Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 460 (PNJ)

State Of Haryana v. Mange Ram

2008-02-19

ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, S.D.ANAND

body2008
Judgment S.D.Anand, J. 1. This is State appeal against acquittal of Mange Ram and Hari Om sons of Ram Chander respondents-accused, in terms of impugned judgment dated 15.3.1997, recorded by the then learned Sessions Judge, Rohtak. For enabling precise appreciation of the controversy, we would first notice the prosecution allegations and, thereafter, notice and deal with the premise on which the impugned finding of exoneration proceeds. 2. PW6 Mangal Singh, Satish PW7 and Satte (not examined at the trial) sons of Mst. Nando deceased are separate in mess and residence inter- se. PW8 Raj Devi first informant is wife of Satish. 3. On 18.6.1994, at about, 8/9 PM, Mange Ram respondent- accused appeared in front of the house of Mst. Raj Devi PW and her husband Satish in an inebriated state and hurled abuses before going away. 4. The following day, at about 1.30 PM, Mangal Singh was on way to his house. When he reached near the house of respondent-accused Mange Ram, he was accosted by both the respondents-accused. Mange Ram respondent-accused caught hold of Mangal Singh from latters rear side. The Raula raised by Mangal Singh attracted his mother Mst. Nando, sisterin- law Raj Devi and her husband Satish to the spot. In their full view, respondent-accused Hari Om gave a Ballam blow on the left side of chest of Mangal Singh. Thereafter, Mange Ram released Mangal Singh and caught hold of latters brother Satish who (Satish) was also given a Ballam blow by Hari Om. Apart therefrom, Hari Om also gave a Ballam blow in the stomach of Mst. Nando. On account of that blow, her intestines came out of her belly. Mst. Nando, Mangal Singh and also Satish were transported by Joginder, Surinder and Mst. Raj Devi to Civil Hospital, Bahadugarh, in a tractor belonging to the Sarpanch of the village. From there, they were referred to Medical College and Hospital, Rohtak. In their defence, the complainant party picked up stones lying near the drain and threw those upon the respondents-accused. 5. The offence was notified to the police by Ms. Raj Devi PW, vide statement Ex.PJ. 6. PW 1 Dr. Manju Lata Chaudhry had referred Satish, Mangal and Nando to Medical College and Hospital, Rohtak without preparing any MLR. She also sent ruqqa Ex.PA to SHO, Police Station, Sadar Bahadurgarh, in that context. 5. The offence was notified to the police by Ms. Raj Devi PW, vide statement Ex.PJ. 6. PW 1 Dr. Manju Lata Chaudhry had referred Satish, Mangal and Nando to Medical College and Hospital, Rohtak without preparing any MLR. She also sent ruqqa Ex.PA to SHO, Police Station, Sadar Bahadurgarh, in that context. (She had also medico legally examined respondent-accused Mange Ram and his mother Mst. Murti). On the person of the former, she found one incised wound and one abrasion. In case of Mst. Murti, she found two incised wounds and one complaint of pain. 7. Further thereafter, on an application (Ex.PE) moved by the police, she had opined (vide Ex.PE/1) that the possibility of the injuries on the person of Mange Ram and Mst. Murti having been caused by a fall or being self suffered could not be ruled out. 8. PW 2 Dr. Manju Arora, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Rohtak, had conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of Mst. Nando and found the following injuries on her person: 1. There was an incised wound of 8 cm x 6 cm on left side of lower abdomen above iliac crest. The iliac crest was exposed and was fractured. Clotted blood was present all around and the wound was communcating with periteneal cavity. 2. Two small incised wounds on both sideds of abdomen were present with the size of 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm each. Some amount of blood along with serius discharge was coming out of the wound. 3. There was a stitched wound in the mid line of abdomen extending above the umbilious of the size of 21 cm bearing 13 satitches. On opening the abdominal cavity, gut was stitched with suture at many places. About 50 mls of blood was present in the periteneal cavity. 9. She opined that the death had occurred on account of the shock and haemorrhage due to the above injuries which were ante-mortem in nature and were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. 10. PW 3 Dr. Nidhi Aggarwal had radiologically examined Mangal Singh and found no fracture on his person. She had also radiologically examined Satish PW and found no fracture on his person ( "but there was left sided plural deffusion with pneumonitis"). PW4 Dharampal proved the factum and duration of the hospitalisation of Satish from 19.6.1994 to 28.6.1994. PW5 Dr. 10. PW 3 Dr. Nidhi Aggarwal had radiologically examined Mangal Singh and found no fracture on his person. She had also radiologically examined Satish PW and found no fracture on his person ( "but there was left sided plural deffusion with pneumonitis"). PW4 Dharampal proved the factum and duration of the hospitalisation of Satish from 19.6.1994 to 28.6.1994. PW5 Dr. Ashwani Kumar Dalal, the then Registrar, Medical College and Hospital, Rohtak, operated upon Satish in the context of the "stab chest". He recorded an operation finding that "there was lung tear present just below the stab injury of the chest, which was bleeding. The lung tear was repaired and chest was closed." He further opined that "since there was tear in the lung of injured Satish, if timely aid was not given it could have resulted to death." Dr. Dalal had treated Satish "from the date of his admission till he was discharged from the hospital." 