BALI, J. - (1.) THE appellants Kanhaiya Lal, Laxman & Narain were tried for intentionally causing deaths of Jagdish and Dilsukh. THE resultant trial culminated into the order of conviction and sentence dated 7. 5. 1998 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/st, (Prevention of Atrocities Cases), Baran. THE appellants have been convicted under Section 302 read with Sec. 34 IPC and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for life as also to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 15 days.
(2.) THE occurrence leading to deaths of Jagdish and Dilsukh, as per prosecution version, had taken place on 9. 10. 1995 at 7. 45 PM. THE FIR with regard to the incident Ex. P. 9 was lodged by Samay Raj son of Dilsukh. Samay Raj had got the written report written from one Chandrakant PW6. Special report with regard to the incident reached the concerned Magistrate at Baran on 10. 10. 1995 at 4. 30 PM. Samay Raj while unfolding the chain of events leading to deaths of Jagdish and Dilsukh got mentioned in his written report hat on the eventful day at 5:00 PM his father Dilsukh alongwith Jagdish were sitting in the fields of Soyabean crop. Kana S/o Hari Ram Gujar, Laxman s/o Chanda Gujar and one another who was his paternal aunt's son passed through from there. His father wished them `ram Ram', upon which they started beating his father. Laxman was armed with a Pharsa and one accompanying him was armed with a stick. Jagdish tried to intervene and save him father upon which he was also given injuries by Laxman on his hands and feet. He was standing close to the fields. They ran to give beatings to him as well. He ran away from the place. At the time of occurrence Ram Prasad S/o Chittarlal, Ramesh S/o Gyarsa were present and they saw the occurrence. His father and Jagdish became unconscious at the spot. He put his father Dilsukh and Jagdish in the tractor of Bharatlal and brought them to Kelwada Hospital. Both of them were admitted in the hospital. Yesterday and day before yesterday the buffaloes of these persons had damaged their crop. He surrounded the buffaloes of these persons and was taking these to Kanji House but on their intervention he had released the buffaloes. Because of this grudge his father and Jagdish were given injuries with Pharsa & Lathi, with a view to kill them. They were left unconscious in the field and the accused had run away. The occurrence leading to deaths of Jagdish & Dilsukh was reported by a written complaint made by Samay Raj son of Dilsukh. It is on the basis of written complaint Ex. P9 that the formal FIR was entered and registered by Ramashish Pandey PW10. The special report with regard to the incident Ex. P16 reached the concerned Magistrate at Baran on 10. 10. 1995 at 4. 30 PM. Baran is stated to be at a distance of 60 km from the police station where formal FIR was recorded. Initially, the case against the appellants was registered under section 447, 307 read with section 34 IPC but it was converted to Section 302 IPC on the death of Jagdish and Dilsukh. In its endeavour to connect the appellants with the crime the prosecution examined Mushtak Ahmed PW7, who had conducted medico legal examination of Jagdish and Dilsukh. Mushtak Ahmed stated that he had medico legally examined Jagdish on 9. 10. 1995. He proved medico legal report Ex. P10, wherein injuries found on the person of Jagdish have been described as follows :- 1. Lacerated wound (4 x 1 muscle deep) cm. left palm ventral aspect. 2. Lacerated wound (3 x 1 x bonedeep) cm. on right side of the scalp. 3. Swelling (4 x 2 cm.) left elbow joint. 4. Bruise (8 x 2 cm.) middle 1/3 back. 5. Bruise (6 x 2 cm.) back right shoulder. 6. Bruise (6 x 2 cm.) back left shoulder. He stated that but for injury No. 2 all other injuries were simple in nature and were caused by blunt weapon. Injury No. 2 was also caused by blunt weapon. With a view to ascertain the nature of injury, he wanted to take opinion of injury No. 2 from the X-ray report. All the injuries found on the person of Jagdish were of the duration of 24 hours. On the same day at 8. 20 PM he medico legally examined Dilsukh. The doctor proved medico legal report Ex. P. 11, wherein injuries found on the person of Dilsukh have been described as follows :- 1. Bruise (15 x 2 cm.) horizontal to the chest of abdomen. 2. Bruise (10 x 2 cm.) middle 1/3 back. 3. Bruise (4 x 2 cm.) right buttock. 4. Bruise (4 x 2 cm.) right shoulder anteriorly. 5. Scratch (1/2 x 1/2 cm.) right left upper 1/3.
