Criminal Appeal No.389-SB of 2003. -1- In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. 1. Criminal Appeal No.389-SB of 2003. Date of decision:20-5-2009. Murari Lal and others. ...Appellants. Versus State of Haryana. ...Respondent. ... 2. Criminal Appeal No.390-SB of 2003. Date of decision:20-5-2009. Bharat Bhushan @ Raju. ...Appellant. Versus State of Haryana. ...Respondent. ... Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. C. Puri. ... Present: Mr. R. S. Sangwan, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. A.K.Jindal, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. Criminal Appeal No.389-SB of 2003. -2- Mr.S.K. Sharma, Advocate for the complainant. ... K. C. Puri, J. Judgment. Both the above mentioned appeals have arisen from the same judgment/order dated 6.2.2003/8.2.2003 rendered by Ms. Sarita Gupta, the then Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Bhiwani. As common questions of fact and law were involved, both the appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this single judgment. Vide impugned judgment/ order, the appellants were convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and also to pay a fine of Rs.100/- under Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC. The appellants were further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.100/- each under Section 324 read with Section 34 IPC. The appellants were also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs.300/-, each under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC. Bharat Bhushan was also convicted under Section Criminal Appeal No.389-SB of 2003. -3- 25/54/59 of the Arms Act and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.200/-. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. In default of payment of fine, all the convicts were ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for a period four months. However, the period which the appellants have already undergone was ordered to be set off from the sentence awarded to them. An abridgment of the facts of the prosecution case are that on 30.9.1998, a VT message was received regarding the admission of Krishan Kumar, injured in General Hospital, Bhiwani in the Police Post. After receiving the information, HC Roshan Lal reached General Hospital, Bhiwani and obtained the opinion of the doctor as to whether the injured was fit to make a statement. The statement of Krishan Kumar injured was got recorded in which he stated that he was running a shop of repairing of punctured cycles. On that day, at about 8-00 P.M, he had taken the food. Murari Lal, his brother told him to come out as he wanted to have a talk with him. He reached at the door of the house. They started talking with each other. In the meantime, Bharat Bhushan alias Raju attacked Criminal Appeal No.389-SB of 2003. -4- him with his knife. Murari Lal also attacked him with the knife. Ved Kumari, his wife raised noise. Rajesh son of Murari Lal also attacked him. Bhateri Devi wife of Murari Lal also reached at the spot and she injured him with brickbat. On hearing the noise, Chander Bhan son of Takan Dass and other neighbourers also reached at the spot. On seeing the said persons, the accused ran away from the spot leaving their respective weapons. The complainant further stated that the accused party was having a grudge with his party as Bimla Devi, his sister was not having good terms with him and an altercation had taken place between him and his sister Bimla Devi. Murari Lal, his brother, Raju son of Murari Lal, Rajesh son of Murari Lal, Bhateri Devi wife of Murari Lal had attacked him with with their respective weapons due to this reason. The injured was got admitted in Civil Hospital, Bhiwani by Ved Kumari, his wife and other neighbourers. The injured was got medico-legally examined. The doctor found five injuries on his person out of which injury Nos.1,2 and 5 were opined to have been inflicted with sharp edged weapon whereas injury Nos.2,3,4 and 5 were kept under observation for obtaining the opinion of the Surgeon. Injury No.3 Criminal Appeal No.389-SB of 2003. -5- was opined as simple inflicted by a blunt weapon. Investigation, in the case, was conducted and after completion of same, the accused/appellants were challaned. The appellants were charge-sheeted accordingly to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In order to substantiate its allegations, the prosecution examined PW-1 Dr. Ved Kumar, PW-2 Constable Hari Om, PW-3 Constable Niranjan Singh, PW-4 HC Mohinder Singh, PW-5 ASI Jagdish Singh, PW-6 Kanwar Singh, Draftsman, PW-7 Constable Dalbir Singh, PW-8 Krishan Kumar, PW-9 Dr. A.K.Gupta, PW-10 Ved Kumari, PW-11 ASI Roshan Lal, PW-12 Krishan Kumar, Record Keeper and PW-13 Dr. Ranvir Singh. \ When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C, all the three appellants took the following similar stand:- “I am innocent. I have been involved in a false case. No such injury was caused by me to injured Krishan Kumar and that he fell down from the height on a hard surface and due to that fall, he received injuries”. The accused, however, did not lead any evidence in their defence. After the conclusion of trial, the accused were convicted Criminal Appeal No.389-SB of 2003. -6- and sentenced, as noticed in the earlier part of this judgment. Feeling aggrieved, the appellants have filed Criminal Appeal No.389-SB of 2003. Since Bharat Bhushan was also convicted and sentenced under Section 25/54/59 of the Arms Act, he preferred separate Criminal Appeal No.390-SB of 2003. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that according to the case of the prosecution, Bharat Bhushan alias Raju gave two knife blows on the back side of Krishan Kumar complainant. The complainant has further alleged that Murari Lal gave two knife blows, one on his left hand and other on his right side of stomach. According to the allegations of the prosecution, accused Rajesh gave a Danda blow on the hip of Krishan Kumar whereas Bhateri Devi accused threw brick bats at Krishan Kumar and he received injuries on his stomach. It has been contended that Murari Lal, accused (now deceased), was a Government employee and has been falsely implicated. The recovery of knife is stated to have taken place from Bharat Bhushan accused and no weapon of offence i.e knife had been recovered from Murari Lal. It has been further contended that medical evidence dis-proves the allegations against Murari Lal, accused. As per testimony of PW-1 Dr. Ved Kumar, as many as Criminal Appeal No.389-SB of 2003. -7- five injuries were found on the person of Krishan Kumar. Injury Nos.1 and 2 have been attributed to Bharat Bhushan