11. PW 9 Dr. Madan Singh, then posted as Registrar at Medical College and Hospital, Rohtak, treated Mangal Singh PW from 19.6.1994 to 28.6.1994, before the patient was referred to Neuro-Surgeon for further management/treatment. PW 11 Dr. Amarjeet Singh had medico-legally examined Mst. Nando (on her arrival at the hospital) and found the following injury on her person: 1. About 4 ft intestine was protruding out of the wound and intestines was transversely cut and the patient was referred for Surgeons opinion by me. 12. He had also medico-legally examined Satish PW and found the following injury on his peson: Incised wound of 10 cm x 2 cm on left side of chest lateral to left nipple. 13. Apart therefrom, he examined Mangal Singh PW and found the following injury on his person: Incised wound 12x6 cm on left side of chest, just front of left shoulder. 14. The injuries on the person of all the three injured were opined by him to have been caused by a sharp weapon within a probable duration of six hours. He also reported (on police request Ex.PT, Ex.PU and Ex.PV) that Mangal Singh, Satish and Mst. Nando were unfit to make a statement (vide opinions Ex.PT/1, Ex.PU/1 and Ex.PV/1 respectively). 15. The ocular presentation segment consists of the testimony on oath of PW6 Mangal Singh, his brother PW7 Satish and PW8 Smt. Raj Devi wife of Satish. 16. He also reported (on police request Ex.PT, Ex.PU and Ex.PV) that Mangal Singh, Satish and Mst. Nando were unfit to make a statement (vide opinions Ex.PT/1, Ex.PU/1 and Ex.PV/1 respectively). 15. The ocular presentation segment consists of the testimony on oath of PW6 Mangal Singh, his brother PW7 Satish and PW8 Smt. Raj Devi wife of Satish. 16. PW 10 Inspector Basti Ram had recorded formal FIR Ex.PM, on receipt of statement Ex.PJ of Mst. Raj Devi which had been recorded by SI Tek Ram. He also filed the report under Section 173 Cr.PC in this case. PW13 Mohinder Singh, Draftsman, prepared scaled site plan Ex.PD, of the spot, on the pointing of Satish, Mangal and Mst. Raj Devi P.Ws. (Affidavits Ex.PK and Ex.PX of MHC Rajbir and PY of Dharam Singh were tendered in to evidence. As noticed in the relevant statement of the Public Prosecutor, the deponents of the affidavits were present in the Court at the time the documents were tendered in to evidence and the defence was not inclined to direct any cross-examination on them. Inder, Ram Parshad, Joginder and Surender Pws were given up as having been won over by the respondent-accused. HC Sukhvir Singh and also HC Udeyvir were given up as unnecessary. 17. Ex.PCC is the report by the Forensic Science Laboratory. Respondents-accused pleaded innocence. Apart therefrom, accused-respondent Mange Ram pleaded as under: I am innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. On 18.6.94 there was quarrel between me and family of Mangal Singh PW in which I abused his family members. On 19.6.94 at about noon time Mangal Singh, Satish armed with Jaile and lathi came to my house and caused injuries to me and my mother and when mother of Mangal Singh tried to intervene, she fell on an iron peg which was fixed in front of my house for tethering cattle received injuries then I caused injuries to them to save ourselves. Hariom was not present at the time of occurrence. I am innocent. Later on with connivance of police we have been falsely implicated in this case. 18. Accused-respondent Hari Om averred as under: I am innocent and have been falsely implicated to spoil my career. I was not present at the time of occurrence. I am a student. 19. DW1 Mst. Murti entered the witness box on behalf of defence. Later on with connivance of police we have been falsely implicated in this case. 18. Accused-respondent Hari Om averred as under: I am innocent and have been falsely implicated to spoil my career. I was not present at the time of occurrence. I am a student. 19. DW1 Mst. Murti entered the witness box on behalf of defence. She testified that on the relevant date, she and her son accused-respondent Mange Ram were given Jelly and Ballam blows by Satish and Mangal PWs. As per her statement, Mangal PW gave her a Jelly blow on her right shoulder and left flank, while he gave a Lathi blow to Mange accused- respondent on latters left side of the head. It was "in the defence of his person" that accused-respondent Mange caused injuries to Satish and Mangal. The further plea testified by her is that "Smt. Nando mother of Mangal came there. Nando tried to intervene. Satish gave her a push and she fell on an iron peg (Khunta) and she sustained injuries on her abdomen." Qua respondent-accused Hari Om, she averred that he was not present at the time of impugned occurrence. 