Case: Kahan Singh &amp; Others Vs. State of Haryana

true both by the trial Court as well as by the High Court. Their evidence receives support from the evidence of P. W. 8, Gobind Ram and P. W. 9, Gurcharan Singh. According to P. W. 9, at about the time of the occurrence. he was returning to his house after answering the calls of nature. At that time he saw the four appellants proceeding to the scene of occurrence. At that tune the appellants Kahan Singh and Gopi Chand were armed with burchas and Bahadur and Bhushan Lal were armed with Kulharis; sometime later he came to know about the murder of Moti Ram and Balak Ram. This witness also appears to be an independent witness, and his evidence had commended itself to the trial Court as well as to the High Court. The evidence of Gobind Ram is to the effect that on the morning in question he heard cries from the scene of occurrence. On hearing those cries, he proceeded towards the scene. When he had covered about four killas, he saw the appellants coming from the opposite directions. At that time they were all armed. He enquired with them as to what had happened. They told him that they had taught a lesson to Moti Ram and Balak Ram. His evidence has also been believed by both the Court. Ordinarily this Court does not reappraise evidence already considered by two Courts. We have found no reason to depart from that rule in this case. Apart from pointing out certain minor discrepancies in the evidence of these witnesses nothing substantial was shown to us to discredit the evidence in the case. The probabilities of the case lend support to the evidence of these witnesses. The party of the appellants must have been smarting at the rebuff they received from the deceased persons in the matter of purchase of land referred to earlier. This incident must have added to the already existing enmity between them and the party of the deceased persons, and must have served as an immediate provocation. The injuries found on the person of the deceased also go to indicate that the appellants must have been the aggressors.13. The three Court witnesses examined in the case tried in a somewhat feeble manner to support the case of the appellants. Their evidence was mutually contradictory. Each one of them had a version of his own and further the evidence given by them in Court materially differs from the statements made by them during investigation. Hence the trial Court as well as the High Court were right in placing no reliance on their testimony. The learned Counsel for the appellants made a somewhat hesitant attempt to commend their evidence for our acceptance. Their evidence is discrepant and the version given by them is basically improbable.14. Some comment was also made on the fact that the trial Court and the High Court erred in not taking into consideration the evidence of P. Ws. 6 and 7. It is clear from the evidence of these witnesses that they had turned hostile to the prosecution. The Public Prosecutor was allowed to cross-examine them. The trial Court and the High Court did not refer to this evidence. The contention of Mr. Mukherjee was that the trial Court and the High Court should have attempted to salvage something out of their evidence. But there was nothing to salvage from their evidence. The effect of their evidence is that they had not seen the occurrence. Therefore there was no question of separating the grain from the chaff.15. The only substantial argument advanced on behalf of the appellants is that the charges under which they were tried were defective and therefore the trial is vitiated. It is true that the trial Court should not have framed the alternative charges referred to earlier. If it wanted to proceed with the case against Rattan Lal as well as it should have included him along with the other accused and framed common charges. On the facts of this case there was no question of framing an alternative charge. It is not a case wherein the aid of Section 236, Cr. P. C. could have been taken. All the same there is absolutely no reason to think that the accused had been prejudiced by the alternative charges mentioned earlier. As seen earlier, the prosecution led evidence only in support of the charge that the four appellants were responsible for the murders of Moti Ram and Balak Ram. No evidence whatsoever has been led in support of the alternative charges. Counsel for the appellants was not able to show us how the accused can be said to have been prejudiced by the alternative charges. This Court has ruled in Willie (William) Slaney v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, (1955) 2 SCR 1140 = (AIR 1956 SC 116 ), that a mere defect in the charge is no ground for setting aside a conviction. Procedural laws are designed to subserve the ends of justice and not to frustrate them by mere technicalities. The object of the charge is to give an accused notice of the matter he is charged with. That does not touch jurisdiction. If the necessary information is conveyed to him and no prejudice is caused to him because of the charges, the accused cannot succeed by merely showing that the charges framed were defective. Some decisions were read to us showing that if the prosecution speaks in discordant voices as to the person or persons who are responsible for the offence, that would be a ground for acquitting the accused. It is not necessary to refer to those decisions in view of the decision of this Court in WiIliam Slaneys case, (1955) 2 SCR 1140 = (AIR 1956 SC 116 ) (supra), the essential question being whether the accused were prejudiced by the charge. As mentioned earlier we are unable to hold that the appellants in this case were prejudiced by the alternative charges referred to earlier.