(28/11/2017) Per S.K.Awasthi, J.This Judgment shall govern the outcome of Criminal Appeal No. 140/1999, Criminal Appeal No. 159/1999 and Criminal Appeal No. 114/1999 which have been preferred against the Judgment dated 25.02.1999 passed in Sessions Trial No. 205/1990 whereby the Trial Court has convicted the appellants of each appeal indicated hereinabove for commission of offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, 'IPC') with respect to death of Lekhan Singh.Similarly, the appellants have been convicted under the same provisions of IPC with respect to death of Govind Singh.The appellants have also been convicted under Section 325 read with Section 149 of IPC for inflicting grievous injuries upon Chain Singh and Ram Singh.Lastly, the appellants have been convicted for commission of offences punishable under Section 323 read with Section 149 of IPC with respect to the injuries suffered by Dhondu in addition to conviction under Section 148 of IPC.Therefore, the situation which emerges with respect to the punishment is that the appellants have been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs.5000/- each for causing death of Lekhan Singh and Govind Singh and the appellants have also been directed to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.2000/- each for causing grievous hurt to Chain Singh and Ram Singh.Additionally, the appellants have been directed to serve three months rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/- for causing hurt to Dhondu, 3 Criminal appeal No.140/1999 Prakash Singh & Ors.State of MP with default stipulation.The appellants have also been sentenced to one year rigorous imprisonment for their conviction under Section 148 of IPC.The facts which emerge for adjudication are that on 07.08.1990, Sher Singh (PW-12), the father of deceased Lekhan Singh and Govind Singh, narrated the incident before the Police that occurred on same day in evening, that the accused persons, who were equipped with weapons such as Lohangi, Lathi, Farsa etc., had constituted an unlawful assembly and cornered the deceased persons by inflicting several injuries on them which were fatal in nature and eventually led to their death.During the occurrence of the said incident, the other victims namely, Chain Singh, Ram Singh and Dhondu, also suffered injuries inflicted by the unlawful assembly of persons which included the present appellants.The respondent proceeded to record an FIR bearing Crime No. 108/1990 (Ex. P-27) and named all the accused persons for commission of offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 147, 148 read with Section 149 of IPC.Subsequently, the deceased persons and other injured victims were taken to the Hospital where their medical examinations were carried out; however, on the next date i.e. 08.08.1990, Lekhan Singh and Govind Singh succumbed to the injuries sustained by them and the post-mortem was conducted by Dr. A.D. Bhatnagar (PW-4).In the Post Mortem Report (Ex. P-7) in relation to Govind Singh, it was observed that the deceased Govind Singh sustained thirteen injuries which were caused by hard and blunt object, out of which the injuries enlisted at Serial No. 1 and 2 of the Post-Mortem Report were concluded as being fatal in nature and the cause of death was recorded as Cerebral Hemorrhage and the person died while in the state of Coma.Thereafter, another Post-Mortem Report (Ex. P-11) was prepared with respect to the deceased, Lekhan Singh, according to which the deceased Lekhan Singh received as 4 Criminal appeal No.140/1999 Prakash Singh & Ors.State of MP many as fourteen injuries, out of which Injuries No. 5 and 12 were caused by a sharp-edged weapon whereas the remaining injuries were by a hard and blunt object.Lastly, it was concluded that Injury No. 12 which was caused on occipital region resulted into clotting of blood and was fatal in nature.Consequently, Dr. A.D. Bhatnagar (PW-4) observed that the cause of death was Cerebral Hemorrhage and the death occurred while the person was in the state of Coma.The Medical Reports with respect to the remaining victims indicated that they had suffered injuries caused by hard and blunt object.The respondent on the basis of evidence collected during the course of investigation and the medical evidence which had come on record, proceeded to present the chargesheet against the accused persons including the present appellants.Consequently, the charges were framed on 12.01.1995 against all the accused persons for commission of offences punishable under Section 302 of IPC read with Section 149 of IPC as also for commission of offences punishable under Section 307 read with Section 149 of IPC and Section 148 of IPC.However, later on, additional charges were framed by the Trial Court against all the accused persons with respect to death of Lekhan Singh on 04.10.1997 for commission of offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 of IPC.The prosecution was given an opportunity to lead evidence and as many as sixteen witnesses were examined by the prosecution which included the statement of Chain Singh (PW-13) and Ram Singh (PW-14) who also sustained injuries during the occurrence of the incident whereas one of the accused