20. The following would indicate the item-wise premise on which the learned Trial Court recorded a finding of exoneration from liability in favour of the accused: i) The prosecution had not been able to prove any motive on the part of the respondents-accused to cause the alleged injuries to the members of the complainant party. ii) The prosecution had not been able to explain the inordinate delay in the lodging of the First Information Report. iii) The prosecution had not examined Joginder PW at the trial. iv) Mst. Raj Devi PW was not present at the spot and had been falsely introduced into the case. This finding was recorded to be fortified by the fact that the MLRs of Mangal, Satish and Mst. Nando indicate that they were accompanied by Joginder (and not Mst. Raj Devi PW). In that very context, it was pointed out that her name also does not figure in the site plan prepared by SI Tek Ram. This finding was recorded to be fortified by the fact that the MLRs of Mangal, Satish and Mst. Nando indicate that they were accompanied by Joginder (and not Mst. Raj Devi PW). In that very context, it was pointed out that her name also does not figure in the site plan prepared by SI Tek Ram. If she had witnessed the impugned occurrence, there is no reason why the police official aforementioned would not have shown that place in the site plan from where she had witnessed the impugned occurrence, particularly when Joginder Singh and Surender Singh are shown to have witnessed the occurrence in the site plan Ex.PY from the sites indicated therein. If Mst. Raj Devi had been present, there is no reason why her presence would not have been recorded by the Medical Officer in the MLRs and also by SI Tek Ram in the site plan. v) The prosecution had not been able to explain the injuries on the person of Mange Ram respondent-accused (and his mother Mst. Murti DW1) v) The testimony of relation witnesses is not supported by any independent witness. 21. Insofar as the respondents-accused are concerned, their Learned Counsel went whole hog with the line of reasoning adopted by the learned Trial Court in recording the finding of acquittal. The arguments raised on behalf of the respondents were completely in line with the reasoning given by the learned Trial Court. 22. On the other hand, the learned State counsel, in a vehement criticism of the findings given by the learned Trial Court, argued that those findings are not supportable on the touch stone of proper appreciation of evidence. 23. However, before undertaking the adjudicatory exercise, we would like to notice that the factum of occurrence would indeed appear to be beyond the pale of controversy in view of the tenor of cross examination of the PWs and the testimony on oath of none-else or other than DW1 Mst. Murti (mother of respondent-accused Mange Ram) to the effect that the injuries to the complainant party had been given by the respondents in their self defence. Whether it was the complainant party which was the aggressor (as alleged on behalf of the respondents-accused) or the ball of accountability is in the court of the latter is an altogether different point. 24. The itemwise discussion/appreciation of pleas raised by the parties follows. Whether it was the complainant party which was the aggressor (as alleged on behalf of the respondents-accused) or the ball of accountability is in the court of the latter is an altogether different point. 24. The itemwise discussion/appreciation of pleas raised by the parties follows. i) Motive: The finding recorded by the learned Trial Judge, in the context of the projected motive, is to the effect that " the prosecution case cannot fail because even trivial motive can lead to murder". In the preceding part of that para, the learned Trial Judge noticed that Mst. Nando had only given a push to Mange Ram who hurled abuses in front of her house on 18.6.1994 while under the influence of liquor. One push, the reasoning suggests, could not have actuated the respondents-accused to murder Mst. Nando on 19.6.1994. It is in that context that the Trial Court noticed that though the motive was trivial, it could not justify the invalidation of the prosecution plea. By the very nature of things, reactions to a given situation would vary from person to person. In the face of a grave provocation, a cool or wise person may either not re-act or may re-act at a lower pedestal. At the same time, there might well be a person of haughty temperament whose re-action to even a small provocation may be found to be thoroughly dis-proportionate. The present case appears to belong to the latter category. Thus, it is apparent that the respondents-accused acted in reprisal with a view to avenge the spite sustained a day earlier at the hands of Mst. Nando. ii) Delay in the lodging of the First Information Report: Insoforas as aspect of delay in lodging the First Information Report is concerned, it would be evident from a perusal of the record that there had, in fact, been no delay in the notification of the offence to the police. The impugned occurrence had taken place on 19.6.1994 at about 1.30 PM. As evident from the record, PW1 Dr. Manju Lata Chaudhry referred the patients to Medical College and Hospital, Rohtak, without preparing their MLRs as their condition was very serious. She also notified that fact to the police vide ruqqa Ex.PA. In sofar as ruqqa is concerned, it does not indicate the time of arrival of the injured at General Hospital, Bahadurgarh. Manju Lata Chaudhry referred the patients to Medical College and Hospital, Rohtak, without preparing their MLRs as their condition was very serious. She also notified that fact to the police vide ruqqa Ex.PA. In sofar as ruqqa is concerned, it does not indicate the time of arrival of the injured at General Hospital, Bahadurgarh. However, the riddle in the context is solved by the fact that Mst. Nando , Mangal Singh and Satish are recorded in MLRs Ex.PO, Ex.PQ and Ex.PR to have arrived at Medical College and Hospital, Rohtak at 5.25, 5.30 and 5.35 respectively, for purpose of medico-legal examination. There is no dispute that Rohtak is at a distance of about 40 