Sumer and Others vs State of Haryana

Harphul Singh Brar, J.—Rajbir, Sumer, Surinder and Narinder Kumar, sons of Sis Ram and Azad Singh son of Parbhu, all residents of Village Mehmoodpur, Police Station Gohana were committed by the S.D.J.M., Gohana for their trial under Sections 148, 302 and 323 read with Section 149, I.P.C. for having formed an unlawful assembly in the area of Village Mehmoodpur in furtherance of their common object of the said unlawful assembly for having caused murder of Ram Mehar son of Maha Singh and also for having intentionally caused grievous and simple hurts to Smt. Sahbo and Hari Kishan, PWs.

After their trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat convicted all the above said accused under Sections 148 and 302/149, I.P.C. for causing death of Ram Mehar in furtherance of their common object for forming unlawful assembly being armed with deadly weapons in the field of Ram Mehar; under Sections 324/149, I.P.C. for causing hurt with sharp-pointed weapon on the person of Smt. Sahbo and Hari Kishan and also under Sections 323/149, I.P.C. for causing simple hurts to Smt. Sahbo and Hari Kishan, PWs, vide judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Soneput dated 11-12-1993. Accordingly, all the five accused were sentenced u/s 148, I.P.C. to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years each and were further sentenced u/s 302 read with Section 149, I.P.C. to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life each and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each. In default of payment of fine, they were further ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years each. All the five accused were further sentenced u/s 324 read with Section 149, I.P.C. to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each and u/s 323 read with Section 149, I.P.C., to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months each vide the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat dated 14-12-1993.

All the convicts have appealed against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 11-12-1993 and 14-12-1993 respectively to this Court.

The State machinery moved into action on the statement of Inder Singh P.W. 6 which was recorded by Nate Singh, S.I./S.H.O. on 21-6-1990 at 9.15 a.m. at Fountain Chowk Gohana on the basis of which formal F.I.R. Ex. PA/1 was registered at Police Station Gohana at 9.30 a.m. Inder Singh stated that he was a resident of Village Mehmoodpur and did cultivation. Maha Singh son of Giani Ram, resident of Village Mehmoodpur is his cousin through brotherhood. Inder Singh further stated that a day before the date of occurrence, the wife of Hari Kishan son of Giani Ram had corne to the house of Maha Singh of their village and Sumer Singh son of Sis Ram son of Hari Singh resident of the village and. Azad Singh son of Prabhu Jat resident of the village had cut an indecent joke at the wife of Hari Kishan. Hari Kishan saw them cutting filthy jokes in the street and had lodged a protest on this account. Hari Kishan and his brother Ram Mehar had reprimanded Azad and Sumer Singh and had scared them away saying, "Do not come here in future. Do not you have women-folk in your houses." On that account, an altercation had ensued among them. Sumer and Azad in a fit of rage, had challenged them saying, "Come out of the house and we will teach you a lesson then." He-had separated them. On 21-6-1990 at about 6.30 a.m., he had gone to answer the call of nature in the field of Maha Singh situated at a distance of 2 1/2 killas from the village. Phool Singh son of Ram Parshad of the village was also present there. Ram Mehar son of Maha Singh and Sunita daughter of Maha Singh were weeding out grass with Kasola from the sugarcane field. Azad son of Parbhu and Sumer Singh each armed with a Pharsa like Gandasa, Rajbir Singh and Surinder sons of Sis Ram armed with Jaili and Narinder armed with lathi were sitting near the fence on the kacha path near the tubewell. On seeing Ram Mehar in the field, Sumer gave a lalkara saying, "Get ready. Today we will teach you a lesson for hurling abuses." On hearing this, Ram Mehar gave up weeding out grass from the sugarcane field, reached the Kotha of his tubewell and asked them that they should mind their own business. Immediately on saying so, Sumer gave a Gandasi blow from its sharp side on the head of Ram Mehar. Azad Singh, Ragbir, Surinder and Narinder all attacked upon Ram Mehar. Azad Singh gave a Gandasi blow to Ram Mehar which hit on his foot and he fell down and raised an alarm of ''Bachao Bachao'' (Save, Save). While Ram Mehar was lying fallen down, the accused caused more injuries on his legs, arms and waist with their respective weapons. He (Inder Singh) and Phool Singh raised noise advising them not to beat him as it would constitute an offence. The accused after injuring Ram Mehar, went away towards the village with their respective weapons after leaving Ram Mehar unconscious. On seeing the occurrence, Sunita rushed towards the village while weeping and Phool Singh stayed there for sometime and found that Ram Mehar had succumbed to injuries at the spot. After some time, Suresh brother of the chowkidar came there. Leaving Suresh at the spot, Phool Singh and he came back to their respective houses. Later on, they came to know that the aforesaid accused persons after committing the crime, had also caused injuries to Smt. Sahbo, mother of the deceased and Hari Kishan brother of the deceased on their way to the fields from the village. They had also gone to the Civil Hospital. Gohana with Bhim Singh. When he was going to lodge a report, Nafe Singh S.I./S. met and he got recorded his statement. It was heard by him and admitted to be correct and action was sought to be taken on the report.

