SHARMA, J. - (1.) THE appellants, three in number, were placed on trial before the learned Sessions Judge Sawai Madhopur in Sessions Case No. 36/1999. Learned Judge vide judgment dated March 22, 2000 convicted and sentenced the appellants as under:- (1) Raju @ Chhotu, (2) Prahlad and (3) Ratna: U/s. 302/34 IPC: Each to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1000/- , in default to further suffer one month simple imprisonment. U/s. 324 IPC: Each to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further suffer fifteen days simple imprisonment. U/s. 323 IPC: Each to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two months and fine of Rs. 100/-, in default to further suffer five days simple imprisonment. All sentences were directed to run concurrently.
(2.) THE prosecution case as unfolded during trial is that on December 17, 1998 at 1. 10 PM informant Jai Narain (PW. 9) submitted a written report with the Police Station Behravanda Kala stating therein that dispute in regard to land existed between the complainant party and the accused party. At around 9. 30 AM when Jugraj (since deceased) the younger brother of the informant came to Khiradpur from Kuredi the accused persons Prahlad, Ratna, Jagga, Ram Gopal, Chhota @ Raju, Bharat, Kapoori, Prem, Rukmani, Chandra Kala, Ramsiya, Usha, Ram Gopal, Banty @ Lalit Kumar, Santi, Pappy, Nurki attacked on Jugraj with lathis, Gandasis and Axes. Prahlad, Bharat and Raju inflicted Gandasi blows on the head, neck and face of Jugraj Whereas Ratna, Ram Gopal and Jagga gave blows with axes on his hands, leg and back. Other accused gave lathi blows. THE incident had been witnessed by Heero (mother) and Savitri wife of Murari. When Heero tried to save Jugraj she was also beaten up. THE injured Jugraj while taken to Khdar died on the way. Police Station Behravanda Kal registered a case under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324 and 302 IPC and investigation commenced. After usual investigation charge sheet was filed only against the accused Raju, Prahlad and Ratna. In due course the case came up for trial before the learned Sessions Judge Sawai Madhopur. Charges under sections 302 alternatively 302/34, 324 alternatively 324/34 and 323 IPC were framed against the accused, who denied the charges and claimed trial. THE prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 27 witnesses. In the explanation under Section 313 Cr. P. C. , the accused claimed innocence and stated that they have been implicated falsely because of enmity. No witness in defence was examined. Learned trial Judge on hearing final submissions convicted and sentenced the appellants as indicated herein above. We have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellants, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant and gone through the entire evidence on record. Before we deal with the contentions raised, it will be appropriate to take stock of the injuries sustained by the complainant and the accused parties. As per postmortem report (Ex. P. 6) deceased Jugraj sustained following ante mortem injuries:- 1. Incised wound 4" x 1 1/2 cm x bone deep sharp margins on R. side of frontal area of scalp. 2. Incised wound 3 1/2 x 1 cm x bone deep sharp margins on L. frontal area. 3. Compound fracture of left Tibia & Fibula upper 1/3rd part of Lt. Leg with lacerated wound 2 x 2 cm at fracture site. 4. Incised wound 5 x 1 cm x sub cut deep with sharp margin Ant. lat. Aspect of upper 1/3rd left leg. 5. Incised wound 9 x 4 1/2 cm x M. deep with sharp margin placed on medial aspect of middle 1/3rd leg. 6. R. tibia middle 1/3rd. 7. Two parallel Bruise 13 x 4 cm with gape of 1 cm on lt. thigh antro oblique view. 8. Two parallel Bruise 7 x 3 cm with gap of 1 cm on R. thigh. 9. Abraded Bruise 12 x 1 1/2 cm on R. & L. side chest below nipple horizentle placed. 10. Incised wound 16 x 4 cm x bone cut deep extend from L. angle of month to 4 cm behind the Lt. ear wound runs downward and medially. 11. Incised wound 14 x 3 cm x bone cut extend from bridge of nose to angle of R. mandible. 12. Abraded Bruise 7 x 2 cm on lt. shoulder and naked neck. The cause of death in the opinion of Dr. Govind Gupta (PW. 5), who performed autopsy on the dead body, was coma brought as a result of injuries to skull and brain. Smt. Heero (PW. 24) vide injury report (Ex. P. 7) sustained following injuries:- 1. Abrasion 1/2 x 1/2 cm lower 1/3rd (R) fore arm with scab hard formation wit swelling diffuse. 2. Abrasion 5 1/2 x 1 cm upper 1/2 (R) forearm with scab hard formation with Diffuse swelling. 3. Incised wound 4 x 1/2 cm x S. C. Deep upper 1/2 (R) formation with clean cut sharp margin. Smt. Savitri (PW. 22) vide injury report (Ex. P. 9) received following injuries:- 1. C/o Pain over R. side chest L. side chest & upper 1/2 back (unseen injury) simple in nature. 2. C/o pain over (R) lip and scalp (unseen injury) simple in nature.
(3.) IT is contended by learned counsel for the appellants that the testimony of Savitri (PW. 22) and Heero (PW. 24) the only eye witnesses examined by the prosecution, is untrustworthy since the witnesses examined by the prosecution, is untrustworthy since the presence of these witnesses at the time of occurrence is highly doubtful. According to Savitri she sustained injuries while making attempt to save the deceased but from her medical injury report (Ex. P. 9) no injury was found on her person. Dr. Govind Gupta (PW. 5) stated that she was only making complaint of pain. Savitri (PW. 22) and Heero (PW. 24) made material improvements in their statements at the trial. Smt. Heero (PW. 24) on the date of her statement was 70 years of age and in her cross examination she admitted that she was not in a position to see properly. Heero also sustained injuries and from the injury report a doubt creped in about the time of incident. Reliance is placed on Balaka Singh vs. The State of Punjab (AIR 1975 SC 1962), B. N. Singh vs. State of Gujrat (1990 UJ (SC) 617), State of U. P. vs. Moti Ram (1990) 4 SCC 389, Benguli vs. State of Orissa 1985 Cri. L. J. 580, Hallu vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (AIR 1974 SC 1936), Nain Singh vs. State of U. P. (J. T. 1991 (1) SC 596), Deepak Kumar vs. Ravi Virmani (2002) 2 SCC 737, Rajinder vs. State of Haryana (J. R. 2001 (3) SC 262), Jassa Singh vs. State of Haryana (2002) 2 SCC 481, Anter Singh vs. State of Rajasthan (2004 Cri. L. J. 1380) and Ram Narain vs. Jaggar Singh (AIR 1975 SC 1727 ). Per contra learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant supported the impugned judgment and submitted that Savitri and Heero were the witnesses of sterling worth and they were rightly relied on. On a close examination of the evidence we notice that Savitri (PW. 22) in her deposition stated that on the date of incident at 9. 30 AM when Jugraj came from village Kuredi for making arrangement of labourers, Prahlad caused Gandasi blow on his neck and face whereas Raju gave Gandasi blow on his head & face. Bharat also gave blow on the head of Jugraj. Ratna and Ram Gopal cut the legs of Jugraj. She further stated that Heero, her mother in law, tried to save Jugraj she was also beaten up. Heero also received beating at the hands of accused. In the cross examination she however admitted that she did not reach near Jugraj and she could tell as to which accused caused which injury. Testimony of Savitri was corroborated by Heero. Although there are certain variations, infirmities, additions and embellishments in the evidence of these witnesses but they are not of such nature which could undermine the substratum of the prosecution case. We find the presence of Savitri and Heero quite natural at the time of the incident. On scanning the testimony of these witnesses from the point of view of trustworthiness, we find it highly natural. ;