Kms from Bahadurgarh. The injured were transported in a tractor which, obviously, cannot pick up high speed. The statement made by PW Mangal Singh ("We did not send anybody to police station as doctor informed us that he has sent the information") is corroborated by the statement of PW1 Dr. Manju Lata Chaudhry who testified on oath that she had sent ruqqa Ex.PA to the police. She was not cross-examined on that point. It follows therefrom that the respondent-accused accepted the correctness of her statement to the above effect. The factum of receipt of ruqqa Ex.PA at 5 PM in Police Station, Bahadurgarh, was conceded by PW 12 SI Tek Ram, who was posted over there at that point of time. He categorically indicated that it was in view of the averment in the ruqqa (that the injured had been referred to Medical College and Hospital, Rohtak) that he proceeded (directly) to that place. Faced with the predicament aforementioned, the Learned Counsel for the respondent-accused pointed out that copy of the FIR had been given to the Illaqa Magistrate on 28.6.1994 at 12.05 PM and that no special report whatsoever had been forwarded to the Illaqa Magistrate. The plea advocated is completely oblivious of the fact that the FIR, as initially registered, was for an offence under Section 324 IPC. There was, thus, no requirement of the despatch of a special report to the learned Illaqa Magistrate. A copy of the FIR had to be forwarded to the learned Illaqa Magistrate in routine. The plea advocated is completely oblivious of the fact that the FIR, as initially registered, was for an offence under Section 324 IPC. There was, thus, no requirement of the despatch of a special report to the learned Illaqa Magistrate. A copy of the FIR had to be forwarded to the learned Illaqa Magistrate in routine. Insofar as the non-forwarding of a special report to the Ilaqa Magistrate is concerned, all that we can concede is that it constitutes a dereliction of duty on the part of the Investigating Officer. Nonetheless, it cannot be argued that there had been any delay in the lodging of the FIR with the police. We are fortified in this view of ours by the conjunctive perusal of the three MLRs Ex.PO, Ex.PQ and Ex.PR, ruqqa Ex.PA and the testimony on oath of PW 1 Dr. Manju Lata Chaudhry, PW 2 Dr. Manju Arora and also the Investigating Officer. iii) Non-examination of Joginder PW Insofar as non examination of Joginder PW is concerned, the learned Trial Judge has attached undeserved importance to that fact. There is no law which would ordain the multiplicity of witnesses of the same fact. In the present case, the prosecution examined Mangal Singh and Satish injured P.Ws, besides examining Mst. Raj Devi as an eye witness of the impugned occurrence. All of them detailed the sequence of events in a forthright manner and, in that view of things, an otherwise validly proved prosecution plea cannot be thrown out just because of the non-examination of Joginder PW at the trial. iv) Presence of Mst. Raj Devi PW at the time of the impugned occurrence. In view of the fact that the presence of Mst. Raj Devi is not recorded in MLRs Ex.PO, Ex.PQ and Ex.PR and also in view of the fact that the place from where she witnessed the impugned occurrence had not been indicated in the site plan Ex.PY which had been prepared by SI Tek Ram PW 12, the learned Trial Court drew an inference that she was not present at the spot and had been falsely introduced in the case later on. We are unable to persuade ourselves to agree with the above finding recorded by the learned Trial Court. Though dereliction in the relevant behalf on the part of SI Tek Ram (in not noticing the spot from where Mst. We are unable to persuade ourselves to agree with the above finding recorded by the learned Trial Court. Though dereliction in the relevant behalf on the part of SI Tek Ram (in not noticing the spot from where Mst. Raj Devi had witnessed the impugned occurrence) cannot be disputed, we are of the view that there is nothing unusual/unnatural in the omission of her name from the MLRs. When the injured are accompanied by more than one person, it would be natural for the Medical Officer to notice the name of any one of them. In our conventional society, it is an accompanying male member who would normally be expected to do the job of moving around and conversing with the doctors. By saying so, we do not suggest the demeaning of the role which may be played by a female member of the party accompanying the injured. All that we suggest thereby is that there is nothing unusual in the medico legal reports having noticed the name of only Joginder Singh as the person who accompanied the injured to the hospital. As is apparent from the record, Mst. Raj Rani is the wife of injured PW Satish. That relationship of hers would also make it natural for her to have accompanied the latter to the hospital. We do not, accordingly, find any reasons to affirm the view of the learned Trial Court under this item. v) Non-explanation of the injuries on the person of the accused In the face of the documentary material on the record, there is no escape from the conclusion that certain injuries were indeed found on the person of Mst. Murti and accused Mange. It also cannot be denied that the FIR does not at all give an idea about how the respondents-accused came to sustain those injuries. The explanation in the context above saw the light of the day for the first time only in the statement of Mangal PW who stated that they picked up stones lying nearby and threw those at the respondents- accused. 