Satveersingh Vs State of Rajasthan

Mr. G.R. Moolchandani, J.—The Appeal No. 291/1992 has been filed by the appellants being aggrieved of the judgment dated 29.7.1992 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Churu in Sessions Case No. 99/1992 (57/1991) whereby the accused-appellants were convicted for the offence under Sections 325 and 323 I.P.C. as under:-

and acquitted them under Section 307 of I.P.C

2. The State has also filed Criminal Appeal No. 414/1992 against the same judgment dated 29.7.1992 agitating acquittal under Section 307 I.P.C. and further submitting to convict the accused-appellants under Section 307 I.P.C. as well.

Both these appeals have been taken up together and Appeal No. 291/1992 has been ordered to be tagged with Appeal No. 414/1992 vide order dated 23.8.1992 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 414/1992.

3. Briefly the facts of the case are that complainant Heera Singh orally recorded his Pracha Bayan in the Government Hospital Rajgarh stating that he was be seized by Satveer, Omla @ Om Prakash, Ram Chandra and Lal Chand on way while returning to home on 26.9.1990 at about 7:30 PM from Neema Bus Stand to his home. Satveer attacked on head with Barchhi, Ram Chandra with Kulhari, blood started oozing out, he felt down. Om Prakash and Lal Chand beaten him with sticks. On raising alarm, his brother Lal Chand came, the accused caused injuries to him as well. There was a rivalry between them since the complainant is a witness against the accused persons in an event of beating to Patwari and owing to that, the accused attacked and beaten the complainant with intention to eliminate.

On the basis of this, an F.I.R. No. 141/1990 under Sections 307, 325, 341 and 323/34 I.P.C. was lodged against all the four accused persons and investigation was commenced. During the course of investigation, recovery of the weapons namely Barchhi, Kulhari and lathies were made at the instance of accused persons and blood stained soil, apparels and the weapons were sent to FSL. The FSL report was obtained and vide Exhibit 42 of FSL report, the samples of blood smeared soil, wearings of injured i.e. Kamij, Pajama, Jacket and the weapons Kulhari were found tainted with human blood. The case was committed to the Court of District and Sessions Judge, Churu, who further transferred the same to Additional District and Sessions Judge, Churu.

The appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses in support of its case. The appellants in their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied allegations of the prosecution and examined one witness in defence.

4. Relying upon the evidence of the prosecution principally the evidence of victims which was supported by medical evidence and appreciating the same, the learned lower Court while acquitting the accused persons under Section 307 of I.P.C. convicted them under Sections 325 and 323 of I.P.C. and sentenced them as aforesaid. Hence, the appellants-accused-persons have filed Appeal No. 291/1992 whereas the State has also filed Appeal No. 414/1992 as above both the appeals have been tagged so are being decided by a singular order.

5. During the course of pendency of appeal one of the accused "Satveer Singh" died and after getting the fact of demise verified, case was abated against the deceased accused Satveer Singh and arguments were heard on behalf of rest of three accused persons namely Ram Chandra, Lal Chand and Om Prakash.

Learned Counsel for the appellants-accused persons has submitted that Barchhi and Kulhari are sharp edged weapons but no such injury of sharp weapons was found on the body of injured persons and medical evidence is also of the view that blunt injury have been found, which falsifies the entire case of the prosecution. There are contradictions in the evidence of the injured persons. The prosecution has not produced any independent witness. All the witnesses are related, referring the evidence of PW-7 Munshi, learned Counsel has further argued that this witness has also stated as to from whom the Barchhi or Kulhari was taken not known this makes the recovery suspicious. Hari Ram (PW-8) has also stated that he had seen the recovered weapons in the hands of police and there is contradiction in the sequence of recovery in testimony of several recovery witnesses. I.O. did not conduct the investigation properly and it was rather tainted. There is material inconsistency in the evidence of different witnesses, prosecution evidence is feeble despite learned lower Court has wrongly convicted the appellants.

6. Learned Counsel for the accused-appellants has relied upon the following judgments:-

(i) Tara Devi (Smt.) (LR of late Prakash) v. State of Rajasthan, 2010(2) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 1587;

(ii) Thawara v. State of Rajasthan, 2013(1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 339.

(iii) Sukhdeo Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 2010(1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 274;

(iv) State of Rajasthan v. Doonga, 2012(3) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 1605; and

(v) Dungar Singh & Ors. v. State of Raj., 2013(4) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 1964.

