Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1031 (PNJ)

Rajesh Kumar v. State of Haryana

2003-07-29

S.S.GREWAL, S.S.NIJJAR

body2003
JUDGMENT S.S. Nijjar, J. - This judgment will dispose of Crl. Appeal No. 133-DB of 1996 (Rajesh Kumar son of Om Parkash v. State of Haryana), Crl. Appeal No. 309-DB of 1996 (Sanjay Kumar son of Maha Singh v. State of Haryana) and Crl. Revision No. 288 of 1996 (Sarup Singh son of Bharat Singh v. Sanjay Kumar son of Maha Singh and Rajesh Kumar son of Om Parkash) as both the appeals and the revision are directed against the judgment dated 28.2.1996 of Shri Arvind Kumar, Addl. Sessions Judge, Gurgaon in Sessions Case No. 45 of 29.7.1995 in FIR No. 74 of 29.3.1995 registered at Police Station Bilaspur by which Sanjay Kumar has been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Rajesh Kumar has been convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 2000/- each. In default of payment of fine, they have been directed to undergo further R.I. for a period of six months. 2. The prosecution case is that Sub Inspector Satyawati while posted as Station House Officer at Police Post, Bilaspur received a V.T. Message (Ex. DC) on 29.3.1995 informing her about the admission of one Udey Yadav son of Rameshwar (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased") in Civil Hospital, Gurgaon and his subsequent death. On reaching the Police Station City Gurgaon in the official jeep, she was handed over ruqa sent by the Doctor (Ex. PF/1). On reaching the Hospital, she recorded the statement of Virender (Ex. PE). In his statement, Virender has narrated the entire episode leading to the death of the deceased. Virender stated that he is a student of 10+2 class of Government College, Sidhrawali. Elections to the post of President of the Students Union of the College were held in the year 1994. Two candidates, namely, Sunil of Village Sidhrawali and Rishi Raj of Bilaspur had contested the elections for President. He and the deceased were assisting Sunil in the election. On the other hand, the accused Rajesh Kumar and Sanjay Kumar were assisting Rishi Raj. Sunil was elected as a President. Consequently, Rajesh Kumar and Sanjay Kumar were nursing a grudge against Virender and the deceased, Udey Yadav. He and the deceased were assisting Sunil in the election. On the other hand, the accused Rajesh Kumar and Sanjay Kumar were assisting Rishi Raj. Sunil was elected as a President. Consequently, Rajesh Kumar and Sanjay Kumar were nursing a grudge against Virender and the deceased, Udey Yadav. In fact, the deceased had been threatened on many occasions by the accused that they will teach him a lesson for assisting Sunil in the election. On 29.3.1995, Virender and the deceased who were class- fellows, had gone to the college from their village as Virender had to take back a book which he had left in the Library. When they reached the College, the deceased decided to stay at the gate whereas Virender went to the Library to collect his book. While at the Library, he met Bahadur who had gone there to read the newspaper. They both left the Library together. When they reached near the College Gate, they saw the deceased standing near the Samadhi of Baba Bhajle Ram. At that time it was around about 2.30 p.m. At the same time, the accused came to the spot from the opposite direction. He saw that Rajesh had caught hold of the deceased from behind. He also saw Sanjay inflicting two wounds on the chest of the deceased with the knife. He and Bahadur ran towards the deceased. On seeing them, the accused fled away from the spot. He and Bahadur had witnessed the entire incident with their own eyes. The information was sent to the uncle of the deceased Sarup Singh who also reached the spot. A Maruti van was arranged for taking the injured to the Civil Hospital, Gurgaon. However, when they reached the Hospital, the injured had already died. The doctor declared him "brought dead". On the basis of the aforesaid statement (Ex. PE/1), FIR (Ex. PE/2) was recorded by M.H.C. Ramphal. Inquest report, (Ex.PC) was prepared. Request (EX. PB) was made to the Medical Officer for post-mortem examination. The Sub-Inspector then visited the scene of the crime. She lifted blood stained earth and sealed the same in a tin box (Ex. P3) which was taken into possession by recovery memo (Ex. PG/1). Rough site plan of the scene of the crime was also prepared (Ex. PH). Request (EX. PB) was made to the Medical Officer for post-mortem examination. The Sub-Inspector then visited the scene of the crime. She lifted blood stained earth and sealed the same in a tin box (Ex. P3) which was taken into possession by recovery memo (Ex. PG/1). Rough site plan of the scene of the crime was also prepared (Ex. PH). After post-mortem examination, the clothes of the deceased were handed over to her by the Head Constable Hukam Singh which were taken into possession vide the recovery memo (Ex. PJ). She also prepared the scaled site plan (Ex. PD) of the scene of the crime. Both the accused were arrested on 30.3.1995. They were produced before the Illaqa Magistrate who remanded them to police custody. Ex. PD is the request made by the Sub Inspector to the Medical Officer PHC Bhorkala for the medical examination of Rajesh accused. During interrogation