25. The explanation in the context above saw the light of the day for the first time only in the statement of Mangal PW who stated that they picked up stones lying nearby and threw those at the respondents- accused. 25. Though there would be nothing unnatural in expecting the complainant party to inform the law about the circumstances under which the assailant party came to sustain injuries on their person, there is plethora of law on the point that the mere inability on the part of the prosecution to explain the injuries on the person of the accused cannot, ipso facto, invalidate its case. It would require pertinent notice in that context that the factum of impugned occurrence has not been questioned on behalf of the defence (DW1 Smt. Murti Devi) which only justified the causing of injuries to the members of the complainant party in retaliation and in exercise of the right of private defence. In that context, it would be appropriate to notice that the Medical Officer, who medico legally examined Mange Ram and Mst. Murti Devi, categorically indicated that the possibility of those injured having sustained injuries by a fall or the injuries being self suffered cannot be ruled out. We must also notice the fact that if there was even an iota of truth in the averment made by DW1 Mst. Murti Devi that Mangal and Satish came to her house while they were carrying a Jelly and Ballam, we would have expected a larger number of injuries on the person of Mange Ram and Mst. Murti Devi. A person who opens an attack in pursuance of premeditation is expected to have advantage of springing a surprise. In such an eventuality, the person attacked would be taken aback. The advantage would, thus, be in favour of the armed party which opens an attack. In the present case, Mst. Nando of the complainant party sustained a much larger and graver number of injuries and died ultimately. The toll of the injured is larger on the complainant side. As against it, Mange Ram and his mother Mst. Murti sustained a much lesser number of injuries, even if put together, which (injuries) could be self suffered as well. The finding recorded by the learned Judge in the relevant behalf and the reiteration thereof on behalf of the respondents-accused shall stand negatived. 26. As against it, Mange Ram and his mother Mst. Murti sustained a much lesser number of injuries, even if put together, which (injuries) could be self suffered as well. The finding recorded by the learned Judge in the relevant behalf and the reiteration thereof on behalf of the respondents-accused shall stand negatived. 26. The Learned Counsel for the respondents-accused, then, raised a plea that inspite of the proven availability of people in the vicinity, no independent witness was examined by the trial court. 27. It is a matter of common knowledge that the public, at large, has the tendency to refrain from getting associated with the investigation of a case by the police. One does not have to strain to find out the causes thereof. The village mates in the rural segment wish to stay away for fear of reprisal and also because they would not wish to spoil their relationship by deposing against a fellow villager. Though the plea raised suggests an ideal situation, all that the Courts are required to do is to be extra cautious in assessing the value to be attached to the testimony of relation-witnesses. In that backdrop, the validity of the prosecution plea has been tested on the touch stone of appropriate appreciation and found to be in order and acceptable. 28. In all fairness, we must notice that we are not happy at the Investigating Officer in having refrained from registering a case on the complaint of the respondent party as well. It appears that he refrained from registering an FIR in view of the opinion given by the Medical Officer that the possibility of those injuries being self suffered could not be ruled out. At the same time, principles of natural justice and fair play required the registration of an independent FIR. It is on conclusion of the investigation that the Investigating Officer would have been otherwise at liberty to record whatever findings he wanted to in the context. The report under Section 173 Cr.PC, in the case, could very well indicate that the allegations made by the respondent-accused in their First Information Report had not been proved. 29. The adoption of that procedure would have shown the Investigating Agency in proper light. The report under Section 173 Cr.PC, in the case, could very well indicate that the allegations made by the respondent-accused in their First Information Report had not been proved. 29. The adoption of that procedure would have shown the Investigating Agency in proper light. At the same time, we do not propose to view the prosecution version with dis-favour just on account of the above indicated refrain, justified or otherwise, on the part of the Investigating Officer. 30. As would be apparent from the record, appellant Hari Om raised a plea of alibi. In that context, sustenance was drawn from the fact that PW 6 Mangal Singh had conceded, as correct, a suggestion that Hari Om was a student. (The learned Trial Court did not, at all, deal with this aspect. The finding of exoneration was recorded on factors other than the plea of alibi put forward on behalf of Hari Om. It is only in appeal before this Court that the Learned Counsel for the respondents raised that point). 