Learned Counsel has also submitted that the judgment of learned lower Court is not sustainable and is liable to be reversed and has further submitted that the appeal of the appellants be accepted and the appellants-accused persons may please be acquitted. At the conclusion an alternative argument has also been submitted that the sentence be altered to undergone period and the appellant-accused Ram Chandra, who is a Government servant be given benefit of Section 12 of Probation of Offenders Act as his service career may not be affected adversely.

Learned Public Prosecution has conversely submitted and argued that the conviction order passed by the learned lower Court is correct and learned lower Court has dealt with material evidence of injured persons and while arguing the appeal presented by the prosecution has submitted that the learned lower Court has committed error in not holding the appellant-accused persons guilty under Section 307 of I.P.C. Since there was injury on the vital parts of the accused persons which was not properly appreciated by the learned lower Court referring the evidence as produced by the prosecution, learned Public Prosecutor has argued that so far as the conviction part is concerned, it is well sustainable but acquittal under Section 307 of I.P.C. is unwanted. Hence, the appeal of the appellants-accused-persons is not worthy to be accepted and has submitted that after accepting the appeal of the State, the accused appellants who are respondents in the State appeal may be convicted under Section 307 of I.P.C. and the appeal of the accused persons be dismissed.

7. Heard and considered the arguments advanced at the Bar, perused the impugned judgments and record of the case.

8. The learned Trial Court has relied upon the evidence of injured Heera Singh and inured Lal Chand, who had gone to rescue his brother Heera Singh, both these witnesses have explicitly stated the occurrence and ocular sequence of the beating.

9. The complainant Heera Singh (PW-1)has stated:

"eSa eqyfteku lHkh dks tkurk gwWaA vkt ls djhc ikS.ks nks lky igys dh ckr gSA eSa fuek cl vM~Ms ls ?kj dh rjQ tk jgk FkkA lk<+s lkr ds djhc lka; ds cts FksA eSa ikuh dh Vadh ds ikl igqapk rks lrohj] vkseizdk''k] jkepUn] ykypUn pkjksa us eq>s ?ksj fy;kA lrohj ds ikl cNhZ FkhA jkepUnz ds ikl dqYgkM+h rFkk ykypUn o vkseizdk''k ds ikl ykfB;ka FkhA lcls igys lrohj us esjs flj esa cNhZ ekjhA fQj esjs duiVh esa nk;h rjQ jkepUnz us dqYgkM+h dh ekjhA et:c us viuk gkFk yxkdj duiVh ij yxk fu''kku crk;k fQj esjs [kwu vk x;k o eSa uhps fxj x;kA blds i''pkr~ vkseizdk''k o ykypUn us esjs ykfB;ksa flj] gkFk] iSj o eaxjksa ij pksVsa ekjhA lrohj us esjs cka;s iSj ij cNhZ dh ekjh tks lh/kh ekj jgs Fks ijUrq dSls yxh irk ughaA jkepUnz us esjs fxjs gq, ds dqYgkM+h dh cka;s gkFk ij ekjhA eSaus jksyk fd;k fQj csgks''k gks x;kA dkSu vk;k irk ugha eSa rks csgks''k gks x;ka bu eqyfteku us ,d iVokjh dks ihVk Fkk bl jaft''k ls ekjk D;ksafd eSa ml eqdnesa esa xokg Fkk vkSj eqyfteku us xokgh ugha nsus dks dgk Fkk o tku ls ekjus dh /kedh nsuk dgk FkkA eSaus mudks dgk fd tSlk eSaus ns[kk Fkk ogha xokgh nwaxkA ;g ckr ?kVuk ls nks rhu fnu igys dgh FkhA"

Nothing material has come out from the cross examination of this witness.

Likewise Lal Chand (PW-2), who is also an injured person and who rushed to the spot to rescue his brother, who has also sustained several injuries has said :