on 3.4.1995, Sanjay accused made a disclosure statement (Ex. PK) that he had concealed his shirt on the Kotha of tubewell belonging to his maternal grand-father. The shirt was recovered in the presence of Head Constable Mahabir Singh and Constable Sube Singh. The shirt (Ex.P4) was taken into possession by recovery memo (Ex. PL) attested by the witnesses. After the completion of the investigation, the accused Sanjay was charge-sheeted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Rajesh under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. During the trial, the prosecution examined PW1, Dr. R.N. Yadav, PW2 Chatter Singh Patwari, PW3 Virender Singh and P4 Bahadur Singh, the eye- witness, PW5 Sarup Singh, the uncle of the deceased who signed the inquest report and PW6 Sub Inspector Satyawati, the Investigating Officer. The prosecution also tendered in evidence the affidavit of UGC Krishan Kumar (Ex.PF), affidavit of MHC Ramphal (Ex. PG) and FSL report (Ex. PN and Ex. PN/1). Ram Avtar Singh and Constable Narender were given up as unnecessary. 4. On the closure of the prosecution evidence, the statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code Sanjay pleaded innocence and false implication. Rajesh, accused took the plea of the self-defence. He produced Dr. S.S. Yadav, Medical Officer to prove the injuries which were found on his person, when he was examined by the doctor on 30.3.1995. He also proved (Ex. DX), photostat copy of the MLR and Ex. Rajesh, accused took the plea of the self-defence. He produced Dr. S.S. Yadav, Medical Officer to prove the injuries which were found on his person, when he was examined by the doctor on 30.3.1995. He also proved (Ex. DX), photostat copy of the MLR and Ex. DY, the police request. The defence also produced DW2-Lal Singh and closed the defence evidence. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have gone through the entire record. 6. Mr. R.S. Cheema, learned Sr. Advocate submits that PW3 and PW4 were not present at the scene of the crime at the relevant time. They have been introduced merely to give support to the prosecution case. Pointing out to the evidence of PW3 and PW4, he has submitted that these witnesses had no occasion to be present in the college on 29.3.1995 as their examinations were over. On the other hand, the accused had to appear in the practical examination on that very day. According to the learned Sr. Counsel, the sequence of events as narrated by PW3 and PW4 is unnatural which would lend credence to the submission that these witnesses had been introduced by the prosecution later on. According to the learned Sr. Counsel, the prosecution has failed to establish any clear motive for the murder. Therefore, the plea of self-defence put forward by Rajesh is probable. According to the learned Sr. Counsel, at best it could be said that Sanjay had exceeded the right of self-defence in causing injuries with the knife to the deceased. Learned Sr. Counsel submits that the prosecution having failed to explain the injuries suffered by Rajesh would lead to the conclusion that the prosecution is suppressing the genesis of the crime. In support of this submission, the learned Sr. Counsel has relied on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Lakshmi Singh and others v. State of Bihar, AIR 1976 (SC) 2263. With regard to the exact force which a person may use in self-defence when faced with immediate threat or danger to life, the learned Sr. Counsel has submitted that it is not capable of being tabulated. The learned Sr. With regard to the exact force which a person may use in self-defence when faced with immediate threat or danger to life, the learned Sr. Counsel has submitted that it is not capable of being tabulated. The learned Sr. Counsel has submitted that merely because Rajesh had caused two injuries with the knife on the chest of the deceased would not necessarily lead to the conclusion that he had intention to cause the death of the deceased. In support of the aforesaid submission, the learned Sr. Counsel has relied on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Ramzani v. State of Delhi, AIR 1980 Supreme Court 1341. Learned Sr. Counsel further submitted that the plea of self-defence has to be proved only by preponderance of probabilities. On the other hand, the prosecution can never be absolved from proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The burden on the prosecution never shifts. In support of the aforesaid proposition of law, learned Sr. Counsel relied on a judgment in the case of Vijayee Singh and others v. State of U.P., AIR 1990 Supreme Court 1459. 