31. The mere fact that the above indicated suggestion (about Hari Om being a student) had been conceded by PW 6 Mangal Singh as correct would not enable us to uphold the plea of alibi. It requires pertinent notice, at this stage, that though Mangal Singh PW 6 conceded the above suggestion in the course of one para, he denied the suggestion in the succeeding para that Hari Om was not present at the spot at the time of the impugned occurrence. Even at the cost of repetition, it may be noticed that a precise inculpatory role had been assigned to Hari Om by Mangal Singh and the other PWs at the trial. The onus to prove alibi was, obviously, upon the respondent-accused who raised it. The least that could be done to discharge the onus was to requisition proof on record to prove the factum of accused-respondent having remained present in the relevant educational institution on the date of the alleged occurrence. The adducing of that evidence would have probablised the defence raised by Hari Om accused- respondent for alibi. For want of evidence, we hold that accused-respondent Hari Om had not able to establish the plea of alibi. 32. Having dealt with the item-wise premise in the foregoing paras (on which the impugned finding of acquittal proceeded) , we must notice the evidence adduced by the prosecution. For want of evidence, we hold that accused-respondent Hari Om had not able to establish the plea of alibi. 32. Having dealt with the item-wise premise in the foregoing paras (on which the impugned finding of acquittal proceeded) , we must notice the evidence adduced by the prosecution. In the course of his deposition on oath, PW6 Mangal Singh detailed the sequence of events starting from the precipitating incident dated 18.6.1994 and culminating in the belabouring of the members of the complainant party (PW6 Mangal Singh, PW7 Satish and deceased Mst. Nando) by the respondents-accused on 19.6.1994. Apart there from, he categorically indicated the role attributed to each accused- respondent. It is in his testimony that it was accused-respondent Mange Ram, who caught hold of him from his rear side; while accused-respondent Hari Om gave a Ballam blow on the left side of the chest. The alarm raised by him attracted his mother Mst. Nando, brother Satish and sister-in-law Mst. Raj Devi to the spot. It was thereafter that Mange Ram accused- respondent left him and caught hold of Satish, while Hari Om accused- respondent gave Ballam blow to him as well. It was thereafter that accused- respondent Hari Om gave Ballam blow in the stomach of his mother Mst. Nando. That it was on account of the injury aforementioned that her intestine came out of her belly was further stated by him. He, then, proceeded to aver that the injured were first removed to Civil Hospital, Bahadurgarh, in a tractor belonging to the Sarpanch of the village and that they were given first aid over there and, thereafter, referred to Medical College and Hospital, Rohtak. Apart from indicating the various locational placements where the eye-witnesses were placed, he testified that it was in their defence that they (members of complainant party) had thrown stones lying near the drain of the house of Satish upon the respondents-accused. 33. Apart from various insignificant variations (as between the substantive evidence and the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C.) he came unscathed out of the cross-examination. His testimony, in all the material particulars, is fully supported by that of PW7 Satish who owned the role attributed to him in the prosecution plea. As in the case of PW6 Mangal Singh, defence was able to point out certain variations in his presentation in the Court and before the police. His testimony, in all the material particulars, is fully supported by that of PW7 Satish who owned the role attributed to him in the prosecution plea. As in the case of PW6 Mangal Singh, defence was able to point out certain variations in his presentation in the Court and before the police. There again, we notice that the variations which appear on the record are not sufficient to affect the validity of the prosecution plea. The testimony of PW6 Mangal Singh and PW7 Satish is adequately buttressed by PW8 Mst. Raj Devi. She conceded, as correct, a suggestion put to her in the course of cross-examination that accused-respondent Mange is a drunkard and it is usual for him to create nuisance under the influence of liquor in front of the house of Raj Devi and Satish PW and also in the street. She does not conceal that the complainant party did feel bad of the act of accused-respondent Mange in hurling abuses upon the complainant party and also his act of creating nuisance in front of her house. She categorically denied a suggestion that she was not present at the time of the impugned occurrence. She also denied, as incorrect, a suggestion that her mother-in-law Mst. Nando fell upon a peg in the course of the impugned occurrence and sustained injury in the course thereof. 34. Faced with the predicament of having to explain the above quoted prosecution evidence, the Learned Counsel for the respondents accused argued that reliance should not be placed upon the testimony of relation witnesses, particularly when indicated village mates are conceded by PW 6 Mangal Singh to have come to the place of occurrence but they have not been examined at the trial. 