"eqyfteku lHkh dks tkurk gwWaA djhc iks.ks nks lky igys dh ckr gSA eSa vius ?kj ij FkkA lka; ds djhc lkr lk<+s lkr cts esjs ikl egkohj vk;k ftlus crk;k fd ghjkflag dks ekj jgs gSaA eSa Hkkxdj ogka x;kA Vadh dh rjQ eq>s jksyk lqukbZ fn;k tgkWa V~kalQkjej yxk gqvk FkkA ogka ij lrohj] jkepUnz] vkseizdk''k o ykypUn ghjkflag dks ekj jgs FksA lrohj ds ikl cNhZ] jkepUnz ds ikl dqYgkM+h] ykypUn vkseizdk''k ds ikl ykBh FkhA ghjkflag fxj gqvk FkkA esjs lkeus lrohj us cNhZ dh cka;s iSj ij] jkepUnz us dqYgkM+h dh gkFk ij ekjh dkSus ls ij ekjh irk ughaA ckn esa eqyfteku esjh rjQ vk x;sA lrohj us cNhZ dh esjs flj esa o jkepUnz us dqYgkM+h esjs flj esa ekjh rc eSa fxj x;k rc vkseizdk''k o ykypUn us ykfB;ksa dh ekjh ftlls esjk cka;k gkFk VwV x;k o nks ilfy;ka VwV xbZA fQj esa csgks''k gks x;kA ekSds ij esjs lkFk nhipUn o jkes''oj Hkh pys FksA eSaus ns[kk rc ghjkflag [kwu ls Hkhxk gqvk Fkk tehu ij fxjk FkkA ukjk;.k o eqa''kh gesa vLirky ys x;sA gfjjke lkFk FkkA esjk MkWDVjh ijh{k.k gqvk FkkA iVokjh ds ekeys esa ghjkflag o jkes''oj dh xokgh nh gqbZ Fkh blfy, ekjihV fd;kA iqfyl us esjs diM+s vLirky esa fy;s ftu ij [kwu yxk FkkA diM+s lhy fd;s gksa rks irk ughaA fy[kki<+h dj esjk vaxwBk djk;k FkkA"

In cross-examination an important utterance has been made by this witness that he sustained injuries by Barchhi and Kulhari from its non-edged reversed side, which is perfectly matching with the medical evidence that the injuries were not caused with any sharp edged weapon and were of blunt nature. Nothing adverse has come out from the cross-examination of this witness as well, which could have any adverse impact on the evidentiary value of these injured witnesses.

Rameshwar (PW-3) is also an eye-witness and this witness has said:

"eqyfteku lHkh dks tkurk gwaA djhc ikS.ks nks lky igys dh ckr gSA lka; ds lkr lk<+s lkr cts eSa vius ?kj FkkA Vadh dh rjQ ls jksyk lquk ftl ij eSa ogka x;k rks eSaus ns[kk fd lR;ohj] vkseizdk''k] jkepUnz o ykypUnz ghjkflag o ykypUn dks ekjus yx jgs FksA lR;ohj ds ikl cNhZ] jkepUnz ds ikl dqYgkM+h rFkk vkseizdk''k ykypUn ds ikl ykBh FkhA ghjkflag uhps fxjk gqvk FkkA esjs lkeus lR;ohj us cNhZ ls iSj ekjh] jkepUnz us dqYgkM+h ls ekjdj mldk cka;k gkFk rksM+k FkkA fQj ogka ykypUn igqap x;k ftldk flj lR;ohj us QksM+ fn;k] jkepUnz us gkFk rksM+k irk ugha dkSu lk rksM+k rFkk vkseizdk''k ykypUn us ykfB;ksa ls ekjhA ,d iVokjh dh otg ls ;g ekjihV gqbZA"

In cross-examination significant statements have also been said by this witness by saying that :

"ghjkflag us jksyk lk<+s lkr cts fd;k tks eSaus lquk FkkA ghjkflag ds flj esa yxh gqbZ ns[kh Fkh iSj o gkFk ij ekjrs ns[kk FkkA cNhZ dqYgkM+h dh mYVh yxhA lh/kh yxrh rks dV tkrkA eSa o nhipUn mudks Fkkus ys x;sA Fkkusnkj th gekjs lkFk jktx<+ vk;sA Fkkus x;s rc ykypUn o ghjk nksuksa csgks''k FksA ml oDr iqfyl us fdlh ds c;ku ugha fy;sA esjs c;ku pkj ikap fnu ckn fy;s FksA ghjkflag nwljs fnu esa Ms< nks cts gks''k esa vk;k ykypUn lqcg gks''k esa vk x;k FkkA"