7. Ms. Palika Monga, learned counsel appearing for the State of Haryana has submitted that both the accused were nursing a grudge against the deceased as he had not supported their candidate in the election. The deceased had been threatened by the accused only a few days before he was killed. She has further submitted that eye-witness account is consistent. There would have been no reason to falsely implicate the accused in place of the actual assailants. Learned counsel has further submitted that mere non-explanation of the injuries suffered by the accused is of no consequence in this case as none of the injuries were of a serious nature. They could have been self- inflicted merely to put forward a plea of self-defence. In the cross- examination DW-1 Dr. S.S. Yadav has clearly stated that the injuries were declared simpled in nature. He further admitted that the possibility of the injuries being caused by a friendly hand cannot be ruled out. She has submitted that the evidence led by the prosecution undoubtedly points the finger of guilt towards the accused person. In such circumstances, non- explanation of the injuries on the accused cannot be the sole basis for rejecting the testimony of the prosecution witnesses. She has submitted that the evidence led by the prosecution undoubtedly points the finger of guilt towards the accused person. In such circumstances, non- explanation of the injuries on the accused cannot be the sole basis for rejecting the testimony of the prosecution witnesses. In support of the submission, learned counsel has relied on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Takhaji Hiraji v. Thakore Kubersing Chamansing and others, JT 2001(Suppl. 1) SC 415. 8. The arguments of Mr. R.S. Cheema have been adopted by Mr. T.P. Singh, learned counsel for the appellant in Crl. Appeal No. 309-DB of 1996. Mr. D.V. Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the revision petition has adopted the arguments of Ms. Monga. 9. We are unable to accept the submissions made by Mr. R.S. Cheema, learned Sr. Advocate, that the sequence of events as narrated by PW3 and PW4, is not natural. 10. The star witness of the prosecution is Virender Singh, PW3. He has categorically stated that Sunil Yadav and Rishi Raj were contesting the elections for the President of the Students Union of the College. He, Bahadur PW4 and the deceased were the supporters of Sunil. Both the accused were supporting Rishi Raj. There was tension between the two groups of the supporters of the candidates. He has narrated the entire episode in a natural and straight forward manner. He has denied the suggestion in the cross-examination that he and his friends were nursing a grudge against Rajesh for supporting Rishi Raj. He has also denied that Sanjay had changed sides on the asking of Rajesh. He candidly stated that the deceased had no business in the college on that day. He reiterated that Bahadur had gone there to read the newspapers in the Library. He also reiterated that they had been threatened by the accused 2/3 days prior to the date on which the deceased was attacked. The accused had taunted them that they will be taught a lesson. The witness also accepted the fact that Sanjay and Rajesh had appeared in the final Practical Examination on that day. There is no merit in the submission of Mr. Cheema that the presence of PW3 and PW4 at the College, was unnatural merely because their examinations had ended three or four days earlier. The witness also accepted the fact that Sanjay and Rajesh had appeared in the final Practical Examination on that day. There is no merit in the submission of Mr. Cheema that the presence of PW3 and PW4 at the College, was unnatural merely because their examinations had ended three or four days earlier. PW3 has given a reasonable explanation for his presence in the college as he wanted to collect the practical book of Geography which he had left in the Library at the time of the examination. The deceased, even according to the version of the defence, was a close friend of PW3, Virender. Therefore, there was nothing unnatural in the deceased accompanying his friend to the College. These facts are fully supported by the testimony of PW4. He has reiterated the sequence of events as narrated by PW3, Virender. Both these witnesses were subjected to lengthy cross-examination. There are hardly any contradictions in the evidence of both the witnesses. There is also clear evidence of the eye-witnesses that the two injuries on the chest of the deceased were inflicted by Sanjay with a knife. There is also cogent evidence to the effect that Rajesh had caught hold of both the hands of the deceased from behind. Such being the ocular evidence of eye-witnesses, it cannot be said that they have been subsequently introduced by the prosecution. The ocular evidence with regard to the injuries is fully supported by the medical evidence. PW1 Dr. R.N. Yadav had conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead-body on 30.3.1995 and found the following injuries on his person :- Injuries : 1) There was un-incised stabbed wound of size 2 cm x 0.8 cm. placed horizontally on the outer middle front of the left side of chest. 0.6 cm. lateral and above the outer marginal or nipple 20 cm. below the top of the left shoulder joint. The wound was spindle shape having both the angle acute. The upper margin of the wound was bewelled and lower margin was under mind. On dessection wound was down-ward and back-ward pierced intercostal space between fourth and fifth ribs. Subcutaneous haematoma was present anterior surface of pleura and anterior surface of lungs. The corresponding cut on the lung was 1.5 cm x 0.6 cm x 2 cm deep. Left thoracic cavity was full of blood. The lungs was partially collapsed. On dessection wound was down-ward and back-ward pierced intercostal space between fourth and fifth ribs. Subcutaneous haematoma was present anterior surface of pleura and anterior surface of lungs. The corresponding cut on the lung was 1.5 cm x 0.6 cm x 2 cm deep. Left thoracic cavity was full of blood. The lungs was partially collapsed. 