35. That PW6 Mangal Singh and PW 7 Satish are real brothers inter-se and that PW 8 Mst. Raj Devi is the wife of the latter cannot be denied. At the same time, it also cannot be denied that they are the most natural witnesses of the impugned occurrence. Our attention has not been invited to any law which would justify the plea advocated on behalf of the respondents-accused that the testimony of relation witnesses cannot form the basis of conviction. At the same time, it also cannot be denied that they are the most natural witnesses of the impugned occurrence. Our attention has not been invited to any law which would justify the plea advocated on behalf of the respondents-accused that the testimony of relation witnesses cannot form the basis of conviction. We do otherwise concede that the non- corroboration of testimony of relation witnesses would only impose a greater responsibility upon the Court to be extra cautious in assessing the truthfulness or otherwise of the testimony of relation witnesses. Examined on that touch stone, we find that the deposition of PW6 Mangal Singh, PW7 Satish and PW 8 Raj Devi inspires confidence. We do not find the non- examination of the village mates to be of any sinister significance vis-a-vis the validity of the prosecution plea. On the basis of the day to day experience in the village life, there is nothing uncommon in the refrain on the part of the co-villagers to stay away from the legal arena for fear of annoying the party against whom they are expected to depose. 36. In view of the number and nature of injuries sustained by the members of the complainant party, we discard the plea (of the respondents- accused) that the former was the aggressor party and the latter the attacked party. The relevant aspect has also been dealt with in the foregoing paras of this judgment. 37. Insofar as the presentation made by Mst. Murti (DW1) mother of the respondents-accused is concerned, it does not inspire confidence. She conceded that the respondents-accused (her sons Hari Om and Mange) were arrested by the police on 22nd of the relevant month. She conceded that neither she nor her husband or son Hari Om made any complaint to the higher authorities against false implication of the respondents-accused in this case. She also conceded that neither she nor the above named two persons made any complaint to the Gram Panchayat in that behalf. It is also in her testimony that she made a statement about the averred defence for the first time in the court. If the respondent party had actually been wronged in the averred manner, we would have expected them to raise a hue and cry and take up the matter with the higher authorities against their false implication in this case. If the respondent party had actually been wronged in the averred manner, we would have expected them to raise a hue and cry and take up the matter with the higher authorities against their false implication in this case. Further, it requires particular notice that the only suggestion put to the witnesses in the course of cross-examination was that respondent Hari Om was not present at the time of impugned occurrence. A similar plea was raised by Hari Om respondent-accused also in the course of his statement under Section 313 Cr.PC. It is for the first time in the course of her testimony as DW1 that Mst. Murti testified that Hari Om was away to village Karoli to visit his maternal uncle. Her solitary statement to the above effect is not corroborated by the testimony on oath either of Hari Om accused-respondent himself or his maternal uncle aforementioned. Though we do not propose suggesting thereby that there is any legal compulsion upon the accused-respondent Hari Om to enter the witness box as his own witness, we hold that it would have been in the fitness of things and legally appropriate for respondent-accused Hari Om to make a deposition on oath to support the plea of alibi. It is he only who was the best circumstanced to indicate his whereabouts at the time of the impugned occurrence. The next best evidence in that behalf could be that of his maternal uncle. On his own showing, Hari Om is a student. We are not told about what had occasioned the visit of Hari Om respondent-accused to the house of his maternal uncle. The plea averred also does not inform us whether the visit was on a working day or otherwise. The duration of the period of his visit is also not indicated at the trial. The plea shall stand discarded accordingly. 38. The following can safely be culled out from the foregoing discussion: 1. There is no delay in the lodging of the First Information Report with the Police. The non-forwarding of Special Report (on the death at a subsequent point of time of Mst. Nando) to the Ilaqa Magistrate, at best, constitutes an act of dereliction on the part of the Investigating Officer which (dereliction) cannot be said to be sufficient to throw out an otherwise validly proved prosecution plea. 2. The non-forwarding of Special Report (on the death at a subsequent point of time of Mst. Nando) to the Ilaqa Magistrate, at best, constitutes an act of dereliction on the part of the Investigating Officer which (dereliction) cannot be said to be sufficient to throw out an otherwise validly proved prosecution plea. 2. The prosecution has been able to prove the motive on the part of the respondents-accused to commit the crime with which they stand charged. There is adequate evidence on the file that the respondents- accused acted in reprisal to the spite suffered by respondent Mange Ram at the hands of Mst. Nando, a day prior to the impugned occurrence. 