The prosecution case further is that Sunita fan out of fear towards her house and on reaching there informed her mother Smt. Sahbo, Hari Kishan, her brother and her Bhabhi Sunita about this occurrence. On that, Hari Kishan, Smt. Sahbo and Sunita widow of Ram Mehar rushed towards the field being puzzled, empty-handed to take care of Ram Mehar and when they reached near the house of Surja, they noticed all the five accused returning towards the street armed with deadly weapons. Rajbir and Surinder were armed with jailis, Sumer with Gandasa, Azad Singh with Gandasi, Narinder with lathi. All of them challenged Hari Kishan, Smt. Sahbo and Sunita that the enemies had come, they should be taken to task, on which Sumer accused inflicted Gandasa blow from the sharp-edged side on the head of Hari Kishan, Narinder inflicted a lathi blow on the person of Hari Kishan, Surinder inflicted a lathi blow on the left leg of Hari Kishan, Harender inflicted jaili blow on the right foot of Hari Kishan, Rajbir inflicted jaili blow on the left arm of Hari Kishan. Therefore, all the accused had been simultaneously inflicting injuries with their respective weapons. Sunita widow of Ram Mehar had been raising noise, ''Mar-dia, Mar-dia'' and thereafter all the accused left the spot uttering and attributing to Smt. Sahbo that she should take care of her ''Sher'' (tiger) who was lying in the field referring to Ram Mehar (since deceased).

In the meantime, Bhim Singh P.W. appeared at the scene of occurrence who took both the injured to the hospital. Police reached in the village and first of all, went to the place where the deadbody of Ram Mehar was lying. Inquest proceedings were carried out, the deadbody was sent to Civil Hospital, Gohana for post-mortem examination. The police then went to the Civil Hospitala, Gohana where injured Smt. Sahbo a Hari Kishan were admitted, recorded their statements, again returned to the village at the place where second occurrence had taken place in the land of Surja; recorded statements of witnesses; prepared rough site-plan of both the places of occurrence, bloodstained earth was taken from the place where the deadbody of Ram Mehar was lying which was packed, sealed and deposited with MHC. Rajbir, Sumer, Surinder and Narinder Kumar, sons of Sis Ram were arrested on 25-6-1990. They were interrogated separately and they led to the recovery of weapons of offence which were taken into possession. The bloodstained earth and the weapons of offence were sent to the Director, Forensic Science Laboratory for examination. On receipt of the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory, human-blood was detected on the soil which had been taken into possession from the place of occurrence. Azad Singh was not challaned by the police as, after investigation by the police, he was not found to be present at the scene of occurrence. The other four accused were challaned after investigation and were committed for trial as stated above.

Azad Singh was also summoned by the trial Court u/s 319, Cr.P.C. and his statement u/s 313, Cr.P.C. was recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. The learned Additional Sessions Judge found a prim a facie case against all the five accused and they were tried and convicted, as stated above.

The prosecution, in order to prove the charges against the accused, examined Rajbir Constable P.W. 1, who deposed that the copy of F.I.R. Ex. PC was handed over to him by M.H.C. Om Parkash. He delivered one copy of the same to the C.J.M., Rohtak as the Illaqa Magistrate was on vacation. One copy of the F.I.R. was delivered to the D.S.P., Gohana and the third copy thereof was handed over to the S.P., Rohtak by him.

Dr. C. D. Sharma P.W. 2, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Gohana deposed at the trial that on 21-6-1990 at 7.15 a.m., he medico-legally examined Hari Kishan son of Maha Singh. He found 10 injuries on his person. Injuries Nos. 6, 7, 8 and 9 were described by him as simple in nature at the outset, while injuries Nos. 1,2,3,4,5 and 10 were subjected to X-Ray examination. Injury No. 1 was caused by sharp weapon. Injury No. I (b) was caused by blunt penetrating weapon. Injury No. 8(c) was caused by blunt penetrating weapon according to the doctor. The copy of M.L.R. Ex. PD/1 which bore his signatures, was also submitted in the evidence along with document Ex. PD/1. After X-Ray, injuries Nos. 1,2, 3 and 10 on the person of Hari Kishan were declared as grievous. Fracture was found on his head, second and third metacarpals of left hand; fracture of lower end of left ulna and fracture of head of proximal phalanx of second left toe were seen in injuries Nos. 2. 3 and 1. On the same day, he had examined Smt. Sahbo wife of Hari Kishan and found 8 injuries on her person. Injuries Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 were declared simple. Injuries Nos. 2 and 8 were subjected to X-Ray. Injury No. 1 was caused by sharp weapon while injuries Nos. 2 to 8 were caused by blunt weapon. Ex. PE is the corbon copy of the medico-legal report of Suit. Sahbo and Ex. PE/I is the pictorial diagram showing the seats of injuries. On X-Ray examination of Smt. Sahbo, he found fracture of her radiol epicondile of left humerus, and fracture of shaft of third meta carpal. Injuries Nos. 3 and 8 were declared grievous as per his report Ex. PE/5.

Dr. B. K. Gupta, P.W. 3, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Gohana deposed that on 21-6-1990, on receipt of police request Ex. PF and inquest proceedings Ex. PF/1, he along with Dr. O. P. Gujaria had conducted post-mortem examination on the deadbody of Ram Mehar son of Maha Singh identified by Hawa Singh son of Maman and Suresh son of Teku of village Mehrnoodpur. The postmortem report is Ex. PF/2 and the detailed pictorial diagram is Ex. PF/3. On the examination of the deadbody of Rarn Mehar, 26 injuries were found on his body. In their opinion, the cause of death was due to injury No. 1, which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. There was haernorrhagic shock due to multiple injuries and fractures. All the injuries were ante-mortem in nature.