2) Incised stab wound of size 1.9 cm x 0.7 was placed vertically 5.5 cm. from the outer marginal of the left side of the nipple of lateral side of left chest. It was 4 cm. lateral to the injury No. 1 and 7.5 cm. from anterior upper part of anilla. The wound was spindle shape and with both angle were acute. On dessection, the wound was directing medially and slightly back-ward. Cutaneous Haematoma was present. On further dissection, the track pierced through the inter-costal space between 5th and 6th ribs and pierced the underlying plura and lungs. The size of the cut on the lung was 1.5 cm x 0.6 cm x 2.5 cm. deep. Left thoracic cut cavity was full of blood. The death was reported to the police on 29.3.1995." According to the doctor, the death was due to shock and haemorrhage, as a result of the aforesaid injuries. The injuries were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Injury No. 1 was found to be down-ward and back-ward and had pierced inter-costal space between 4th and 5th ribs. It had also pierced part of the lungs. As a result of this, the lung had partially collapsed. The second injury was equally deep which had pierced through inter-costal space between 5th and 6th ribs. It had also pierced the underlying plura and lungs. The seat of these injuries is almost identical to the description given by PW3 and PW4 with regard to the attack on the deceased by Sanjay. The force with which these injuries had been inflicted, leave no manner of doubt that the appellants had intention to cause the death of the deceased. 12. There is also clear evidence to the effect that the appellants were nursing a grudge against the deceased and Virender PW3 for supporting Sunil in the elections of the Students Union for President. The deceased had been threatened with dire consequences for supporting Sunil only two or three days before the fatal assault. 12. There is also clear evidence to the effect that the appellants were nursing a grudge against the deceased and Virender PW3 for supporting Sunil in the elections of the Students Union for President. The deceased had been threatened with dire consequences for supporting Sunil only two or three days before the fatal assault. It has come in evidence that there was tension between the two groups of supporters of the candidates. Mr. Cheema has submitted that the elections had taken place in the month of August, 1994 and therefore, the incident of 29.3.1996 could have no connection with the elections. We are unable to accept the submission of the learned Sr. Counsel. It is not disputed that there were strained relations between the two groups of the supporters of the two candidates who stood for President of the Students Union. The appellants obviously continued to nurse a grudge against the deceased and Virender PW3. 13. It is well-known that many State and National level leaders of the past and present have cut their political teeth, at the Students Union of the Colleges and Universities at which they are/were students. Successful participation in Students Union Politics is an important feather in the cap of a budding political leader. Therefore, the elections to the Students Union are very seriously contested. The violence that accompanies these elections is also not an unknown phenomena. Therefore, it is impossible to brush aside the motive attributed by PW3 and PW4 to the appellants for attacking the deceased. 14. We are also unable to find any substance in the submission of Mr. Cheema that the prosecution has suppressed the genesis of the crime. It has come in evidence of DW1 that all the injuries suffered by Rajesh were simple in nature. These injuries were as follows :- Injuries :- 1. There was bruise of 3 x 1.5 cm. at the lumbar region transversally in the back at the level of L1 and L2. It was having blackish colour. It was tender and painful. 2. There was reddish black bruise on the nose at the apex. There was no internal swelling. 3. There was bruise of 3 x 2 cm. on the lower cyelid on both the sides having on the lower palpidral muscles, Black colour. There was no mark of injury on the eye-bar. 4. There was no mark of injury on the lips. 5. There was no internal swelling. 3. There was bruise of 3 x 2 cm. on the lower cyelid on both the sides having on the lower palpidral muscles, Black colour. There was no mark of injury on the eye-bar. 4. There was no mark of injury on the lips. 5. There was bruise of 4 x 3 cm. at the right side of neck. It was reddish black in colour. The injuries was found simple in nature and probable duration of injuries was within more than 24 hours and were caused by blunt weapon." 