3. The non-examination of Joginder PW is inconsequential in view of the fact that it would only have added to the multiplicity of witnesses to prove the same fact. Nothing sinister can at all be read into the non-examination of Joginder PW. 4. The prosecution has been able to prove that the impugned occurrence had indeed been witnessed by Mst. Raj Devi PW 8. The non-noticing of her presence in the MLRs is not of any consequence affecting the validity of the prosecution plea. The non-indication of the place, from where she had witnessed the impugned crime, in the site plan is also an act of mere incompetence on the part of SI Tek Ram and there is nothing more to it. 5. The prosecution has been able to explain the injuries (two each,-the third on the person of Mst. Murti being a mere complaint of pain) on the person of respondent-accused Mange Ram and his mother Mst. Murti Devi. Even otherwise, there is plethora of law on the point that mere inability on the part of the prosecution to prove the injuries on the accused is not sufficient to invalidate the prosecution plea. It would be particularly so when it was opined by the doctor PW that the possibility of those injuries being self-suffered cannot be ruled out. The fact that only two injuries each were found on the person of respondent-accused Mange Ram and his mother Mst. Murti also proves the explanation offered by the prosecution in the context. It would be particularly so when it was opined by the doctor PW that the possibility of those injuries being self-suffered cannot be ruled out. The fact that only two injuries each were found on the person of respondent-accused Mange Ram and his mother Mst. Murti also proves the explanation offered by the prosecution in the context. The present is, thus, a case where the ocular presentation is fully in accord with the medical finding and the prosecution has been able to prove motive on the part of the respondents-accused in committing the crime with which they stand charged. There is further proof of the fact that there was no inordinate or unexplained delay in the lodging of the First Information Report. Apart therefrom, the respondents-accused have not been able to adduce evidence which could probablise the averred defence. The fact that the accused- respondent Hari Om got the recovery of weapon of offence effected, in pursuance of a disclosure statement, would also go a long way to buttress the above observation made by us. The prosecution plea, thus, stands proved beyond shadow of reasonable doubt. 39. The observations made by us in the foregoing paras converge to the only conclusion that the impugned finding of exoneration recorded by the learned Trial Judge deserves to be invalidated and we hold accordingly. The appeal shall stand allowed. The impugned finding qua exoneration of the respondents-accused shall stand rejected. 40. The respondents-accused, were proved on the file to have acted in unison in the commission of the offence and accordingly Hari Om respondent-accused shall stand convicted for an offence under Section 302 IPC and accused-respondent Mange Ram under Section 302/34 IPC. Respondent-accused Hari Om shall also stand convicted for an offence under Section 307 IPC; while respondent-accused Mange Ram shall stand convicted under Section 307/34 IPC. 41. We have heard Learned Counsel for the appellant-State on the point of sentence. None has turned up on behalf of the respondent-convicts to make a presentation in the context. We are not called upon to await the presentation on behalf of the respondent-convicts in view of the fact that the present not being a case of the rarest of rare category, we propose awarding the minimum sentence for the offence under Section 302 IPC. 42. We are not called upon to await the presentation on behalf of the respondent-convicts in view of the fact that the present not being a case of the rarest of rare category, we propose awarding the minimum sentence for the offence under Section 302 IPC. 42. In the circumstances of the case, both the respondent-convicts are sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/each under Section 302 IPC. In default of payment of fine, the respondent- convicts shall undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month. 43. For the offence under Section 307 IPC, the respondent-convicts are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-each. In default of payment of fine, the respondent-convicts shall undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month. 44. Both the substantive sentences shall run concurrently. We have heard Learned Counsel for the appellant-State on the point of sentence. None has turned up on behalf of the respondent-convicts to make a presentation in the context. We are not called upon to aver the presentation on behalf of the respondent-convicts in view of the fact that the present not being a case of the rarest of rare category, we propose awarding the minimum sentence for the offence under Section 302 IPC. 45. In the circumstances of the case, both the respondent-convicts are sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/each under Section 302 IPC. In default of payment of fine, the respondent- convicts shall undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month. 46. For the offence under Section 307 IPC, the respondent-convicts are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-each. In default of payment of fine, the respondent-convicts shall undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month. 47. Both the sentences shall run concurrently.