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]Therefore the complaint of P. W. 4, Harnam Das that the police were trying to sabotage the prosecution case cannot be dismissed as being frivolous.From the two versions put forward by the prosecution and the accused, it is clear that an incident did take place at the place and tune mentioned in the charge as a result of which the two deceased persons received serious injuries, one of them namely Moti Ram died very soon after the incident and the other Balak Ram on November 1, 1966. The medical evidence discloses that Moti Ram had received as many as 12 injures, six of them were incised wounds and two were contusions. One of the contusions was in the rightIts dimension was 4"xl". That injury had fractured his skull, the bones of the skull were broken into many pieces. The Medical Officer who had conducted theof Moti Ram was of the opinion that primarily the deceased must have died as a result of that injury. Balak Ram had sustained six injuries; three of them were contusions, one was an incised injury. Further he had a big swelling: extending from the angle of right mandible upwards above the ear and right side of the scalp. Theexamination disclosed a big haematoma under the scalp. The Medical Officer was of the opinion that the death must have been the result of shock and haemorrhage due to the two blows given on the head of Balak Ram viz. injuries Nos. 1 and 5.The three Court witnesses examined in the case tried in a somewhat feeble manner to support the case of the appellants. Their evidence was mutually contradictory. Each one of them had a version of his own and further the evidence given by them in Court materially differs from the statements made by them during investigation. Hence the trial Court as well as the High Court were right in placing no reliance on their testimony. The learned Counsel for the appellants made a somewhat hesitant attempt to commend their evidence for our acceptance. Their evidence is discrepant and the version given by them is basically improbable.14. Some comment was also made on the fact that the trial Court and the High Court erred in not taking into consideration the evidence of P. Ws. 6 and 7. It is clear from the evidence of these witnesses that they had turned hostile to the prosecution. The Public Prosecutor was allowed tothem. The trial Court and the High Court did not refer to this evidence. The contention of Mr. Mukherjee was that the trial Court and the High Court should have attempted to salvage something out of their evidence. But there was nothing to salvage from their evidence. The effect of their evidence is that they had not seen the occurrence. Therefore there was no question of separating the grain from the chaff.It is true that the trial Court should not have framed the alternative charges referred to earlier. If it wanted to proceed with the case against Rattan Lal as well as it should have included him along with the other accused and framed common charges. On the facts of this case there was no question of framing an alternative charge. It is not a case wherein the aid of Section 236, Cr. P. C. could have been taken. All the same there is absolutely no reason to think that the accused had been prejudiced by the alternative charges mentioned earlier. As seen earlier, the prosecution led evidence only in support of the charge that the four appellants were responsible for the murders of Moti Ram and Balak Ram. No evidence whatsoever has been led in support of the alternative charges. Counsel for the appellants was not able to show us how the accused can be said to have been prejudiced by the alternative charges. This Court has ruled in Willie (William) Slaney v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, (1955) 2 SCR 1140  = (AIR 1956 SC 116 ), that a mere defect in the charge is no ground for setting aside a conviction. Procedural laws are designed to subserve the ends of justice and not to frustrate them by mere technicalities. The object of the charge is to give an accused notice of the matter he is charged with. That does not touch jurisdiction. If the necessary information is conveyed to him and no prejudice is caused to him because of the charges, the accused cannot succeed by merely showing that the charges framed were defective. Some decisions were read to us showing that if the prosecution speaks in discordant voices as to the person or persons who are responsible for the offence, that would be a ground for acquitting the accused. It is not necessary to refer to those decisions in view of the decision of this Court in WiIliam Slaneys case, (1955) 2 SCR 1140  = (AIR 1956 SC 116 ) (supra), the essential question being whether the accused were prejudiced by the charge. As mentioned earlier we are unable to hold that the appellants in this case were prejudiced by the alternative charges referred to earlier.