15. In the examination-in-chief itself, the witnesses had stated that the possibility of the bruises being self-suffered cannot be ruled out. He further stated that the possibility of the injuries being caused by a friendly hand also cannot be ruled out. In such circumstances, the ratio of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Lakshmi Singhs case (supra) would be of no assistance to the appellants. In the aforesaid case, the Supreme Court held as follows :- "11... It seems to us that in a murder case, the non-explanation of the injuries sustained by the accused at about the time of the occurrence or in the course of altercation is a very important circumstance from which the Court can draw the following inferences : (1) That the prosecution has suppressed the genesis and the origin of the occurrence and has thus not presented the true version; (2) that the witnesses who have denied the presence of the injuries on the person of the accused are lying on a most material point and therefore their evidence is unreliable; (3) 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. AIR 1976 (SC) 2263 relied." 16. A perusal of the aforesaid ratio of law would indicate that the Court can, in a particular case, draw the inferences noted above. It his not an invariable rule as is sought to be projected by Mr. Cheema, learned Sr. Advocate, that non-explanation of the injuries on the accused would justify discarding the entire prosecution case. In the present case, none of the three eventualities mentioned above are applicable. Both the eye-witnesses had seen that Rajesh had taken the deceased in his grip from behind. Cheema, learned Sr. Advocate, that non-explanation of the injuries on the accused would justify discarding the entire prosecution case. In the present case, none of the three eventualities mentioned above are applicable. Both the eye-witnesses had seen that Rajesh had taken the deceased in his grip from behind. They had also seen that simultaneously Sanjay had inflicted two knife injuries on the left side of the chest of the deceased. PW3 stated that he and his friend Bahadur did not cause any injury to Rajesh on the day when deceased was attacked. PW3 Virender also stated that the deceased had not given any fists, kicks or slaps to the accused. PW4 firstly stated that he cannot say whether the deceased had given any fists or kicks to Rajesh accused. But in the very next sentence he stated that the deceased had not given any kick or fist blows to Rajesh since he was caught by Rajesh from his arms. When these statements are considered alongwith the medical evidence, it becomes apparent that in all probability no injuries were caused by the deceased to the accused. Rather the medical evidence shows that the injuries are either self suffered, or caused by a friendly hand. In the same judgment, the Supreme Court has furthers observed as follows :- "11. .......We must hasten to add that as held by this Court in State of Gujarat v. Bai Fatima, Criminal Appeal No. 67 of 1971 decided on March 19, 1975 : (Reported in AIR 1975 Supreme Court 1478) there may be cases where the non- explanation of the injuries by the prosecution may not affect the prosecution case. This principle would obviously apply to cases where the injuries sustained by the accused are minor and superficial or where the evidence is so clear and cogent, so independent and disinterested, so probable, consistent and credit-worthy that it far outweighs the effect of the omission on the part of the prosecution to explain the injuries......." 17. We are of the opinion that the facts and circumstances of the present case would clearly fall within the principle reproduced above. No benefit can be given to the appellants on accounts of the injuries having been suffered by Rajesh, appellant. This view of ours also finds support from the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Takhaji Hiraji (supra). No benefit can be given to the appellants on accounts of the injuries having been suffered by Rajesh, appellant. This view of ours also finds support from the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Takhaji Hiraji (supra). In the aforesaid case, the Supreme Court has held as follows :- "17. The first question which arises for consideration is what is the effect of non-explanation of injuries sustained by the accused persons. In Rajendra Singh and others v. State of Bihar, JT 2000(4) SC 293 : 2000(4) SCC 298; Ram Sunder Yadav and others v. State of Bihar, JT 1998(5) SC 620 : 1998(7) SCC 365 and Vijayee Singh and others v. State of U.P., JT 1990(2) SC 96 : 1990(3) SCC 190, all 3 Judges Bench decisions, the view taken consistently is that it cannot be held as a matter of law and invariably a rule that whenever accused sustained an injury in the same occurrence, the prosecution is obliged to explain the injury and on the failure of the prosecution to do so the prosecution case should be disbelieved. Before non- explanation of the injuries on the person of the accused persons by the prosecution witnesses may affect the prosecution case, the court has to be satisfied of the existence of two conditions (i) that the injury on the person of the accused was of a serious nature; and (ii) that such injuries must have been caused at the time of the occurrence in question. Non-explanation of injuries assumed greater significance when the evidence consists of interested or partisan witnesses or where the defence gives a version which competes in probability with that of the prosecution. Where the evidence is clear, cogent and credit-worthy and where the Court can distinguish the truth from falsehood the mere fact that the injuries on the side of the accused persons are not explained by the prosecution cannot by itself be a sole basis to reject the testimony of the prosecution witnesses and consequently the whole of the prosecution case. 18. The High Court was therefore not right in overthrowing the entire prosecution case for non-explanation of the injuries sustained by the accused persons. 