Case: Okha Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan

1. A judgment of affirmance of the High Court is under challenge by the sole appellant, who stood trial for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and in the alternative under Sections 302/34 IPC, whereunder, on conviction, he has been sentenced to life imprisonment and ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 2, 000/-, in default of payment of which to undergo further RI for two years. 2. The appellant and the two absconders were in litigation with a family of their village, the supporter of the latter being Jhunjar Singh the deceased. On account of strained relations, a short while before the time of occurrence, there was a small scuffle and altercation between the appellant and the deceased. Within a few minutes thereafter, at about 11.00 p.m., on June 25, 1980 when PW 3 Mangal Singh and the deceased were coming back from the house of one Poonam after settling-hiring of a tractor, the appellant and the absconding accused came from the opposite direction fully armed the appellant armed with a Dhariya and the absconders with lathis, and there and then the appellant struck a Dhariya blow on the back of the head of the deceased, whereupon the deceased fell down. Then, all the accused gave injuries to the deceased while fallen. PW 3, Mangal Singh, was threatened by the appellant that he should not intervene in the matter. When the accused left, PW 3 found the deceased to have breathed his last. Many people collected at the spot. Mangal Singh, PW 3 then went to Dalpat Singh, PW 1 then lodged the FIR on the following day at about 8.00 a.m., for he had to travel a long distance to the police station during the night for the purpose. The police, on registration of the case investigated the matter and ultimately the appellant alone was put to trial and convicted and sentenced, as afore-mentioned. 3. Only two points arise for consideration in this appeal. The first one is whether PW 3 (Mangal Singh) is a reliable witness and should his word be enough to maintain the conviction of the appellant and secondly, whether there is any direct conflict between the eye-witness account as set out by PW 3 and the medical evidence as deposed to by PW 8. Dr. Girdhari Lal. In so far as Mangal Singh, PW 3 is concerned, his presence at the spot has been accepted by both the Courts below. He was a witness to the earlier verbal wrangle which took place a few minutes earlier to the occurrence. The only event which happened intervening was that the deceased had gone to the house of Poonam to hire a tractor for being put to use the following day and the occurrence took place when he was returning to his house in the company of PW 3 (Mangal Singh). The said witness was further supported fully by the evidence of PW 1 (Dalpat Singh) - the first informant who was informed about the incident within minutes of its occurrence. Before Dalpat Singh (PW 1), Mangal Singh (PW 3) claimed, and rightly so, to have witnessed the occurrence. It is thus idle to entertain any doubt with regard to the presence of PW 3 (Mangal Singh) at the scene of occurrence. On the other question, about the suggested direct conflict between the testimony of Mangal Singh (PW 3) and the medical evidence, one has barely to read the description of the injuries and the statement of the doctor (PW 8). It is to the effect that the injury on the head could be possible with Dhariya which, as is known, has a sharp point in the front as also cutting edges on the side. The injury was on the scalp and there were no soft tissues underneath. The description could some what be misleading, but the whole thing settles down by believing the evidence of PW 3 (Mangal Singh) in that regard that Dhariya had been used by the appellant in causing that fatal injury.

Decision reasoning: 1[ds]In so far as Mangal Singh, PW 3 is concerned, his presence at the spot has been accepted by both the Courts below. He was a witness to the earlier verbal wrangle which took place a few minutes earlier to the occurrence. The only event which happened intervening was that the deceased had gone to the house of Poonam to hire a tractor for being put to use the following day and the occurrence took place when he was returning to his house in the company of PW 3 (Mangal Singh). The said witness was further supported fully by the evidence of PW 1 (Dalpat Singh)the first informant who was informed about the incident within minutes of its occurrence. Before Dalpat Singh (PW 1), Mangal Singh (PW 3) claimed, and rightly so, to have witnessed the occurrence. It is thus idle to entertain any doubt with regard to the presence of PW 3 (Mangal Singh) at the scene of occurrence. On the other question, about the suggested direct conflict between the testimony of Mangal Singh (PW 3) and the medical evidence, one has barely to read the description of the injuries and the statement of the doctor (PW 8). It is to the effect that the injury on the head could be possible with Dhariya which, as is known, has a sharp point in the front as also cutting edges on the side. The injury was on the scalp and there were no soft tissues underneath. The description could some what be misleading, but the whole thing settles down by believing the evidence of PW 3 (Mangal Singh) in that regard that Dhariya had been used by the appellant in causing that fatal injury.