(3.) HE had reserved his opinion with regard to injuries No. 1 and 5 which he was to give on the receipt of X-ray report. The other injuries found on the person of Dilsukh were simple in nature and were caused by blunt weapon. The injuries found on the person of Dilsukh were of the duration of 24 hours. The doctor further stated that both the injured had died at night. HE conducted post-mortem on the dead body of Jagdish at 8. 30 Am on 10. 10. 1995. HE proved post-mortem report Ex. P12 and stated that death of Jagdish was because of head injuries sustained by him. On the very same day he conducted post mortem on the dead body of Dilsukh. HE found ribs 7, 8, 9 and 10 of the left side had been fractured. The death in the opinion of doctor was excess bleeding which was because of injury in the spleen. HE proved post mortem report Ex. P13. HE also stated that the injuries sustained by Dilsukh were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. In the cross-examination he admitted that in Ex. P12 and P13 he had not mentioned that injuries No. 1 and 2 found on the person of deceased, were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course on nature. Lithru examined as PW1, did not support the prosecution case. As per prosecution version, Samay Raj the first informant and the son of Dilsukh had gone to him and told that his father was being beaten by the accused and that he had gone to the place of occurrence after sitting on a tractor. Even though declared hostile, the only question put to him by the Public Prosecutor was with regard to statement made by him from portion A to B in Ex. P1. He stated that he had made no such statement. Ramesh examined as PW2, who as per prosecution version, was attracted at the scene of occurrence when Jagdish and Dilsukh were given beating by the appellants also, did not support the prosecution case. He was declared hostile and in the cross-examination adverted to him by the Public Prosecutor he denied having made the statement before the police from portion A to B in Ex. P2. Narayan examined as PW4 a witness with regard to recovery of weapon of crime, and did not support the prosecution case. Badai s/o Manphool examined as PW5, another witness of recovery of weapon also did not support the prosecution case. Chandrakant s/o Dhansukhlal examined as PW6, stated that Samay Raj, who was illiterate, had got recorded FIR from him which was Ex. P9. Sanjay Singh, Constable examined as PW8 only deposed with regard to his depositing the case property in the Malkhana. Hari Prasad examined as PW9 also deposed with regard to depositing of case property in the Malkhana. Ramashish Pandey examined as PW10, deposed with regard to steps which he had taken while investigating the case. Samay Raj, the first informant who alone supported the prosecution case, in his examination-in-chief stated that whereas Laxman was armed with Pharsa, Kanhaiyalal and Narain were armed with lathies. It may be mentioned that while lodging the FIR he had not named Narain. The third accused was referred to him as paternal aunt's son but in the statement made by him before the court he did not state that narain the third accused was related to either Kanhaiyalal or Laxman. He stated that Kanhaiyalal had given a lathi blow on the shoulder of his father upon which his father fell down and it is thereafter that all the accused started beating him. He also stated that when him maternal uncle Jagdish tried to rescue his father, he gave an injury with Pharsa on his head and that when th himself wanted to rescue his father and uncle the accused ran towards him to beat him as well upon which he went home and told Bharatlal, Sriphool and Ram Prasad that accused were beating him father. In his cross-examination he admitted that FIR Ex. P9 was written by him in the hospital and that the same was got recorded after arrival of the police. He stated that he got the name of Narain recorded in the FIR Ex. P9 but why the police did not mention the same, he did not know. He stated that he knew Narain earlier. He specifically sated that Pharsa/pharsi is a sharp edged weapon. One side of Pharsa he further stated is sharp edged. He stated that Pharsi blow was not given to his father but the same was given to Dilsukh. Jagdish was given three blows with Pharsi. Jagdish had started bleeding from the injuries sustained by him. Gopal Singh who was examined as PW13 deposed with regard to the steps which he had taken while investigating the case. There is no need to give further details of the prosecution evidence as nothing based upon the same has been urged before us by the learned counsel appearing for the parties. ;