P.W. 4 Mohinder Singh, Draftsman deposed that under the directions of police, he inspected the spot on the pointing out of Smt. Sunita wife of Ram Mehar and he prepared the site plan Ex. PG with correct marginal notes on 10-7-1990 thereof.

P.W. 5 Hari Ram, Patwari Halqa Mehrnoodpur deposed that on police request, he inspected the field of Maha Singh on the pointing out of Smt. Sunita daughter of Maha Singh and Smt. Sahbo wife of Maha Singh and with the help of Akshajra, prepared scaled site plan Ex. PH correctly.

P.W. 6 Inder Singh eye-witness of the occurrence, supported the occurrence which had taken place on 19-6-1990 at the house of Ram Mehar deceased where accused Sumer and Azad had cut filthy jokes with Smt. Mukesh wife of Hari Kishan. He also supported the second occurrence which took place on 21-6-1990 in the field of Maha Singh where all the five accused opened assault with their respective weapons and caused the death of Ram Mehar. He along with Siri Chand Chowkidar went to the police station and then to Phawara Chowk and lodged the report. In his cross-examination, he denied his enmity with the accused. He also denied his near relationship with the complainant party. He further denied that there, was any litigation between him and the accused party. In cross-examination, he deposed that once he was convicted u/s 411, I.P.C. but later on he was acquitted honourably and the recovered articles were returned to him under the orders of the Court.

P.W. 7 Sunita daughter of Maha Singh is also an eye-witness of the two occurrence like Inder Singh. She corroborated the testimony of Inder Singh without any material discrepancies. She further deposed that when patwari came, she, along with her mother accompanied him to the field where Ram Mehar was attacked and was murdered. At her pointing out, the Patwari prepared the scaled map of the field of the occurrence.

P.W. 8 Mukesh wife of Hari Kishan injured also supported the occurrence saying that on 19-6-1990 at about 3.00 p.m., she along with Sunita daughter of Maha Singh, her nanad i.e. her husband''s sister, was sitting in the Court yard. Sumer and Azad Singh accused had cut filthy jokes on her. Her husband and his brother protested and there was exchange of hot words between Sumer and Azad Singh on the one side and Hari Kishan and Ram Mehar on the other side. On the intervention of Inder Singh P.W., the accused went from the spot giving threat to teach a lesson.

P.W. 9 Smt. Sahbo injured also supported the first occurrence which had taken place at their house on 19-6-1990. She deposed that Ram Mehar her son and her daughter Sunita had gone to the field on 21 -6-1990 at about 6.00 a.m. where accused attacked on Ram Mehar. Sunita came to the house weeping and crying and narrated the whole story to them. Thereafter she and her son Hari Kishan followed by Smt. Sunita widow of Ram Mehar, went towards the fields to take care of Ram Mehar but they were stopped by all the five accused in the lane near the house of Surja challenging that the enemies had come and they should be taken to task. Ail the five accused opened assault simultaneously on Hari Kishan and Smt. Sahbo and caused grievous and simple injuries on their person. In her cross-examination, she denied the suggestion that after marriage, one day, her father-in-law had made an attempt to commit rape upon her person against her wishes and on that account, she and her husband caused his murder. But she admitted that they were tried for that offence and the trial ended in acquittal.

P.W. 10 Smt. Sunita widow of Ram Mehar also supported the second occurrence which had taken place in the lane near the house of Surja where accused caused injuries to Hari Kishan and Smt. Sahbo.

Affidavits Ex. PI and Ex. PJ/1 of Head Constable Om Parkash and Head Constable Mohinder Singh were tendered into evidence who were not cross-examined by the accused in spite of the opportunity given to them. Dr. O. P. Gujaria, S.R.O. Mohinder Singh and S. I. Ashok Kumar were given up as unnecessary. Similarly, PWs Phool Singh Siri Chand. Hawa Singh and Suresh were also given up as unnecessary.

P.W. 11 Mohinder Singh deposed that about 3 years and three months ago, Ram Mehar''s deadbody was lying in the field. He went there. Police came there and took into possession the bloodstained earth from three places in three parcels which were sealed and the memo Ex. PL was prepared while one pair of chappal was also taken into possession vide memo Ex. PI/1.

Maha Singh P.W. was given up as unnecessary and Daya Chand was given up as won over. P.W. Tek Chand A.S.I, was also given up as unnecessary.

P.W. 12 Kanwar Singh Constable tendered his affidavit Ex. PM deposing that the same be read as a part of his statement. Opportunity to cross-examine him was given but it was not availed, by the accused.

