Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1332 (RAJ)

Lal Chand v. State of Rajasthan

2002-07-30

O.P.BISHNOI

body2002
JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal has been filed by the accused Lal Chand against a judgment dated 29.2.1992 delivered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, No.1, Sri Ganganagar, whereby, he was convicted for the offence under Section 326 of the IPC. A sentence of 3 years' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- was awarded. For non-payment of fine, R.I. for one year was awarded. As per the judgment, the benefit of doubt was granted to the accused for the offence under Section 307 of the IPC and he was acquitted of the Said charge. 2. The incident is said to have been taken place on 21.3.87 at about 7.00 PM and an FIR Ex.P/4 was lodged by PW2 Manohar Lal on 22.3.87 at 12.30 AM at police station, Sri Karanpur. 3. According to the FIR (Ex.P/4), on 21.3.87, at 7.00 PM, PW2 Manohar Lal alongwith the injured Ram Kishan (PW3) were returning from their agricultural field to their house in village 13 FF when the appellant Lal Chand alongwith Kishan Chand and Lapadia called names and thereafter at the bidding of Kishan Chand, the accused Lal Chand gave a 'Kassi' blow on the head of Ram Kishan and. the three accused-persons took to their heels. Manoharlal helped the injured Ram Kishan to reach the village. According to the F.I.R. enmity on account of election was the reason and the motive for the incident. A case under Section 324 and 307/34 of the IPC was registered. From the x-ray report, it came out that the solitary injury received by Ram Kishan was grievous in nature and was caused by sharp-edged weapon. Accordingly, Section 326 of the IPC was added and the appellant was challaned in the court of learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Sri Karanpur, from where, it was committed to the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, No. 1, Sri Ganganagar who tried the appellant and delivered the judgment on 29.2.1992 as mentioned above. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor for the State and I find it difficult to sustain the conclusions of guilt drawn by the learned trial court. 5. PW1 Gyan Chand is a 'Motbir Witness' of the recovery of the 'Kassi'. PW2 Manohar Lai and PW3 Ram Kishan (injured) are the only eye-witnesses. PW4 Subhash Chandra is the Investigating Officer and PW5 Dr. 5. PW1 Gyan Chand is a 'Motbir Witness' of the recovery of the 'Kassi'. PW2 Manohar Lai and PW3 Ram Kishan (injured) are the only eye-witnesses. PW4 Subhash Chandra is the Investigating Officer and PW5 Dr. lqbal Singh has proved the injury report (Ex.P/1 1). No body was examined in defence. 6. So far as the finding that the injury amounted to an offence under Section 326 of the IPC, I find that the finding has been recorded without proper evidence. Dr. lqbal Singh has stated that on 21.3.87, he examined the injured Ram Kishan and a single injury by sharp-edged weapon was found and consequently, the injury report (Ex.P/11) was prepared by him. The injury report (Ex.P/11) does not say that the injury was grievous in nature. It is not in dispute that the X-ray of the injured was not conducted by Dr, lqbal Singh nor it was done in his presence. The Radiologist Dr. Kaushik, who was responsible for the X-ray, has not been examined. Consequently, a finding of guilt upto Section 324 of the IPC could be recorded and there was no evidence on record to establish that the injury was proved to be grievous in nature. 7. So far as the testimony of the witnesses is concerned, needless to say that only Manohar Lai and Ram Kishan have deposed against the accused and there is no independent corroboration. The incident allegedly occurred in an open agricultural field and it was natural that there were persons on the adjoining fields. Strangely enough, no other person has been examined. The statement of the injured Ex.D/2 was recorded and he has stated that Ram Swaroop was the first person who met them after the incident. This Ram Swaroop has not been examined. Further, it has come in the evidence of the injured that his brother was also the person who met him soon after the incident. He has also not been examined. Dr. Hans Raj was the first person to whom the injured was taken soon after the incident in village 13 FF itself. He has also not been examined. Needless to say that these three persons were the persons to whom the incident was narrated soon after it took place. They were, therefore, the best witnesses to tell as what story was narrated to them. He has also not been examined. Needless to say that these three persons were the persons to whom the incident was narrated soon after it took place. They were, therefore, the best witnesses to tell as what story was narrated to them. In the facts and circumstances of this case, non-examination of these three persons has become very significant In this connection, the statement of the injured Ex.D/2 which was recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.PC. is very significant. According to Ex.D/2, initially at about 5-6 PM, the appellant and PW2 Manohar Lal had exchanged hot words and the appellant inflicted 'lathi' blows to Manoharlal. Manohar Lal came to the village at the house of injured and narrated the incident to him. According to Ex.D/2, thereafter the injured and Manohar Lal both left to talk to Ram Swaroop, in whose employment the appellant was working. In the agricultural field, Ram Swaroop was not available and the appellant was working in the field. According Ex.D/2, the injured demanded to know from the appellant as to why he inflicted the injury to Manohar Lal. The appellant told that Manohar Lal called him names and on this account, he inflicted injury to Manoharlal. Manohar Lai and the appellant started to have exchange of hot words and when the injured tried to calm then them down, the accused-appellant got enraged and gave a 'Kassi' blow to Ram Kishan. From there, Manohar Lal and Ram Kishan came to the village. From this statement (Ex.D/2), it becomes clear that the whole story has been changed. The sworn testimony of the injured in the Court, is totally opposite to what has been stated in Ex.D/2. In the Court, the injured Ram Kishan has stated that Lapadia, Kishan Master and the appellant were together and all the three inflicted injuries on his person. He has stated that the appellant inflicted injury by a 'Kassi' and the other two persons inflicted injuries with the help of lathies, which were shown by him to the doctor when he prepared the 'Injury' Report (Ex.P/11). PW2 Manohar Lal in his deposition does not say that other than the appellant, no body-else inflicted injuries to Pw3 Ram Kishan. The contradictions, in my opinion, are major and the observations of the learned trial court that they are very minor, is not acceptable. 8. PW2 Manohar Lal in his deposition does not say that other than the appellant, no body-else inflicted injuries to Pw3 Ram Kishan. The contradictions, in my opinion, are major and the observations of the learned trial court that they are very minor, is not acceptable. 8. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is to the effect that the injured Ram Kishan (PW3) received injuries and the assailants could not be recognised and Ram Kishan was found in an unconscious condition. Subsequently by Manohar Lal. Since the relations were strained, it was suspected that the appellant may be the assailant. Consequently, the report Ex.P/4 was filed by Manohar Lal, although, he was not an eye-witness: After Ram Kishan recovered his senses, his statement Ex.D/2 was recorded by the police and the same is at a total vas once with the report Ex.P,'4 lodged by Manohar Lal. Subsequently, at the time of deposition, knowing well that his statement Ex.D/2 was contrary to the FIR Ram Kishan changed the stand and tried to depose as per the story given in Ex.P/4. 9. There is a suspicion regarding the time of lodging the FIR Ex. P/4. PW2 Manohar Lal has clearly stated that no report was lodged by him during the night immediately after the incident. However, the report Ex.P/4 has got the noting by the police that it was lodged at mid-night (12.30 AM) on 22.3.1987. From this, it appears that the report was not filed at the time which is mentioned on it and it has been anti-dated. 10. Be that as it may,the evidence does not inspire confidence and the finding of guilt cannot be sustained. 11. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The judgment dated 29.2.1992 finding the appellant guilty is set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charge under Section 326 of the IPC. The amount of fine, if deposited by the appellant shall be refunded to him.Appeal Allowed - Conviction Set Aside. *******