persons, namely, Anant Singh, took the plea of alibi by submitting that he was admitted in a Hospital in District Vidisha at the time of the incident.In order to substantiate the plea of alibi, the statement of Dr. SGS Khare (DW-1) was recorded.5 Criminal appeal No.140/1999 Prakash Singh & Ors.State of MPUpon cumulative consideration of the material on record and statements of the witnesses produced by the prosecution, the Trial Court proceeded to pronounce impugned Judgment dated 25.02.1999 and convicted the present appellants for commission of offences stated hereinabove.This Judgment is the subject-matter of the instant appeals before this Court.During pendency of the appeals, appellant No.1-Prakash Singh of Criminal Appeal No.140/1999 died, therefore, his appeal stands dismissed.The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the prosecution witnesses who have been presented as ocular witnesses, namely, Geeta Bai (PW-5), Sharda Bai (PW-6), Chain Singh (PW-13), Ram Singh (PW-14), are the family members of the deceased persons and are interested witnesses.Therefore, their testimonies cannot be relied upon to convict the present appellants.It was further contended that the Doctor, who had performed the Post-Mortem of the deceased persons, namely, Dr. AD Bhatnagar (PW-4), had categorically stated in Para 14 of the statement recorded before the Trial Court that the injuries suffered by Lekhan Singh can be caused if a person falls down on the floor.Therefore, on the basis of statements of the interested witnesses, it cannot be assumed that the appellants had inflicted the injuries which find mention in the Post-Mortem Reports (Ex. P-7 and Ex. P-11).The learned counsel for the appellants laid much emphasis on the fact that according to the Medical Reports as well as the Post Mortem Reports, the injuries caused were simple and therefore, no intention to cause injuries which are sufficient for death in the ordinary course of nature can be gathered in the facts of the present case.We have given our anxious consideration on the contentions raised by the rival parties and the material available on record.First of all, it is to be considered whether the death of deceased Govind and Lekhan was homicidal in nature or not ? In this connection, the evidence given by Dr. A.D.Bhatnagar (PW-4) may be considered, who performed the postmortem on the body of the deceased Govind and found following injuries vide his report Ex.(i) One lacerated wound on occipital region towards left side, size 2"x1/2"x bone deep compound fracture;(ii) One lacerated wound on left temporal region size 1"x1/2"x bone deep compound fracture;(iii) One lacerated wound on right side over parietal region 1/2"x1"x1/4";stitched, stitches removed before examination.(iv) One abrasion on left clavicle bone near sternum size 2"x1/2";(vi) One abrasion on left shoulder joint posteriorly size 2"x1" swelling;(vii) One contusion on left clavicle bone near shoulder joint size 1"x1" brownish in colour;(viii) One abrasion on left elbow joint size 1"x1/2";(ix) One contusion on right leg 2" above ankle joint laterally size 3"x2" brownish in colour;(x) Four contusions on left leg, thigh behind knee joint (posteriorly) size 2"x2", 3"x2", 2"x2", 2- 1/2"x2" swelling brownish in colour;(xi) One contusion on left knee joint laterally 2"x2"brownish in colour;(xii) One contusion on left popliteal fossa size 2"x2", reddish brown in colour swelling positive;(xiii) One contusion on right shoulder in joint posteriorly size 2"x2" reddish brown in colour.Dr. A.D.Bhatnagar further submitted that he has performed the postmortem of deceased Lekhan Singh and found following injuries vide his report Ex.P/11 :-(i) One contusion on right forearm from hands up to elbow x 3" reddish brown in colour, swelling positive;(ii) One contusion on left side of abdomen size 3"x2"reddish brown in colour;(iii) One contusion on left forearm from hands upto elbow joint laterally size 10"x3", reddish brown in colour, deformity positive;(iv) One contusion on left forearm medially 2"x2"reddish brown in colour swelling positive;(v) Multiple contusions on left side of back from scapular region up to left renal area bluish in colour, swelling positive;(vi) One contusion on lumber region size 6"x2" bluish in colour;(vii) Swelling 4"x3 & deformity positive left elbow joint;(viii) One incised wound on vertebral column at lumber region 2"x1", blood clot positive;(ix) One contusion on right arm posteriorly size 4"x3"reddish brown colour, swelling positive;(x) One incised wound on right leg 3" above ankle joint anteriorly size 2"x1", blood clot positive swelling;(xi) One contusion on right popliteal fossa, reddish brown in colour swelling;8 Criminal appeal No.140/1999 Prakash Singh & Ors.State of MP(xii) One incised wound on occipital region size 2"x1/2"x bone deep, blood clot;(xiii) One contusion on right hand, reddish brown in colour swelling, deformity positive;(xiv) One contusion on left popliteal fossa;According to Dr. Bhatnagar, the deceased Govind Dangi and Lekhan Dangi died due to cerebral hemorrhage and the injuries found to the deceased were sufficient to cause their death.The opinion given by Dr. Bhatnagar (PW-4) cannot be discarded.Such