P.W. 13 Bhim Singh Head Constable deposed that on 25-6-1990, Surner accused was interrogated by Inspector Nafe Singh who disclosed that he had kept concealed one gandasa underneath sarkandas lying in his gher. Disclosure statement Ex. PN was recorded. In accordance with the disclosure statement, recovery was effected. He disclosed that he had kept concealed one jaili in broken condition on the roof of his house. His statement Fix. PO was recorded. Then recovery of weapon was made in accordance with his disclosure statement. Nariader accused was also interrogated by S.I. Nafe Singh who disclosed that he had kept conceal a lathi in his room and could get it recovered. His statement Ex. PO was recorded and the weapon of offence was recovered. Rajbir Singh made a statement that he had kept concealed jaili underneath the cow-dung-cakes and could lead to its recovery. His statement Ex. PR was recorded and the jaili was recovered in pursuance of his disclosure statement.

P.W. 14 Nafe Singh Inspector deposed that on 21-6-1990, he was posted as S.I./S.H.C., Police Station, Gohana. On that day he was present al the Fountain Chowk, Gohana. Inder Singh P.W. went to him, made statement Ex. PK. He made endorsement on the same and sent the same to the police station on the basis of which forma! F.I.R. Ex. PK/1 was recorded by M.H.C. Om Parkash. He then went to the spot, i.e. is the field of Maha Singh where the deadbody of Ram Mehar son of Maha Singh was lying near the kotha of tubewell which was being guarded by Suresh son of Maman Chowkidar. A pair of chappal was lying there which is Ex. P5/1-2 and it was taken into possession. He prepared the inquest report Ex. PF/1, took into possession the bloodstained earth and recorded the statements of Suresh, Mohinder Singh, A.S.I. Tek Chand and Phool Singh. The deadbody was despatched for post-mortem examination along with the application Ex. PF. He then prepared the rough site plan of the place of occurrence Ex. PU/1, took bloodstained earth vide memo Ex. PU, recorded statements of Sunita, Mohinder Singh and produced clothes of the deceased which he had collected from the doctor after post-mortem examination which were taken into possession vide memo Ex. PU/2. He then went to Civil hospital, Gohar where he found Had Kishan and Smt. Sahbo admitted. He moved a separate application, obtained opinions of the doctor. They were found fit to make their statements and then he recorded their statements and obtained copies of MIRS and copies of X-ray reports. Thereafter on 25-6 1990, he arrested four accused except Azad Singh and interrogated them, recorded their disclosure statement as narrated above in pursuance of that, he effected recovery of weapons. Then he obtained opinion from the doctor about the fatal injury on the person of Ram Mehar and also moved an application to know about the nature of injuries on the person of Smt. Sahbo and Hari Kishan. After completion of investigation, the accused were challaned, as stated above.

When examined u/s 313, Cr.P.C., all the accused pleaded innocence and it was stated by them that in fact, Smt. Sunita wife of Ram Mehar had been sent by Ram Mehar deceased to her parental home. Ram Mehar had an evil eye on Smt. Mukesh P.W. He made an attempt to commit rape on the person of Smt. Mukesh on the night intervening 20/21-6-1990. Mukesh resisted, rebuffed him. Ram Mehar left the house in an agitated mood. He went to his field, slept at his tubewell. Hari Kishan and Smt. Sahbo followed him, armed with deadly weapons, i.e. gandas jailis and lathis, attacked on Ram Mehar, caused him multiple injuries and ultimately Ram Mehar succumbed to his injuries. Ram Mehar also inflicted injuries in his defence upon Hari Kishan and Smt. Sahbo. Then Smt. Sahbo and Hari Kishan went to Inder Singh to seek his help to save them from the crime. Inder Singh who was inimical to the accused, concocted a false story, went to the police station, met Nafe Singh Inspector and got all the accused falsely implicated in this case because Inder Singh was inimical towards them. One Ghogri proprietor of Village Mehmoodpur had died issueless. She left 18''/2 acres of land which vested in Government. Sis Ram had moved an application for correction of khasru girdawaris. Inder Singh had also moved an application for the correction of girdawri. Similarly, 5/6 other persons had also moved for correction of khasra girdawri entries that the land in question was being cultivated by them. Inder Singh wanted that all the accused should go to jail so that he could succeed in cultivation of the whole of the land of Ghogri himself.

The accused, in their defence, examined D.W. 1 Limed Singh, Reader to Naib Tehsildar, Gohana, who deposed that he had brought the record pertaining to applications of Sis Ram v. Med Singh and Inder Singh v. State of Haryana, residents of Village Mehmoodpur relating to correction of khasra girdawari entries which were pending in the Court of Naib Tehsildar, Gohana.

D.W. 2 Jagpal Singh deposed that he got drafted an application for correction of khasra girdawri entries titled Inder Singh v. State, which was presented by him on 17-8-1992. Inder Singh had claimed that he was in cultivating possession of the land of Smt. Ghogri. He further deposed that five more such applications were moved by different persons. He further deposed that on the basis of civil court decree, land of Smt. Ghogri had gone to Nimbo alias Maro and Sarti in equal shares.

D.W. 3 Vinod Kumar Aggarwal, Advocate deposed that he moved an application for correction of khasi girdawri entries titled Sis Ram against Med Singh and State of Haryana.

