SHARMA, J. - (1.) IN short the prosecution story is that on the fateful night the deceased and other members of the complainant party armed with deadly weapons visited the house of accused party. Free fight ensued and both the parties sustained injuries on the vital parts of the bodies. Accused Dharam Pal and Ram Niwas (appellants herein) were charge sheeted for having committed murder of Balbeer. At the trial another accused Mahipal (third appellant) was also implicated. Learned Trial Judge found three appellants guilty and convicted and sentenced them vide judgment dated July 26, 2001 as under:- Dharam Pal: U/s. 302 IPC: To suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 100/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for three months. U/s. 307/34 IPC: To suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and fine of Rs. 100/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for three months. Ram Niwas and Mahipal: U/s. 302/34 IPC: Both to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 100/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for three months. U/s. 307/34 IPC: Both to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and fine of Rs. 100/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for three months. The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
(2.) ON March 8, 1993 Baldev Singh ASI of Police Station Nawalgarh received telephonic message in regard to the incident occurred in the field of one Ram Kumar. Baldev Singh rushed to the place of incident and found Budha Ram, Mahaveer, Ranveer and Balbeer lying in an injured condition. They were removed to the hospital where Balbeer was declared dead. A report (Ex. P-1) thereafter was lodged by Baldev Singh and investigation commenced. ON completion of investigation charge sheet was filed against Dharam Pal and Ram Niwas. In due course the case came up for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Jhunjhunu. Charges under sections 302, 302/34, 307 and 307/34 IPC were framed against Dharam Pal and Ram Niwas, who denied the charges and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined as may as 15 witnesses. At the trial cognizance was also taken against Mahipal. In the explanation under Sec. 313 Cr. P. C. , the appellants claimed innocence. Ram Niwas in his explanation stated that Bhuda Ram, Ranveer, Mahaveer and Balveer came to his house and caused injuries on his person. Dharam Pal and Radha Devi were also beaten up. Radha Devi lodged the report of the incident at the Police Station. ON hearing final submissions learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the appellants as indicated herein above. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned Public Prosecutor and with their assistance scanned the material on record. Evidently prior to the death the injuries sustained by Balbeer were examined vide injury report (Ex. P-19), that reads thus:- 1. Incised wound 1-1/2 inch x 1inch x 1inch at skin of forehead 2 inch above from right eye brow. 2. Multiple Abrasions over back of chest No. 1, 4 inch x 2 inch, 2, 5 inch x 1-1/2 inch, 3, 6 inch x 3 inch 3. Multiple Abrasions at skin of lumbosecral region No. 1, 3-1/2 inch x 2 inch, 2, 4 inch x 1inch, 3, 3inch x 3 inch, 4, 6 inch x 3 inch 4. Incised wound 3 inch x 1 inch x 1 inch over scalp its vertex in middle 5. Incised wound 3-1/2 inch x 4 inch x 2 inch over scalp its vertex. After performing autopsy on the dead body Dr. Ram Chandra (Pw. 11) opined that the cause of death was shock due to extensive and multiple injuries to head and fracture. Ranveer (Pw. 6), Mahaveer (Pw. 9) and Budha Ram (Pw. 7) also received incised wounds in the incident and the injuries received by them were examined vide injury reports Ex. P-16, Ex. P-17 and Ex. P-18. These witnesses in their cross examination admitted that they had gone to the house of appellants on the date of incident. Mahaveer (Pw. 9) in his examination in chief deposed thus:- ******** Budha Ram (Pw. 7) in his cross examination stated as under:- ******** At this juncture it may also be noticed that in the same incident appellants Ram Niwas and Dharam Pal also received injuries. Injuries received by Ram Niwas were incorporated in injury report (Ex. D-5) as under:- 1. Incised wound 2-1/2 inch x 1 inch x 1/2 inch over scalp its vertex 2. Incised wound 1-1/2 inch x 2 inch x 1/2 inch over scalp its vertex Injury report of appellant Dharam Pal (Ex. D-6) reads thus:- 1. Lacerated wound 5cm x 1/2 cm x 1/2 cm at skin over dorsal surface of left palm 2. Abrasion 3cm x 2cm anterior surface of left ankle joint 3. Lacerated wound 3cm x 1-1/2 cm x at skin over lateral surface of right leg great toe
(3.) FURTHER scrutiny of record strengthen this fact that the incident occurred in the house of appellants and a cross case was registered on the report of Radha Devi (aunt of appellants ). This fact was admitted by Bhagwan Singh IO (Pw. 13) in his cross examination:- ******** Having closely scrutinised the testimony of injured eye witnesses Ranveer (Pw. 6), Mahaveer (Pw. 9) and Budha Ram (Pw. 7) we noticed following fact situation:- (i) There was no enmity between the appellants and the deceased and the occurrence was a sudden affair. (ii) Something which has not been completely brought on record might have sparked off the incident. (iii) The members of complainant armed with the weapons had gone to the house of appellants in the late hours of night where the complainant party and the accused party fought freely. (iv) Cross case was registered against the complainant party on the report of injured Radha Devi (the aunt of appellants ). (v) The injuries sustained by appellants Ram Niwas and Dharam Pal were not explained by the prosecution witnesses. Their Lordships of Supreme Court in Subramani Vs. State of T. N. (2002)7 SCC 210, in regard to non explanation of injuries sustained by the accused indicated as under:- " The appellants suffered injuries on vital parts of the body, even though simple but the prosecution failed to give any explanation for such injuries. The prosecution feigned ignorance about the injuries suffered by the appellants. It is not possible to accept the submission that the injuries being simple, the prosecution was not obliged to give any explanation for the same. Having regard to the facts of the case the omission on the part of the prosecution to explain the injuries on the person of the accused may give rise to the inference that the prosecution is guilty of suppressing the genesis and the origin of the occurrence and had thus not presented the true version. " ;