10. Deep Chand (PW-4) is also an ocular witness, who has said that he too rushed there on hue and cry and has said :

"xqokM+ ds chp esa Vadh ds m/kj ls jksyk lquk rc eSa ogka ij x;k FkkA ghjkflag o ykypUn iM+s FksA muds [kwu vk jgk FkkA ekjihV lrohj] jkepUnz] vkseizdk''k o ykypUn djds pys x;s Fks fQj dgk tk jgs FksA lrohj ds gkFk esa cNhZ] jkepUnz ds gkFk esa dqYgkM+h o ykypUn vkseizdk''k ds gkFk esa ykfB;ka FkhA esjs lkeus ekjihV dh FkhA lR;ohj us ghjkflag ds cka;s iSj ij cNhZ dh ekjhA jkepUnz us dqYgkM+h ls ghjkflag ds cka;s gkFk ij ekjhA vkseizdk''k o ykypUn us ykfB;ksa dh ekjhA ykypUn ds lrohj us gkFk ij ekjh ijUrq dkSu ls ij ekjh irk ughaA jkepUnz us nwljs gkFk ij o vkseizdk''k o ykypUn us ykfB;ksa dh Hkkjhj ij ekjhA diM+s [kwu Hkjs tehu ij [kwu iM+kA jkes''oj ekSds ij vk x;k Fkk egkohj Hkh vk;k FkkA ghjkflag dks ekjus ds ckn ykypUn vk;k FkkA iVokjh ds ekeys dks ysdj xokgh ds ekeys dks ysdj ekjihV dhA xkao esa iqfyl vkbZ uD''kk ekSdk cuk;k Fkk ftl ij esjk vaxwBk djk;k FkkA esjs lkeus lrohj ls cNhZ cjken gqbZ Fkh dkxt ij esjk vaxwBk djk;k FkkA ykypUn ls ,d ykBh cjken gqbZ Fkh vkseizdk''k ls Hkh ykBh cjken gqbZ o QnkZr ij vaxwBk djk;k FkkA bu lHkh lkeku dks lkeus ykus ij igpku ldrk gwWaA cNhZ cksYV okyh Fkh cksYV ij [kwu yxk FkkA"

11. The medical evidence has also ratified the entire version of beating and injuries sustained by the injured Heera Singh and Lal Chand, while corroborating the injuries of injury report Exhibit P-5. Dr. Manmohan Lal Meena (PW-5) has said that he had conducted the medical examination of Heera Singh and found following injuries on his body:

1- QVk gqvk ?kko 3 lseh x 1 /lseh x 1/2 lseh flj ds nkfguh rjQ ihNs dh vksj FkkA

2- QVk gqvk ?kko pkj lseh x 1/2x1/2 lseh flj ds cka;s ihNs dh lkbZM esaA

3- QVk gqvk ?kko pkj lseh x 1 lseh x ekalis''kh dh xgjkbZ rd flj ds cka;s Hkkx esa chp esa FkkA

4- QVk gqvk ?kko 3 lseh x 1 lseh x 1 lseh gM~Mh rd xgjk psgjs ds nkfguh rjQ nkfgus dku ds lkeus

5- QVk gqvk ?kko 2 lseh x 1/2 lseh x 1 lseh gM~Mh rd igqapk gqvk nkfguh vka[k ds ckgj dh rjQ mij dh Hkksag ij FkkA

6- QVk gqvk ?kko 2 lseh x 1 lseh x 1/2 lseh gM~Mh rd xgjk nkfguh vka[k ds ckgj dh rjQ uhpyh iyd ds uhps rFkk ;gka fuyxw o lkstu Fkh ukd ls [kwu cg jgk FkkA

7- QVk gqvk ?kko <+kbZ x ,d x 2 lseh cka;s iSj ij vk/ks mijh Hkkx esa lkeus dh rjQ Fkk o ?kko ls VwVh gqbZ gM~Mh fn[kkbZ ns jgh FkhA

8- QVk gqvk ?kko Ms< x vk/kk x nks lseh cka;s Hkqtk o ihNs dh rjQ mijh vk/ks Hkkx esa

9- [kjksp nks x ,d x lseh nkfguh Hkqtk ij ihNs dh rjQ

10- fuyxw lkr x rhu lseh nkfguh mij ckag ij ckgj dh rjQ

He has also narrated regarding X-ray reports as well and has further observed that cumulative effect of the injuries was fatal, if treatment had not been given.

This medical witness has also narrated about the injuries of victim Lal Chand and has said that he found following injuries on his body :

1- QVk gqvk ?kko 4 x 1/2 x 1/4 lseh flj ds ckbZ rjQ chp ds Hkkx ij Fkh

2- QVk gqvk ?kko Ms< x 1/4 x 1/4 lseh flj ds ckbZ rjQ ihNs ds Hkkx ij

3- QVk gqvk ?kko 1 x 1/4 x 1/4 lseh ds nkbZ rjQ chp ds Hkkx ij

4- QVk gqvk ?kko Ms< x 1/2, x 2 lseh ckbZ mijh Hkqtk ij dksguh ds tksM+ ls mij ckgj dh rjQ

5- QVk gqvk ?kko 4 lseh x 1/2 x 1/2 lseh ckbZ mijh Hkqtk ds ihNs dh rjQ dka[k ds ikl