D.W. 4 Om Parkash, Clerk, District Jail, Rohtak deposed that he brought Mulakat Register. At Sr. Nos. 47 and 48, Karan Singh and Inder Singh were shown to have gone to meet the accused in jail. In cross-examination, he deposed that he cannot say as to whether Karan Singh and Inder Singh actually met the accused or not, because entries were not in his own hand. He further deposed that against Sr. No. 48, ten persons moved an application to have meetings with Rajbir but seals had been affixed against the names of 9 persons. The evidence was closed by tendering Ex. PG, copy of judgment in which Maha Singh and Smt. Sahbo parents of deceased Ram Mehar were acquitted by the Sessions Judge, Rohtak and Ex. DH, copy of order dated 31 -1-1992 which reads that security proceedings had taken place against Sis Ram etc. and they were discharged in the absence of evidence.

Mr. R. S. Cheema, learned senior counsel for the appellant Azad Singh contends the P.W. 6 Inder Singh an alleged eye-witness of the occurrence of murder of Ram Mehar and of the initial occurrence indicating motive on the part of the accused to kill Ram Mehar when Sumer and Azad Singh are alleged to have cut indecent jokes to Smt. Mukesh P.W. 8 wife of Hari Kishan is a chance witness. He further submits that Inder Singh P.W. 6 had inimical relations with Sis Ram, father of the accused Rajbir, Sumer, Surinder and Narinder Kumar. The learned counsel then contended that the presence of Smt. Sunita P.W. 7 daughter of Maha Singh at the time of alleged occurrence where the deceased is alleged to have been done to death, is also doubtful. He further contended that in any case. presence of Azad Singh convict-appellant at the time of second occurrence on 21-6-1990 when the deceased Ram Mehar is alleged to have been murdered, is doubtful. In order to substantiate his contention, he has referred to the statement of Inder Singh l> W. 6 who, at the time of cross-examination at the trial, slated that his house was situated at a far away place from the house of Maha Singh and his baithak was away from the house of Maha Singh and his baithak was away from the house of Maha Singh and he generally sat in his baithak in his spare time. As to why he considered the presence of Inder Singh doubtful at the time of the second occurrence on 21-6-1990 where Ram Mehar is alleged to have been killed by all the five accused, the learned counsel has referred to the statement of Inder Singh before the trial when answering to a question put by the defence counsel at the time of his cross-examination which read; as under:-

There is a Kahlewala Talab in my village. It is near my baithak. It is the biggest pond of the village. I generally go to ease myself towards this pond.

In order to substantiate his second contention that there was enmity between Inder Singh P.W. 6 and the four accused Rajbir, Sumer, Surinder and Narinder Kumar, sons of Sis Ram, he has referred to a dispute of land once belonging to Smt. Ghogri widow of Juglal who died in the year 1988 and her estate was escheated to the State. Sis Ram father of the convict-appellants had made an application Ex. DF on 5-12-1989 before the Assistant Collector First Grade, Gonana praying therein that girdawari of the agricultural land involved which earlier belonged to Smt. Ghogri, be entered in his name. Inder Singh P.W. 6 also submitted an application Ex. DE before the Assistant C< ''lector First Grade, Gohana to correct the khasra girdawari of the land in his name.

In order to substantiate his argument that presence of Smt. Sunita P.W. 7 daughter of Maha Singh was doubtful at the time of infliction of injuries to the deceased Ram Mehar, he has brought to our notice the statement of Smt. Sunita at the trial when she replied to a question put to her by the defence counsel saying that she used to visit the fields once or twice a year. Her non-intervention at the time when accused were inflicting injuries to her brother also indicates her absence at the time of occurrence according to the learned counsel.

In order to substantiate his contention that . Azad Singh convict-appellant has been falsely implicated, the learned counsel has brought to our notice the statement of P.W. 7 Smt. Sunita, sister of deceased Ram Mehar, P.W. 9 Smt. Sahbo and P.W. 10 Smt. Sunita widow of Ram Mehar. According to him, it is for the first time at the trial that Azad Singh. There was no reference of Azad Singh accused in their statements before the police. Then, according to the learned counsel, after investigation, the police found Azad Singh as innocent and did nor challan him and it was only later on that the learned Additional Sessions Judge summoned him u/s 319, Cr. P.C.

Mr. P. S. Mann, learned counsel for the other convict-appellants has adopted the arguments of Mr. Cheema, wherein he has attacked the prosecution story in general and which concerned the convict-appellants whom he represents. He has further attacked the prosecution story by submitting that the time of death of deceased Ram Mehar given by the prosecution at 6.30 a.m. on 21-6-1990 is doubtful, due to the reason that rigor-mortis was present at the time of conduct of the post-mortem which admittedly was conducted by the doctor at 3.30 p.m. on the same day. According to Mr. Mann, rigor-mortis sets in after about 12 hours of the death of a person. If it was so, according to the learned counsel, then the death of Ram Mehar may have occurred sometime at mid-night and not at about 6.30 a.m. as alleged by the prosecution. He then submits that the presence of deadbody of Ram Mehar at the tubewell kotha is also doubtful. If Ram Mehar was weeding out grass at his sugarcane field then in that case, the accused would not allow him to run towards his kotha which is at a considerable distance from the sugarcane field. Ultimately, the learned counsel prayed for allowance of the appeal and acquittal of the convict-appellants.

The learned State counsel, on the other hand, submits that the presence of eye-witnesses at the time of occurrence at the three places is natural; F.I.R. has been promptly lodged and the medical evidence corroborates the ocular testimony of the eye-witnesses. According to him, there is no flaw in the prosecution case and the appeal is thus liable to be dismissed.