injuries could not be caused in an accident and they could not be self-inflicted and, therefore, death of deceased Govind Dangi and Lekhan Dangi was neither accidental nor suicidal, hence it was homicidal in nature.Witnesses Geetabai (PW-5) and Sharda Bai (PW-6) deposed that accused Jagat Singh having farsa, Jalam Singh armed with sword, Maharaj Singh with Lohangi, Harnam Singh, Ajab Singh, Prakash, Sher Singh, Ghanshyam, Vijay, Sajjan, Santosh, Anant Singh, Babbu and Dhanraj carrying lathis came and caused injuries to Govind Singh and Lekhan Singh.Accused Jalam Singh inflicted blow of sword on the chest and right hand of Lekhan Singh whereas accused Jagat Singh gave a blow of farsa on the head of Govind Singh.Other accused persons caused injuries by lathi.However, in the cross- examination both the witnesses admitted that at the time of incident they were in their house and after receiving the information about the incident from Dhandu and Chain Singh they reached on the spot.Thus, it is clear that these witnesses were not present at the time of crime and they have not seen the incident.Witnesses Sher Singh (PW-12) and Ram Singh (PW-14) deposed that six years ago at about 5 pm, after receiving the information from Chain Singh that accused persons have inflicted injuries to Govind Singh and Lekhan Singh, they reached on the spot where they saw that the accused persons having in their hands sword, farsa, lohangi and lathis were returning from the spot.Govind Singh and Lekhan Singh were 9 Criminal appeal No.140/1999 Prakash Singh & Ors.State of MP found on the spot in injured condition, therefore the trial Court has rightly concluded that Sher Singh and Ram Singh were also not present on the spot when accused persons were assaulting.Witness Chain Singh (PW-13) deposed that Six and half years ago at about 5 - 5.30 pm, there was a crowd of 40-50 people near the culvert on the eve of immersion of Bhujuriyon, where he was present along with Govind Singh, Lekhan Singh and Dhandu.Accused Jagat Singh, Prakash, Maharaj Singh, Dhanraj, Mathura, Jalam were assembled there.Mathura caught the legs of Lekhan Singh, then Prakash, Jagat Singh, Jalam, Maharaj Singh, Dhanraj and Mathura caused injuries to Lekhan Singh by their respective weapons like Lathi, Farsa, Sword, Lohangi.Lekhan Singh was standing near the platform of Dulha Dev where he was beaten and Govind Singh was standing near the platform.Govind Singh was beaten by Harnam Singh, Bablu @ Babulal, Anant Singh, Vijay, Sajjan Singh, Ghanshyam, Ajab Singh, Preetam, Sher Singh, Maharaj Singh by lathis and Man Singh by Lohangi, due to which Govind Singh fell down.When he went to Lekhan Singh, then Dhanraj gave lathi blow on his shoulder and after beating of Lekhan Singh, all the accused had beaten him and Dhandu and Ramsingh were also beaten by the accused persons.The prosecution's non- production of one independent witness who has been named in the FIR by itself cannot be taken to be a circumstance to discredit the evidence of the interested witness and disbelieve the prosecution case.What one may notice, another may not.And one cannot expect people to make very precise or reliable estimates in such matters.Again, it depends on the time- sense of individuals which varies from person to person.(6) Ordinarily a witness cannot be expected to recall accurately the sequence of events which take place in rapid succession or in a short time span.A witness is liable to get confused, or mixed up when interrogated later on.Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the appellant Sajjan Singh is not named in the FIR.The sole eyewitness Chain Singh (PW-13) has deposed that at the time of incident Sajjan Singh caused injury to Govind Singh but he did not assign any role of Sajjan Singh assaulting the deceased Govind Singh in his statement Ex.D-5 under Section 161 of 20 Criminal appeal No.140/1999 Prakash Singh & Ors.State of MP CrPC.Thus, the trial Court has committed error in accepting the evidence of Chain Singh (PW-13) as credible.From the perusal of FIR (Ex.P-27) it reveals that the FIR is lodged by Sher Singh, father of deceased Govind Singh and Lekhan Singh and the trial Court has found that at the time of incident, he was not present on the spot.Chain Singh (PW-13) has received as many as 10 injuries.A lacerated wound was found on his skull and swelling was found on his left forearm and left shoulder.He had contusion on his right jaw, right ankle and left thigh.In these circumstances, it cannot be expected from him to record his statement immediately after the incident.Further, it is to be stated that with regard to the main part of the prosecution version that accused assaulted deceased Gurdev Singh, the prosecution evidence is fully corroborated by medical evidence.The medical evidence also corroborates the say of the witnesses that on both the deceased, apart from injury by firearm, accused assaulted by gandasa.Dr. R.K. Chaudhary, P.W. 1 and Dr. H.L. Gupta, P.W. 2, who carried on post-morterm examination of Gurdev Singh (deceased), found that he was having as many as 13 injuries out of which 6 injuries were incise wounds.There were multiple contusions and lacerated wounds on the body.Similarly, with