18. The High Court was therefore not right in overthrowing the entire prosecution case for non-explanation of the injuries sustained by the accused persons. The High Court ought to have made an effort at searching out the truth on the material available on record as also to find out how much of the prosecution case was proved beyond reasonable doubt and was worthy of being accepted as truthful." 17. As noticed earlier, the injuries suffered by Rajesh were superficial in nature. Therefore, the non-explanation of the injuries by the prosecution would not be sufficient to disbelieve the entire prosecution case. 18. Mr. Cheema has then argued that Rajesh had given a plausible explanation that the fatal injuries suffered by the deceased had been caused by him in self-defence. According to Mr. Cheema, at best it would be a case that Rajesh in causing fatal injuries to the deceased had exceeded the right of private defence. Learned Sr. Counsel has made the aforesaid submission on the basis of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Mohd. Ramzanis case (supra). In the aforesaid case, the Supreme Court has held as follows :- "19. It is trite that the onus which rests on an accused person under Section 105, Evidence Act, to establish his plea of private defence is not as onerous as the unshifting burden which lies on the prosecution to establish every ingredient of the offence with which the accused is charged beyond reasonable doubt. It is further well established that a person faced with imminent peril of life and limb of himself or another, is not expected to weigh in "golden scales" the precise force needed to repel the danger. Even if he at the heat of the moment carries his defence a little further then what would be necessary when calculated with precision and exactitude by a calm and unruffled mind, the law makes due allowance for it. Viewed in the light of these principles, the defence, in the instant case had succeeded in establishing with a balance of probability, that the deceased and Abdul Rashid armed with a Saria and knife respectively, first assaulted Mohd. Shafi and thereupon the appellant assaulted the deceased to save his father and himself from further injuries...." 19. We are of the opinion that the aforesaid ratio of law would not be applicable in the facts of the present case. Shafi and thereupon the appellant assaulted the deceased to save his father and himself from further injuries...." 19. We are of the opinion that the aforesaid ratio of law would not be applicable in the facts of the present case. Firstly, it is to be noticed that DW1 has categorically stated that the injuries were simple in nature. They could have been self-suffered or they could have been caused by a friendly hand. We find merit in the submission made by Ms. Monga that the plea of self-defence is an after-thought. This plea was never put to the eye-witnesses during the lengthy cross-examination to which they were subjected. The plea of self-defence was raised for the first time in the statement made under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code The version put forward by Rajesh is belied by the fact that no injury was found on the testicles or the area surrounding the testicles. It was emphatically stated by Rajesh that he acted in private defence because he had been kicked on the testicles. On the other hand, we have the cogent evidence of the two eye-witnesses (PW3 and PW4) corroborated by the medical evidence of PW1, Dr. R.N. Yadav to the effect that fatal wounds were caused by Sanjay. The grievous nature and the seat of the injuries which caused the death would also go to show that the injuries were not inflicted in self-defence. They were caused with the intention of causing death. We are of the opinion that in the facts and circumstances, the reliance placed by Mr. Cheema on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Mohd. Ramzanis case (supra) is wholly misconceived. We are of the opinion that the plea of private defence put forward by Rajesh has been fabricated after the close of the evidence of the prosecution. No other point has been urged by either of the counsel. 20. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the opinion that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. The conviction and sentence of both the appellants i.e. of Sanjay under Section 302 Indian Penal Code and of Rajesh under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code as recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon vide its judgment dated 28.2.1996 are maintained. Both the appeals are hereby dismissed. The revision petition is also dismissed. The conviction and sentence of both the appellants i.e. of Sanjay under Section 302 Indian Penal Code and of Rajesh under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code as recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon vide its judgment dated 28.2.1996 are maintained. Both the appeals are hereby dismissed. The revision petition is also dismissed. Appeals dismissed.