We have heard learned counsel for both the parties at length and have gone through the record with their help.

First of all, it has to be seen as to whether there was any motive for the accused to kill the deceased. It has come in the evidence of Smt. Mukesh wife of Hari Kishan P.W. 8 that on 19-6-1990 at about 3 p.m., she was sitting in the Court yard of her husband''s house when accused Azad Singh and Sumer came there and uttered objectionable remarks to her saying that she was beautiful and worthwhile. Her husband Hari Kishan and his brother Ram Mehar appeared in the Court yard on hearing the remarks of the accused and lodged a strong protest with the accused for making such remarks. On that, there was exchange of hot words between the accused Sumer and A/ad Singh and her husband Hari Kishan and Ram Mehar. In the meantime, Inder Singh P.W. 6 appeared there and he separated them. She further stated that the accused while leaving the spot, threatened to teach them a lesson. Her statement is corroborated by P.W. 6 Inder Singh, P.W. 7 Smt. Sunita, sister of the deceased and P.W. 9 Smt. Sahbo wife of Maha Singh and mother of the deceased who were present at the given time.

Inder Singh P.W. 6 corroborated the prosecution story regarding the motive of the accused to murder Ram Mehar by saying at the trial that Sumer and Azad Singh came in the street outside their house, had cut filthy jokes with the wife of Hari Kishan. Hari Kishan over-heard the filthy jokes cut by the accused to Smt. Mukesh. Ram Mehar deceased and Hari Kishan had snubbed Azad Singh and Sumer for cutting filthy jokes to Smt. Mukesh wife of Hari Kishan Inder Singh P.W. 6 stated that he, had intervened and separated them. He then stated that Sumer and Azad Singh had challenged Hari Kishan and Ram Mehar by uttering that he should come out in (he street and they shall be taught reason for snubbing them. The motive on the part of the accused to take revenge from Hari Kishan and Ram Mehar is further strenghened on the basis of the fact that some property of Maha Singh had been sold and mortgaged to Sis Ram father of the accused. It has come in the evidence of Smt. Sahbo wife of Maha Singh when replying to a question put to her by the defence counsel in the cross-examination that two acres of land was mortgaged with the accrued, one gher and two plots were pledged with the father of the accused but they were taken back while making payment of principal amount and interest and out-house situated in the gher was sold to the accused before this occurrence. The sale and mortgage of the property to the accused or their father by the father of the deceased could be one of the reasons to encourage Ram Mehar along with-his colleague Azad Singh to cut jokes to the newly wedded wife of Hari Kishan, real brother of deceased Ram Mehar being wealthy person of the village. It was perhaps not possible for them to swallow the insulting behaviour of Sumer and Azad Singh meted out to them two days earlier, particularly when they were insulted before Smt. Mukesh, newly wedded wife of Hari Kishan and Sunita, young sister of the deceased Ram Mehar.

From the evidence of the witnesses referred to above, it stands proved on the record that the accused had the motive to kill Rarn Mehar in order to take revenge for the insult suffered by them from the family of Rarn Mehar earlier. Presence of Inder Singh P.W. 6 at the time of cutting of jokes by Azad Singh and Sumer with the wife of Hari Kishan brother of Ram Mehar !� not, in any way, unnatural. He belongs to the same village. People in the village normally visit on an occasion when a newly wedded wife comes to her husband''s place after spending a few days at the residence of her parents. Moreover, he had no enmity with Azad Singh accused and there is no evidence on the record to show that any strained relationship of Inder Singh with the other accused also. The contention of the learned counsel that Inder Singh''s relations with Sis Ram father of the accused were strained, is without any substance.

The learned counsel wants us to draw the inference of strained relationship between Inder Singh and the four accused who are sons of Sis Ram on the basis of an application Ex. DE filed by Inder Singh before the Assistant Collector on 17-8-1992, claiming some part of the land of Smt. Ghogri, who died in the year 1988. It is clear that this application was filed by Inder Singh P.W. 6 on 17-8-1992, i.e. much after the occurrence which took place in the. month of June, 1990. Moreover, Inder Singh had filed this application against the State and not against Sis Ram or any private person and Sis Ram had filed his application, as stated above, against one Med Ram and not Inder Singh; and then it was not only Inder Singh, but several other persons had also applied to the Assistant Collector claiming land of the deceased Smt. Ghogri which, as stated above, was escheate to the State. It has come in the evidence of P.W. 6 Inder Singh when cross-examined that apart from him many persons of the village had moved such applications before the Assistant Collector. He has specifically denied the suggestion of the defence counsel when cross-examined that he himself or his brother used to cultivate or wanted to cultivate the land of the above said Smt. Ghogri widow of Juglal. There is, thus, not an iota of evidence on the file which could prove inimical relationship of P.W. 6 Inder Singh with the accused. Inder Singh P.W. 6 is an independent witness and he has got no axe to grind against any of the accused persons. Presence of P.W. 6 Inder Singh at the time of occurrence near the fields and the Kotha of Sis Ram father of the deceased also seems to be natural. His land admittedly adjoins the land of Sis Ram, father of the accused. He has stated in his cross-examination in the Court that he had irrigated his half acre of land and had gone, on that day on his land to check up as to whether it was fit for ploughing or not. His presence near the place of occurrence, in these circumstances, is quite natural.

