N. C. SHARMA, J. - (1.) BY his judgment dated Oct. 1982 6, Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2, Alwar has convicted the appellant Har Sahai for offences u/ss. 307 and 325 IPC and Lallu appellant for offence u/s 325/34, 324 and 323 I. P. C. The former has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for four years and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- for offence under sec. 307 IPC and to six months rigorous imprisonment under Sec. 325, IPC. So far as Lallu appellant is concerned, he has been sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- for offence under Sec. 325/34 IPC, to one year's rigorous imprisonment under Sec. 324, IPC and three months rigorous imprisonment under sec. 323 IPC. The sentences awarded to both the appellants have been made to run concurrently.
(2.) THE injured in this case are Prabhati Lal (PW/3), Ram Kishore (PW/4) and Prahlad (PW/7 ). Prabhati Lal and Prahlad are real brothers while Ram Kishore was cousin of these two persons. THE incident took place on March 10, 1982, at about 2 pm. THE First Information Report of the incident was lodged by Prabhati Lal (PW/3) at police Station Malakheda. THE version of the incident as given by Prabhati Lal in the FIR (Ex. P/ll) was that on March 10, 1982, he, his brother Prahlad and Ram Kishore were at their house. At about 2 p. m. the appellants who are real brothers and their neighbours were also sitting with them. Somstimes thereafter the appellant Prahlad injured got up and went to the house of the appellants. After about half an hour Prabhati Lal and Ram Kishore heard the noise about killing from the side of the appellants. THEreupon Parbhati Lal, Ram Kishore and Amar Singh rushed towards the house of the appellants. THEy saw that in the chowk in front of the house of the Patti Lallu appellant caught hold of Prahlad and Har Sahai inflicted injury on the left side of the head on Prahlad by a wooden-foot of a cot. THE first informant Ram Kishore and Amarsingh tried to rescue Prahlad and during that Lallu appellant inflicted 'farsi' blow on the head of Prabhati and, Ram Kishore inflicted a 'farsi' blow from the reverse side on the head of Amarsingh and Har Sahai dealt with another blow with the wooden-foot of the cot. On their raising cry Ram Kishore Meena, Hari Singh Meena, Bhambu Meena and others came to the spot and rescued the injured. Prahlad was then taken to Malakheda Hospital in an unconscious condition. Prahlad had injuries on his head. THE delay in lodging of the First Information Report was explained in this manner that they had told that they will make the report after Prahlad regains consciousness. Prahlad had not regined consciousness. It was mentioned that there was enmity between Prabhati Lal and his family members and the appellant on account of some land dispute. On the basis of this report, Station House Officer, Police Station, Malakheda registered a case and proceeded for investigation. He prepared site-plan. Accused Har Sahai was arrested on March 23, '82. According to the prosecution, Har Sahai gave an information that the wooden-foot of the cot was hidden under chhapar of his residential house. In pursuance of this information recovery of the wooden foot was made from the 'chhapar' of the house of Har Sahai and the same was seized under the seizure memo Ex. P/23. After necessary investigation charge-sheet was filed against the appellant in the Court of Special Judicial Magistrate, who committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Alwar and ultimately, the case came by transfer to the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Alwar. THE Addl. Sessions Judge after trial held both the appellants guilty for the offence already mentioned above and sentenced them as aforesaid. Har Sahai and Lallu had filed S. B. Criminal Appeal No. 415/1982 before this Court against their convictions and sentences. The State of Rajasthan has also filed, by leave, Criminal Appeal No. 582/1983 against Lallu appellant with the prayer that he should have been convicted for the offence punishable under Sec. 307/34, IPC. Both these appeals are being decided together. It cannot be disputed that the incident took place in front of the house of the appellant and during that incident Prabhati Lal (PW 3), Ram Kishore (PW/4), Prahalad (PW/7) & Amar Singh received injuries. Dr. Rajendra Singh Kaushik was the Medical Officer of the Primary Health Centre, Malakheda on March 10, '82. He examined the injured. He found that Prahlad had lacerated wound 10 x 1 cm x 1. 5 cm on scalp on left temporal bone 7 cm above left eye brows. Tender swelling circular in shape 10x10 cm over right eye and adjoining frontal bone and zygomatic bone and right temporal bones. Apart from that there was an abrasion 3 x 2 cm on left cheek 3 cm below left eye. All the injuries were caused by blunt weapon. For 1 and 2 injuries, he advised x-ray and the x ray report Ex. P/3 show that there was fracture of frontal perietal region left side extending towards right orbital region. This is proved by Dr. M. K. Singhal (PW/1) on the basis of the x-ray report Ex. P/3. So far as Prabhati Lal is concerned, he had incised wound 9 x 1 cm x 1. 5 cm on scalp 18 cms above the tip of nose. The injury was simple in nature and was caused by sharp object within a duration of 12 hours. Ram Kishore had lacerated wound 6 cm x 1. 5 cm on scalp 22. 4 cm above the tip of nose. This injury was simple in naturea. Amar Singh had tender swelling 3" x 2" on left fore-arm 3" above left wrist joint and another tender swelling 1" x 1" on left elbow joint. On being x-rayed first of the above injury was found to be grievous as per the x-ray report (Ex. P/8 ). These were the injuries sustained by four injured. On the same day, Dr. Rajendra Singh Kaushik had also examined injuries on the body of the appellants, and he found that incised wound 3. x \ x 1 cm on the scalp left side the mid line 10. 5 cm above the pinna of left ear and tender swelling circular in shape 5 x5 cm on right knee joint. The injuries were simple and were caused by blunt object. Lallu appellant was also examined. He had two lacerated wounds on the nose at mid line and on the palm of left hand and multiple abrasions varying in size from 5 to 25cms on the dorsal aspect of index middle and ring lingers of right hand at middle and distal phalynx. The first lacerated wound was found to be grievous as per x-ray report. Thus, during this incident the appellants had also received injuries. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the incident had taken place on March 10. 1982 at about 2 p. m. but the first information report Ex. P/11 was lodged at the Police Station, Malakheda on the next day i. e. March 11, 1982 at 9. 15 p. m. It was pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants that the four injured were directly taken to the Malakheda Hospital and the Medical Officer, Malakheda intimated to the Station House Officer, Police Station, Malakheda that at about 3 p. m. Prahlad son of Mangal Ram had been admitted in the hospital as a result of injuries be sustained. The Station House Officer was requested to take immediate necessary action. The learned counsel stated that on receipt of this communication from the Primary Health Centre, Malakheda. Puran Chand, Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police reached the hospital and wanted to record the statement of Pranlad, but Prahlad was unconscious. There were other injured - Prabhati Lal and Ram Kishore, also at the hospital at Malakheda. They were asked to lodge a report and to give a statement, but both of them refused to lodge a report and give statement and told that they would lodge a report and would give statement only when Prahlad would regain consciousness. The learned counsel urged that both Prabhati Lal and Ram Kishore were also injured during the incident and they have been examined as eye-witnesses also to the injuries inflicted on them and Prahlad. Therefore, there was no reason why they did not lodged First Information Report dispite being asked by Puran Chand, Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police and why they postponed the lodging of the report for the next day and lodged it on the next day despite the fact that by that time also Prahlad had not regained consciousness. An argument was advanced that the First Information Report took time to alter the manner in which the incident actually took place.
(3.) PURAN Chand, Assistant Sub-Inspector, Police Station, Malakheda has been examined as PW/2 and he has deposed that on receiving the letter Ex. P/9 from the hospital, he made entry Ex, P/19 in the roznamcha and reached the hospital. He found that Prahlad was unconscious and was not in a state so as to give any statement. Prabhati Lal Ram Kishore and Amar Singh did not give any statement and told him that they would give statement after Prahlad regained consciousness. He accordingly made entry Ex. P/20 in the roznamcha. That is also the reason for the delay mentioned by Prabhati Lalin the First Information Report, Ex. P/ll. It is true that Prahlad was unconscious when PURAN Chand (PW/12) reached the place of incident. However, Prabhati Lal (PW/3) professes to have reached the place of incident which was at a distance of about 50 to 60 yards from his house and presents himself as eye-witness to the incident and deposes that he had seen that Lallu appellant has caught hold of Prahlad and Hari Sahai inflicted a blow on his head by the wooden foot of the cot. Thereafter he narrated the injuries inflicted on him, Ram Kishore and Amar Singh. If that statement be correct, the entire incident was known to Prabhati Lal and he could have at least narrated that part of the incident to the police which he had seen. It is not necessary that First Information Report should be an encyclopaedia. The allegations in it should only reveal the commission of a cognizable offence. One has to understand Prabhati Lal's explanation for the delay in lodging the FIR in case he would not have put forth himself as eye-witness to the incident. The fact that Prabhati Lal and other injured had denied to lodge the report or to give a statement for the reason that Prahlad was unconscious, can lead to two conclusions viz. either Prabhati Lal was not an eye witness to the entire incident or that he had gone along with Prahlad and other injured to the house of the appellants. Either of these inferences would prove fatal to the case of the prosecution when it is kept in mind that the appellants had also sustained injuries on their bodies. The prosecution has not at all explained as to how the appellants sustained injuries which even an incised wound on the body of Har Sahai appellant and two lacerated wounds on Lallu appellant. One of the injuries on Lallu was found grievous. Neither Prabhati Lal nor Ram Kishore or Amar Singh stated that they had gone armed to rescue. They had only reached on hearing the cry. The fact that the incident took place in front of the house of the appellants can give an indication that Prahlad and his associates had gone to the house of the appellants and that the appellants had sustained injuries. This can reasonably lend support to the theory of private defence to person available to the appellants and urged before this Court, as alleged before the trial Court. Apart from that, the manner in which the incident is said to have occurred, according to the prosecution, appears to be unnatural. Prahlad (PW/7) and Lallu appellant both lived at Delhi. Prahlad has said in his cross examination that prior to this incident he had no enmity with the appellants. The cordianity of the relations was to this extent that the appellants had stayed at the house of Prabhati Lal, Ram Kishore and Amar Singh and had smoked 'bidi' and 'hukka' Prahlad was invited by the appellants to take dinner at their residence as meat had been cooked on that day. Prahlad went to the house of the appellants and took his dinner there. Thereafter they stayed outside the house and then the entire incident took place. This is so unnatural that the person who had no previous enmity and who were smoking in the company of the injured and invited Prahlad even for dinner would commit immediately the incident with no reason. The prosecution has not been able to establish by any reliable evidence that Prahlad had raised any objection against the proposal of the appellants, to obtain sanction for the construction of a house. Consequently, therefore, on account of the delay in lodging of the First Information Report with no reasonable and believable explanation, non-explanation of the injuries on the person of the appellants and the very unnatural way in which the incident took place creates a reasonable doubt in the prosecution story as regards the manner in which the incident took place and the appellants are entitled to the benefit of doubt. ;