regard to Tek Singh (deceased), there were in all 9 injuries, 3 were incise wounds and rest were multiple contusions and lacerated wounds.Therefore, it cannot be stated that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is not corroborated by medical evidence.It is true that they have failed to locate exact seat of the injuries but that is natural, when the incident takes place all of a sudden within two to three minutes and successive blows are inflicted by the accused, 8 in numbers.They came all of a sudden armed with the deadly weapons and attacked the victims, who rushed to take the shelter in the house.In such a fact situation, some contradictions as to who assaulted whom, with what weapon and whether it was by sharp edge or blunt side of Gandasa are bound to be there and particularly when blows are given in quick succession, it would be against the ground reality to expect the witnesses to depose exactly on which part of the body blow landed.In these circumstances, even if there is some exaggeration with regard to the inflictions of blows, it would hardly be a ground for rejecting their testimony."Though the trial court referred to the evidence of the eye- witnesses, it chose to disbelieve them merely on account of minor 22 Criminal appeal No.140/1999 Prakash Singh & Ors.State of MP inconsistencies in their evidence, relating to the exact site of occurrence and failure to name all who landed blows and the exact nature of injuries.The High Court, on the other hand, held that minor inconsistencies and discrepancies regarding the exact place or the point at which the incident took place or as to who landed the blows is not sufficient to disbelieve the evidence of injured eye- witnesses.Having gone through the evidence of Chain Singh (PW-13), we are in complete agreement with the trial Court that the contradictions and discrepancies cannot be said to be material contradictions affecting the credibility of the evidence of Chain Singh.In his testimony Chain Singh has given graphic details of the occurrence and his evidence is also corroborated by the medical evidence which clearly shows that several blows were given to the deceased Lekhan Singh and Govind Singh by the appellants/accused persons by way of sharp cutting weapon as well as by hard and blunt object.The learned counsel for the appellants has also pointed out that the statements of the prosecution witnesses do not sufficiently indicate the overt act of each individual who have been named as accused, leave alone the role of the appellants.Suffice it to observe that in a case where ingredients of Section 141 of IPC which defines unlawful assembly are satisfied and from the material available on record, it is clear that the appellants had gone to the place of incident equipped with sharp-edged weapons and hard and blunt objects, the pre- meditation and common object of the members of the assembly can easily be ascertained.Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellant Sajjan Singh has filed an application on 2.12.1993 before the trial Court, alleging that he was minor, hence his 25 Criminal appeal No.140/1999 Prakash Singh & Ors.State of MP case be separated and be sent to the Juvenile Court for hearing but the said application was rejected by the trial Court vide order dated 16.3.1994 without conducting any enquiry and without granting any opportunity for producing the evidence regarding juvenility to the appellant, which is mandatory according to the settled law.After getting several opportunities on 23.9.1993 accused Man Singh and Ghanshyam submitted that they do not wish to produce any evidence in this regard and after that, all the applications including the application filed on behalf of accused Sajjan Singh, were decided by common order dated 16.3.1994 and the trial Court found that on the basis of the medical evidence, mark sheets and horoscopes, it appears that Ajab Singh and Ghanshyam were below 16 years of age at the time of incident, therefore, it was directed that the charge sheet regarding them shall be filed before the Juvenile Court but the other accused persons including Sajjan Singh have not filed any document regarding their age and they have also not prayed for time to adduce any evidence to prove their juvenility, hence, the trial Court dismissed their applications.After 26 Criminal appeal No.140/1999 Prakash Singh & Ors.State of MP rejection of their claim, the accused persons have not challenged the rejection order of the trial Court by filing revision petition before this Court.Therefore, the order of the trial Court has attained its finality.Before this Court also, accused Sajjan Singh has not filed any document to show that at the time of incident he was below 18 years.Since accused Prakash Singh (appellant No.1 in Criminal Appeal No.140/1999) has expired, therefore, his appeal stands dismissed, however the conviction and jail sentence of remaining appellants in these three appeals for the offences punishable under Sections 302/149, 325/149, 323/149 and 148 of IPC is maintained.A copy of the judgment be also sent to the trial Court along with its record for information.

Cited provisions: Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code