The next contention of the learned counsel that the presence of PW 7 Sunita in the fields where her brother was alleged to have been given injuries by the accused is doubtful, is also without any force. She has stated on oath before the trial Court that she along with her brother Ram Mehar had gone to their fields for weeding out grass from the sugarcane crop in the morning of 21-6-1990. At about 6.30 p.m., Sumer accused appeared near the Kotha of their tubewell and challenged her brother Ram Mehar uttering that he shall teach him a lesson for having snubbed them. She has categorically stated that all the five accused gave injuries to her brother with their respective weapons. Merely by her stating in the cross-examination that she used to visit her fields on the given date as doubtful. It can even be judicially noticeable that the women in the villages belonging to ordinary agricultural families in Haryana work hand in hand with men in their fields. It was, nothing unusual for PW 7 Sunita to go out with her brother to work in the fields.

The other contention of the learned counsel that her non-intervention to rescue her brother makes her presence doubtful, is without any force. She has properly explained her non-intervention by deposing at that when the accused opened assault, she was frightened of the accused. She had raised raula Bachao Bachao hut when her brother had fallen on the ground after receiving injuries, she left the place crying and weeping and rushed to her house and informed her mother, brother and her Bhabi about the incident. The conduct of Sunita PW 7 thus, was natural and normal.

Now comes the question of presence of Azad Singh accused at the time of cutting of jokes by Sumer and Azad Singh two days earlier and his presence along with other accused when deceased Ram Mehar was given injuries before his death. The presence of Azad Singh at both the places was disclosed at the first instance when Inder Singh P.W. 6 lodged the First Information Report and later on when he referred to his participation in the crime at the trial. His statement about the presence and involvement of Azad Singh in the crime is consistent throughout i.e. at the time of lodging of the First Information Report; in his statement before the police and then his statement on oath before the trial Court. There is no enmity of Inder Singh with Azad Singh accused. It has not even been alleged by anyone that Inder Singh P.W. 6 had inimical relations with Azad Singh. So far as the non-mentioning of Azad Singh''s name in their statements u/s 161, Cr.P.C. recorded by the police about his participation in the crime by P.W. 7, P.W. 8 and P.W. 10 is concerned, the reason seems to be obvious. Azad Singh was not challenged by the police. It was only at a later stage that he was summoned by the trial Court u/s 313, Cr.P.C. It is pertinent to note here that P.W. 7, P.W. 8 and P.W. 10 have categorically stated at the trial that Azad Singh was involved in the crime. P.W. 7, P.W. 8 and P.W. 9 have deposed at the trial that Azad Singh was present at the time of the first occurrence when he along with Sumer had cut jokes with Smt. Mukesh, wife of brother of the deceased. P.W. 7 has deposed at the trial that he had participated in the crime along with the other accused at the time of the second occurrence when all of them had inflicted injuries to the deceased. P.W. 9 and P.W. 10 have deposed at the trial that Azad Singh along with other accused inflicted injuries to Hari Kishan brother of the deceased as well as to Smt. Sahbo, mother of the deceased. Smt. Sahbo P.W. 9 is herself the injured witness. The case of Azad Singh, thus, cannot be distinguished from the other accused so far as his participation in the crime is concerned. His participation in the crime thus, stands established from the oral testimony of the eye-witnesses.

The argument of the learned Senior Counsel Mr. Mann that death did not occur at 6.30 a.m. on 21-6-1990, but sometime at mid-night of 20/21 -6-1990, as rigor mortis was found on the body of the deceased is also without any force. In estimating the time of death from the presence or absence of rigor mortis, is of slight use. In the warm climate of India, rigor mortis may commence in an hour or two. Even these assumptions arc only guidelines and are not a sure test to fix the time of death. In the case in hand, death had occurred on 21-6-1990. June is one of the hottest months of the year where mercury shoots even up to 44 to 48�C. Even otherwise, the presence of rigor mortis at 3.30 p.m. on 21-6-1990 cannot change the time of death; particularly, in view of the sworn testimony of the eye-witnesses namely Inder Singh P.W. 6 and Smt. Sunita P.W. 7.

Similarly, the contention of the learned counsel that the presence of dead-body of Ram Mehar at his tubewell Kotha is doubtful, is also without any force. It has come in the evidence of eye-witness Inder Singh P. W. 6 and Smt. Sunita P. W. 7 that on 21-6-1990, at about 6.30 a. m., Ram Mehar and Sunita were working in the field of sugarcane. Sumer challenged Ram Mehar while standing on the kucha passage for having abused them with intention to teach a lesson on which Rain Mehar, after leaving the work in the sugarcane field, reached near the Kotha of tubewell and only thereafter, all the accused had inflicted injuries on the deceased Ram Mehar. It does not show any unusual conduct on the part of the deceased. Mark ''D'' shown in the site plan Ex. PH indicates the place where Ram Mehar (since deceased) was stated to have been weeding out grass from the sugarcane field prior to the occurrence; Mark ''E'' indicates the Kotha of the tubewell situated at a distance of 4 Kararns. As is disclosed from the rough site-plan Ex. PH, tubewell Kotha of the deceased is quite near to the sugarcane field.