6- fuyxw fu''kku lkstu lfgr 6 lseh x 3 lseh x cka;s iats gkFk ij ckgj dh rjQ Fkh

7- fuyxw fu''kku lkstu lfgr rhu lseh x 1 lseh nkfgus gkFk ij ckgj dh rjQ

8- fuyxw fu''kku lkstu lfgr 10 x 3 lseh dej esa cka;s dU/ks ds uhps dh rjQ o cgqr nnZ Fkk

9- [kjksap Ms< x 1/2 lseh nkfgus dku ds ihNs dh rjQ lHkh pksVsa rktk Fkh pksV ua0 1 ls 3] 5 ls 9 dqUnkyk dh Fkh o pksV 4 dqUn o uqdhys gfFk;kj ls FkhA pksV ua0 1 ls 3] 5] 7 o 9 lk/kkj.k rFkk 4] 5 o 8 esa ,Dljs dh lykg nh xbZ FkhA ykypUn dh ,Dljs IysVl dk doj izn''kZ 13 gS ftl ij , ls ch esjs gLrk{kj o et:c dk igpku fpUg lh ls Mh gSaA ,Dljs ds vuqlkj et:c ykypUn dh cka;s gkFk dh g;wejl gM~Mh VwVh Fkh pksV la[;k 4 xaHkhj Fkh rFkk mlds ckabZ gkFk esa nwljh esVk dkiZy gM~Mh VwVh gqbZ Fkh vr% pksV la[;k 6 xaHkhj Fkh rFkk et:c ds lhus ds ,Dljs esa ckbZ rjQ dh 8oh] 9oh o 10oh ilyh VwVh gqbZ Fkh vr% pksV ua0 8 xaHkhj ikbZA bl ckcr fjiksVZ izn''kZ 14 gS ftl ij , ls ch esjs gLrk{kj gSaA ,Dljs IysVl izn''kZ ih 15 ,0ch0lh0Mh0 gSa ftu ij esjh gLrk{kj , ls ch gSaA

12. This witness has made a clear statement that at the time of undergoing examination, injured Heera Singh and Lal Chand were conscious and the medical certificates submitted by the prosecution does not have any opinion of medical expert regarding the gravity of the injuries whether having any impact on the survival chance or the intensity causing threat to life of the injured, though at the time of examination this medical expert has opined that the cumulative effect of the injuries was fatal and this aspect has evaluated by the Trial Court, while acquitting the appellant-accused-persons under Section 307 of I.P.C. and holding them guilty under Sections 325 and 323 I.P.C.

13. Hari Singh (PW-6) is a witness relating to Exhibit 16 of soil sample and receipt of Kurta, Pajama of injured Heera Singh and Jacket of injured Lal Chand and spot map and has narrated this aspect as well.

14. Munsi Khan (PW-7) and Hari Ram (PW-8) are the witnesses of recovery of the weapons Barchhi, Kulhar i and lathies, who have narrated the fact of recovery of these weapons without fail.

Gopa Ram (PW-9) and Om Prakash (PW-10) are the witnesses depositing the samples and submitting the same with the FSL and the link aspect of these witness does also not show any deficiency.

15. Ganesh Nath Siddh (PW-11) is the Investigating Officer of the case, who has clearly narrated the entire sequence of investigation and recovery of the weapons used in the incident. Nothing marring adversity to the case of the prosecution has come out in the cross-examination of this witness as well.

Apart from accused Om prakash other appellant-accused-persons, Satveer Singh, Lal Chand and Ram Chandra have denied presence at the placed of occurrence whereas accused Om Prakash has accepted his presence at the place of occurrence stating that he was rather beaten by the victim party and after snatching Kulhari from Lal Chand, he used it in his defence, but nothing material has been testified by the appellant-accused-persons to establish the theory of defence which rather appears to be flimsy.

16. Vindictive beating failing to check a witness to testify the factum of truth before the Court of law does not attract any kind of leniency and such a submission does not warrant lenient consideration.

17. In view of afore referred appraisal, evaluation and appreciation of the evidence adduced by the prosecution, this Court does not find any merit in the appeal filed by the accused appellants or in the appeal of the State seeking conviction under Section 307 I.P.C. as well, so not inclined to interfere with the finding of learned Court below.

18. Consequently, the appeal filed by the accused-appellants being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed as well as the appeal filed by the State with same fate.

19. Therefore, both these appeals are dismissed as above, the accused-appellants are directed to surrender before the Trial Court forthwith for serving the sentence awarded by the Trial Court.