SHARMA, J. - (1.) MY brothers Who soothe And heal MY wounds But I know Oh! I know By the time The wounds will heal Their pared nails Again will grow. '' Perhaps Bajrang Lal while dying, would have similar thoughts. Bajrang Lal had three real brothers. Greed of agricultural land dragged them to the court of law where they were litigating. Bajrang Lal and Babu Lal were on one side, whereas Chandagi Ram and Mohar Singh stood on the other side. On the allegation of murder of Bajrang Lal charge sheet was filed against Chandagi Ram and Mohar Singh and they were put to trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge Khetri, who vide judgment dated August 16, 2004, convicted and sentenced them as under:- Chandagi Ram u/s. 302 IPC: To suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for six months. Mohar Singh: u/s. 302/34 IPC: To suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for six months.
(2.) ON May 13, 2000 at 7. 10 AM Babu Lal (PW. 1) submitted written report (Ex. P. 1) at Police Station Khetri Nagar stating therein that on May 12, 2000 around 9 PM Chandagi Ram and Mohar Singh inflicted blows with axe and lathi on the head and chest of Bajrang Lal and killed him. ON that report a case under section 302/34 IPC was registered and investigation commenced. Dead body of Bajrang Lal was subjected to autopsy. Necessary memos were drawn, statements of witnesses were recorded and Chandagi Ram and Mohar Singh (appellants) were arrested and on completion in investigation charge sheet was filed. In due course the case came up for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge Khetri. Charge under section 302 alternatively 302/34 IPC was framed against the appellants, who denied the charge and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 19 witness. In the explanation under Sec. 313 Crpc, the appellants claimed innocence. Chandagi Ram stated that on the day of incident Bajrang Lal armed with lathi came to his house and started beating him as a result of which his hand was fractured. Two witnesses in defence were examined. Learned trial Judge on hearing final submissions convicted and sentenced the appellants as indicated herein above. On analysing the material on record we find that death of Bajrang was homicidal in nature. Vide post mortem report (Ex. P. 18) he received following injuries:- 1. wound on scalp A vertex & half part of both parietal aea of scalp 11. 0 cm long 2 cm wide in central are with 5 cm tapering end 2 1/2 deem in central area with fracture of skull with injury to brain The superior part of parietal area of both cerebrum become injured 5 cm long 1 cm in width & 1/2 cm in depth 2. wound on elbow joint (right side) A. Posterior lateral surface of right elbow joint B. 10cm long, 5 cm wide, 2 cm deep (Incised) (1) Lat. part of head of right radius bone cut in chip form (2) Lat. part of olecranon proces of right ulna bone cut in chip form (3) Lat. cardyle of Right humerus 3. Wound on arm (Right side) Posterior surface of mid armed 5 cm in length, 3 cm in width 1 1/2 cm in depth, nature incised. 4. Abrasion position posterior surface of lower part of arm 1 x 1 cm In the opinion of Dr. Govind Singh (PW. 16) the cause of death was injury to brain. At this juncture it may be noticed that appellants Chandagi Ram and Mohar Singh also sustained injuries. Chandagi Ram vide injury report (Ex. P. 15) received following injuries:- 1. Bruise 8 cm x 3 cm on posterior surface of mid part of left forearm 2. Bruise 10 x 3 posteriro part of left upper arm 3. Abrasion 6 x 2 cm on sternum Vide X-ray report (Ex. P. 16) he received fracture ofleft lower part of ulna bone. Mohar Singh vide injury report (Ex. P. 17) received one abrasion 1 x 1 cm on right elbow joint. Informant Babu Lal (PW. 1) star witness of the prosecution deposed that they were four brothers and used to quarrel in regard to division of land. On the pursuation of the villagers they entered into compromise and division of land got effected. On may 12, 2000 around 9. 30 PM Mohar Singh and Chandagi Ram started abusing Bajrang Lal and asked that they would cut his Bajra crop. When Bajrang Lal came out of his house, Mohar Singh exhorted Chandagi Ram to kill Bajrang Lal and Chandagi Ram inflicted axe blow on the head of Bajrang Lal who fell down. Chandagi Ram then gave axe blow on his right hand. Mohar Singh inflicted blow with lathi on his head and chest. In his cross examination Babu Lal admitted that in the FIR he did not write that after Bajrang Lal had fallen two injuries were caused on his person. Testimony of Babu Lal gets corroboration from the statements of Kanta Devi (PW. 2) and Omli (PW. 3) but the grievous injury sustained by appellant Chandagi Ram over left lower part of ulna bone, has not been explained by the witnesses. Ranjeet Singh (PW. 17), who was SHO at Police Station Khetri Nagar and investigated the case, in his cross examination stated:-
(3.) EQYFTE punxhjke o eksgj flag dk Mkdvjh eqvk;uk 17-5 dks gh djok;k Fkka budks fxjrkj fd;k rc eksgj flag o punxhjke ds pksvsa yxh gqbz Fkh] ftudk Qnz fxjrkjh esa gokyk gsaa ;s lgh gs fd EQYFTE punxhjke ds vykok gm~mh dk Qsdpj Fkk ftldk ,dljs djk;k Fkka ;s esjh rrh'k esa vk;k Fkk fd nksuksa EQYFTEku ds pksvsa blh ?kvuk esa vkbz gqbz Fkha** Salient features of the case are as under:- (i) In the written report (Ex. P. 1) only one injury on head of the deceased was attributed to appellant Chandagi Ram. (ii) It was not stated by information Babu Lal in the written report that appellant Mohar Singh exhorted Chandagi Ram to kill the deceased. (iii) In the written report injuries on head and chest of the deceased with lathi have been attributed to appellant Mohar Singh whereas in the post mortem (Ex. P. 18) no injury caused by blunt weapon was found on the head and chest of the deceased. (iv) It appears that Babu Lal (PW. 1), Kanta Devi (PW. 2) and Omli (PW. 3) made improvements in their statements at the trial after seeing the post mortem report of deceased. The improvements made by the witnesses at the trial assume significance in view of the fact that the witnesses have not explained grievous injury sustained by appellant Chandagi Ram. (v) Ranjeet Singh IO (PW. 17) admitted that the appellants had sustained injuries in the same incident. (vi) Girwar Singh (DW. 1) and Nagar Mal (DW. 2) deposed that it was the deceased who came to the house of Chandagi Ram and started abusing and gave lathi blows on the hand and chest of Chandagi Ram, when Mohar Singh intervened, he was also beaten up. The non explanation of the injuries sustained by the accused at or about the time of occurrence is a very important circumstance from which the court can draw the following inferences:- (i) That the prosecution has suppressed the genesis and the origin of the occurrence and has thus not presented the true version; (ii) That the witnesses who have denied the presence of the injuries on the person of the accused are lying on a most material part and therefore their evidence is unreliable. (iii) That in case there is a defence version which explains the injuries on the person of the accused it is rendered probable so as to throw doubt on the prosecution case. ;