Moreover, Inder Singh P. W. 6, an eyewitness of the occurrence has deposed at the trial that he saw accused inflicting injuries to the deceased at the place shown in the site plan. Blood-stained earth was also removed from that place which further fixes the situs of the occurrence. Prompt lodging of the First Information Report also goes a long way to corroborate the prosecution story. The occurrence took place on 21-6-1990 at 6. 30 a. in. F. I. R. was lodged in the Police Station at 9.15 a.m. and the Special Report reached the Chief Judicial Magistrate at 3.15 p.m. at Rohtak as it could not be delivered to the Illaqa Magistrate at Gohana because he was on leave.

As stated above, the motive has been proved by the evidence of P. W. 7, P. W. 8 and P. W. 9. Smt. Sahbo P. W. 9 also supported the occurrence which took place in the lane outside the house of Surja where Sahbo and Hari Kishan were injured by all the accused. She has deposed at the trial that all the accused opened assault firstly on Hari Kishan and inflicted injuries on him; when Hari Kishan fell down, she also fell upon him to save his life. Then she also suffered injuries at the hands of the accused. Her sworn testimony al the trial further finds corroboration from the statement of P. W. 10 Sunita widow of Ram Mehar who had been following Hari Kishan and Smt. Sahbo when they were informed by Sunita P. W. 7 (who is also an eye witness) that accused had opened assault on Ram Mehar in their Sumer v. State of Haryana fields and had caused him grievous injuries. The ocular version given by these eye-witnesses is fully corroborated from the medical evidence. Dr. C. D. Sharma who appeared as P. W. 2 had deposed that he examined Hari Kishan and found as many as 9 injuries on his persons. He also examined Smt. Sahbo and found 8 injuries on her person. Dr. B.K. Gupta P. W. 3, deposed that he had conducted the postmortem examination on the dead-body of Ram Mehar and found as many as 26 injuries on his person. All the three, i. e. deceased Ram Mehar and the other two injured persons Hari Kishan and Smt. Sahbo have grievous as well as simple injuries on their person. From the nature of injuries, it is evident that they were caused by sharp-edged weapons like Gandasis, blunt weapon like lathi and with jailis.

The defence version set by the accused is that Ram Mehar deceased had made an attempt to commit rape on the person of Smt. Mukesh, wife of his brother Hari Kishan on the night intervening 20/21 -6-1990 and when Smt. Mukesh resisted, Ram Mehar left the house and had gone to his tubewell Kotha and slept there. Hari Kishan and Smt. Sahbo followed him armed with deadly weapons, attacked on Ram Mehar and gave him multiple injuries whereupon Ram Mehar succumbed to his injuries and that Ram Mehar also inflicted injuries his defence to Hari Kishan and Smt. Sahbo, is most unrealistic and unbelieveable. Hari Kishan was not in a position to cause 26 injuries on the person of Ram Mehar, nor Ram Mehar deceased alone was in a position to cause so many injuries to Smt. Sahbo and Hari Kishan Smt. Sahbo and Hari Kishan have got incised wounds, punctured wounds and blunt-weapon injuries on their body. It cannot be believed that deceased Ram Mehar could simultaneously attack with all the three types of weapons and inflict 3 types of injuries with 3 types of weapons on the person of Hari Kishan and Sahbo. The defence plea is falsified by the presence of multiple injuries of different nature caused by different types of weapon on the person of Smt. Sahbo and Hari Kishan.

It is then pointed out that S. I. Nafe Singh had described Smt. Sunita as daughter of Mehar Singh while preparing the rough site plan of the occurrence outside the house of Surja. Much capital cannot be made out by the accused from this description; as it was clarified by S. I. Nafe Singh in his statement before the Court that he had written the name of Sunita wife of Mehar Singh by (sic) because there were two Sunitas in the house of Maha (sic) and he prepared the map with the assistance of Sunita, widow of Ram Mehar.

Ocular evidence furnished by the eyewitnesses finds complete corroboration from the medical evidence. Dr. C. D. Sharma P. W. 2 deposed at the trial that he examined Hari Kishan and found 9 injuries on his person. He also examined Smt. Sahbo and found 8 injuries on her person. Dr. B. K. Gupta P. W. 3 deposed at the trial that he had conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of Ram Mehar and found as many as 26 injuries on his person. All the three had grievous as well as simple injuries on their person as detailed above. From the nature of-the injuries which included fractures, punctured wounds, incised wounds, contusions, abrasions, lacerated wounds, it is evident that they were caused by sharp-edged weapons like gandasis, blunt weapons like lathis and jailis. The weapons of offence which included gandasis, lathis and jailis, have also been recovered from all the accused except Azad Singh obviously, because he was not challened by the police at the first instance and it was only later on that he was summoned by the trial Court u/s 319 Cr.P.C. The recoveries of weapons have been proved by Bhim Singh P.W. 13 and Nate Singh P. W. 14. They have deposed in the Court that in pursuance of their disclosure statements, the accused got the recoveries effected. The defence is unable to cause any dent in the evidence which led to the recoveries of respective weapons.

In view of our discussion made above, we are unable to find any fault with the prosecution case. Consequently, the judgment and order dated 11-12-1993 and 14-12-1993 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat are upheld and both the appeals, i. e. Cr. Appeal No. 53-DB of 1994 and Cr. Appeal No. 139-DB of 1994 which have been filed against the judgment and order are thereby dismissed.