had been caused. Respondents allegedly started hurling abuses.

After some time, Ram Dass and other members of his family, who had gone to the field of Ramesh Chand, also returned. Respondents appeared there, armed with deadly weapons. Respondents Madan Lal and Balbir Chand, who are real brothers, were armed with axes, Respondent Prakash Chand, also their brother, was armed with a Fouda (spade like implement) and other Respondents, namely Santosh Devi, Usha Devi and Sunita Devi, who are the members of the family of the Respondents, were armed with Dandas and Dratis. Respondent Madan Lal dealt a blow of Kulhari on the head of Vijay Kumar (PW-9), Respondent Balbir Chand dealt a blow of axe on the head of Ashwani Kumar (PW-1), Respondent Madan Lal also dealt blows of axe to Ram Dass (PW-6) and Nand Kishore (PW-5). Respondents Usha Devi and Santosh Kumari, who were armed with scythes, gave blows to Ram Asri, an aunt of PW-1 Ashwani Kumar, Sito Devi (deceased) and Jeeto Devi (PW-3). Baksho Devi (PW-7) was dealt a blow of axe, by Respondent Madan Lal, on her head. Other residents of the village also gathered there. Someone gave a ring to the police people at Police Post Mehatpur.

Police arrived around midnight. Deceased Sito Devi, who was having serious injury on her head, was shifted to the hospital. Other injured were also taken to the hospital for medical aid. Sito Devi was later on shifted to PGI, when her condition deteriorated. There she died on 18th July, 1994. Inquest was conducted by PW-23 ASI Mohar Singh. Postmortem was conducted by PW-19 Dr. N.K. Aggarwal. The cause of death was opined to be shock and haemorrhage, as a result of head injury, which was opined to be sufficient, in the ordinary course of nature, to cause death.

Respondents were charged by the trial Court, as aforesaid. They pleaded not guilty to the charge and were, therefore, put on trial.

Prosecution examined a number of witnesses to bring the charge home to the Respondents. It mainly relied upon the testimony of PW-1 Ashwani Kumar, PW-2 Rakesh Kumar, PW-3 Jeeto Devi, PW-4 Raj Kumari, PW-5 Nand Kishore, PW-6 Ram Dass, PW-7 Baksho Devi, PW-9 Vijay Kumar and PW-10 Prakash Chand, all injured (except PW-2 Rakesh Kumar) and eye-witnesses.

Respondents pleaded that they were sowing Bajra (Millet) crop in their field, on the relevant date when around 7.30 p.m. Ram Dass and other injured and also deceased Sito Devi came to the spot, armed with axes and lathis etc. and assaulted them and that they only retaliated in self-defence. They denied having used more force than was required to thwart the assault. Learned trial Court has believed the defence version and acquitted the Respondents.

We have heard the learned Assistant Advocate General as also the learned Counsel representing the Respondents and gone through the record.

It has come in the evidence that the Respondents had also lodged a report with the police about the same incident and in fact their report was prior in point of time compared to the report lodged by PW-1 Ashwani Kumar. Some of the Respondents were also medically examined and they too had injuries on their persons. Respondents, who were having injures, are Balbir Chand, Madan Lal, Prakash Chand, Santosh Devi and Usha Devi. Respondent Balbir Chand was having five simple injures caused with blunt weapon, Respondent Madan Lal was having three simple injuries caused with blunt weapon, Respondent Prakash Chand was having two simple injuries, one caused with blunt weapon and the other with sharp-edged weapon, Respondent Santosh Kumari was having one simple injury caused with sharp-edged weapon and Respondent Usha Devi was having two simple injuries caused with blunt weapon. The fact is testified by PW-22 Dr. Jagdishwar Kanwar. Ram Dass (PW-6) also admitted in the cross-examination that some of the Respondents were having injuries on their persons, though he did not explain how they sustained those injuries.

Medical evidence, in the form of the testimony of PW-16 Dr. S. Sharma, who conducted the medical examination of PW-1 Ashwani Kumar, and PW-22 Dr. Jagdishwar Kanwar, who conducted the medical examination of rest of the injured witnesses as also the Respondents, shows that all the injured examined as witnesses by the prosecution, except Ram Dass (PW-6), sustained only simple and superficial injuries. PW-6 Ram Dass sustained one grievous injury, on account of fracture of a bone of his back, caused by sharp weapon. Of course, deceased Sito Devi sustained serious injuries, which ultimately proved fatal. These injuries, according to the opinion of PW-19 Dr. N.K. Aggarwal, were sufficient, in the ordinary course of nature, to cause death, but the evidence on record is self-contradictory as to the author of these injuries.

As per the earliest version given to the police by PW-1 Ashwani Kumar, vide statement Ex. PA, injuries to deceased Sito Devi had been caused by Respondents Usha Devi and Santosh Kumari with the scythes they were wielding, but while in the witness-box the witness stated that the injuries had been caused to deceased Sito Devi by Respondent Madan Lal, by means of an axe. Some other witnesses, namely Jeeto Devi (PW-3), Nand Kishore (PW-5), Ram Dass (PW-6), Baksho Devi (PW-7), Vijay Kumar(PW-9) and Prakash Chand (PW-10), no doubt, also stated that the blow on the head of deceased Sito Devi was given by Respondent Madan Lal, with a Kulhara, but their statements are rendered doubtful not only by the fact that in FIR the persons responsible for causing the injuries to deceased Sito Devi are different from Respondent Madan Lal and also the weapon is different, but also by the summary given in the inquest report, which was prepared on 18th July, 1994, in which it is stated that Sito Devi had sustained the injuries, when assaulted by all the Respondents, who are named in the inquest report. By the time Sito Devi died and inquest was conducted, it was supposed to be known to the Police Officer, who conducted the inquest, namely PW-23 ASI Mohar Singh, who is also the Investigating Officer of the case, as to who had caused the fatal injuries to Sito Devi and if it was a fact that injuries were caused by Respondent Madan Lal, he would have named only him as the person responsible for the injuries in the inquest report, instead of naming all the Respondents, as persons responsible for causing those injuries. Thus, it does not stand established, beyond reasonable doubt, that the injuries, which led to the death of Sito Devi, were caused by Respondent Madan Lal, as testified by the prosecution witnesses.

As already noticed, all other injuries, except one on the back of PW-6 Ram Dass, were simple in nature. Respondents also sustained injuries in the incident. They also lodged a report with the police, per which they were attacked when they were sowing millet in their field. Defence version is testified by PW-3 Telu Ram. Injuries on the persons of the Respondents have not been explained by the prosecution. Non-explanation of the injuries also probabilises their plea.

In view of the abovestated position, we see no merit in the present appeal. The same is, therefore, dismissed.