accused. One injury has been attributed to Murari Lal, on the left hand of the complainant. There was no incised wound on the left hand of complainant Krishan Kumar. Another injury attributed to Murari Lal is on the right side of stomach of Krishan Kumar. There was one injury on the hypochondrium region of the complainant. According to the prosecution case, accused Bhateri Devi gave brickbat blows and injury No.5 could be result of brickbat. All these facts show that Murari Lal has been involved simply to spread the net around the neck of all the family members wide. Injury No.4 is simply complaint of pain on the right side of chest. It has further been contended that Rajesh son of Murari Lal, deceased has also been attributed injury by Krishan Kumar complainant on his hip but there was no corresponding injury and as such he was not arrayed as an accused. It has further been contended that Murari Lal has since expired and due to his conviction, all his benefits have been with- held by the department. Since the family members of Murari Lal will suffer an irreparable loss due to his wrong conviction, so his family members have been allowed to pursue the appeal on his Criminal Appeal No.389-SB of 2003. -8- behalf. In the end, a prayer has been made for acquittal of Murari Lal. So far as Bharat Bhushan accused is concerned, the learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the parties have arrived at a compromise even in the trial Court but since the offence was non-compoundable, the trial Court had not taken any action on the compromise. Accused Bharat Bhushan has undergone incarceration for a period of more than one year as is clear from order dated 10.2.2004 passed by this Court. It has been further contended that accused Bhateri Devi has languished in the jail for a period of more than three months. So, in these circumstances, in view of authority in case Ishwar Singh Versus State of Madhya Pradesh, 2009(1) RCR (Criminal) 49, a prayer has been made for reduction of sentence. As per medico legal report of Krishan Kumar, the following injuries were found on his person:- 1.Incised wound on back of chest left side, 2 x 1.5 cm bleeding profusely. Surgical emphlysis present was positive. Tenderness was positive. Probing not done. Criminal Appeal No.389-SB of 2003. -9- 2.Incised wound on back, 10 cm. lateral to left iliac region, 2 x 1 cm. Bleeding profusely. Probing not done. 3.Lacerated wound on left arm, 5 x 5 cm. 4.Complaining of pain on right side of chest. 5.Incised wound on right hypochondrium region, 2 x 1 cm. Bleeding profusely. According to the testimony of Krishan Kumar, Bharat Bhushan accused gave two knife blows on his back. So, injury Nos.1 and 2 have been attributed to Bharat Bhushan. The role attributed to Murari Lal, as per testimony of complainant, is that he gave knife blows, one on his left hand and other on his right side of stomach. There is no corresponding injury on the left hand of Krishan Kumar. There is one injury on the right hypochondrium region of Krishan Kumar. However, from the testimony of Krishan Kumar, it is revealed that he has stated that Bhateri Devi threw brickbats at him which injured him. He received injuries on his stomach. So, injury No.5, according to the testimony of Krishan Kumar, is attributed to Bhateri Devi. There is no other incised wound on the person of Krishan Kumar. Rajesh has been attributed injury on the hip of Krishan Kumar but there was no corresponding injury on the person of Krishan Kumar and consequently Rajesh Criminal Appeal No.389-SB of 2003. -10- was not even tried for the offences for which the other appellants have been convicted. There is no recovery of knife from Murari Lal. The accused, in the present case, are Murari Lal, his wife and two sons, meaning thereby that the entire family has been involved. Rajesh has not even been challaned as there was no corresponding injury attributed to him. From the testimony of the complainant, it is revealed that injury Nos.1 and 2 have been attributed to Bharat Bhushan and injury No.5 to Bhateri Devi. There was no corresponding injury attributed to Murari Lal. In the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C, it is mentioned that Murari Lal was in service. Nowadays, it is the tendency to rope in all the family members, if any occurrence takes place. The complainant has spread the net wide to involve all the family members. There was no recovery of any knife from Murari Lal. So, taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, benefit of doubt goes to Murari Lal as there was no recovery of any weapon and there was no corresponding injury on the complainant attributed to him. There was no other incised wound except injury Nos.1,2 and 5. Injury Nos.1 and 2 have been attributed to Bharat Bhushan with a knife and injury No.5 on the stomach has been attributed to Bhateri Devi. So, taking into consideration the totality of circumstances, Criminal Appeal No.389-SB of 2003. -11- the appeal qua Murari Lal stands accepted. The judgment of conviction qua him stands set aside and he stands acquitted of the charges by giving him benefit of doubt. So far as accused Bharat Bhushan and Bhateri Devi are concerned, there are corresponding injuries attributed to them. The medical evidence has been corroborated by the version given by the complainant. Otherwise also, during the course of arguments, conviction of these two accused has not been challenged. So, the conviction recorded against these two accused stands confirmed. From the affidavit filed by Shri Ramesh Kumar Yadav, Superintendent, District Jail, Bhiwani, placed on the file, it is revealed that appellant Bharat Bhushan has undergone incarceration for a period of 1 year and 15 days. Bhateri Devi, who has been attributed simple injury has undergone incarceration for a period of 3 months and 7 days. In authority in case Ishwar Singh (supra), it has been laid down that where is a compromise in a case which is non compoundable, in that case, the offence cannot be allowed to be compounded but the sentence can be reduced. Written compromise has already been placed on the file and Krishan Kumar has admitted the factum of compromise between the parties. Criminal Appeal No.389-SB of 2003. -12- Therefore, taking into consideration the fact that accused Bharat Bhushan and Bhateri Devi have undergone incarceration, as narrated above, their sentence stands reduced to the period already undergone by them. However, the sentence of fine is maintained. These appeals stand disposed of, in the above terms. A copy of this judgment be sent to the learned trial Court for strict compliance. May 20th,2009 ( K. C. Puri ) Jaggi Judge