Case: Kanhiyalal and Others Vs. State of Rajasthan

the deceased had a linear fracture 2" in length over the right frontal bone. The brain was congested and there was clotting of blood. This injury corresponds to external injury No. 1 In the opinion of Dr. Tak death was due to shock and haemorrhage on account of fracture of the skull bone. The injuries were ante-mortem. It is, therefore clear that Chhotu die a homicidal death 8. PW 2 Bhura deposed that he received two injuries on the forehead and two injuries on the left hand. There was a fracture resulting from the injury on the left hand. He was in hospital for 8 or 10 days. The prosecution evidence shows that the injury on the forehead was a serious one and had caused profuse bleeding. The injuries to other prosecution witnesses PW 1 Prem, PW 3 Champa and PW 19 Lad were of a simple nature. PW 4 claimed that she was injured but no external marks of injury were noticed. The prosecution relied on the direct testimony of PWs 1, 2, 3, 4, 9, 18 and 19 bring home the guilt against the accused persons. We have perused the evidence of these witnesses, all of whom unfold the prosecution version regarding the incident narrated earlier. Both the courts below have found these witnesses to be reliable. The fact that Chhotu and Bhura received severe injuries in the incident cannot be doubted. So also the fact that PWs 1, 3, and 19 received simple injuries cannot be doubted. The only question is whether the accused persons were the aggressors as alleged or whether they were obliged to caused injuries in self-defence 9. Accused 1 Kanhiyalal had sustained six injuries three abrasions one bruise and two lacerations on the left eye and right forehead. All these injuries were simple in nature except that there was bleeding from the gums which had loosened the lower front four teeth. Accused 2 Geelaram had one laceration on the frontal region, two abrasions on the scapular region and a linear scar on the right hand. All these injuries were of simple nature. Accused 3 Gokul had four abrasions and a swelling on the left forearm, all of which were simple in nature. Accused 4 Ratanlal had two abrasions, one on the scapular region and another on the left little finger which were simple in nature. It will be seen from the above that the injuries suffered by the accused were of a simple nature as against the injuries suffered by Chhotu and Bhura. If the assault was opened by the complainant party, as is alleged by the counsel, we do not think that the accused would have escaped with simple and minor injures. According to the accused they were unarmed when the assault was opened by Chhotu and Bhura and they picked up the salia from the nearby bullock cart to protect themselves. This means that there was a gap between the assault launched by Chhotu and Bhura and the accused arming themselves with salia. It is, therefore, difficult to believe that the accused would have escaped with such injuries if the complainant party had in fact opened the attack on unarmed persons. Both the courts below have also reached the conclusion and in our view rightly that the facts and circumstances of the case reveal that the assault was launched by accused 1 and 2, accused 3 and 4 joining a little later. There is another circumstances which betrays the revengeful mood of the accused persons. After Chhotu and Bhura were injured and the accused had left the place of occurrence, the womenfolk had requested PW 8 to take the injured in his bullock cart to the dispensary. PW 8 agreed and both the injured who were in critical condition were placed in the bullock cart. The bullock cart had hardly covered a distance of 4 or 5 fields when the accused appeared and told PW 8 to leave the injured to their fate if the considered his life precious 10. PW 8 showed initial resistance but fled on being attacked with stones. It was thereafter that the womenfolk requested PW 20 Govindram to drive the bullock cart to dispensary. This part of the prosecution evidence which has remained virtually uncontested goes to show that even after the incident the accused did not permit PW 8 to take the injured to the dispensary for treatment. This is a circumstance which betrays the mood of the accused persons at the time of and immediately after the incident. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the courts below did not commit any error in the appreciation of the prosecution evidence in coming to the conclusion that the accused persons were the aggressors. The accused persons therefore, were not entitled to any right of private defence 11. It was next contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that there was an inordinate delay in lodging the first information report. The court below have come to the conclusion that the delay is properly explained. We think that this conclusion is correct. Immediately after the incident all the members of the complainants party except PW 1 Prem who was a minor had accompanied the injured Chhotu and Bhura in the bullock cart. On reaching the dispensary it was realised that since the medical officer was not available it was necessary to remove the injured to Kekri Hospital. PW 20 returned with the bullock car to the village and thereafter went to Kekri Hospital by bus. It was there that PW 2 Bhura requested him to him inform police. PW 20 thereafter went to the police station and lodged the complaint. In these circumstances we do not think that the delay is unexplained. We, therefore, see no substance in this contention 12. It was lastly contended that the prosecution witnesses have suppressed the true facts. We have carefully read the prosecution evidence and we do not think that the prosecution witnesses are guilty of suppression of facts

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

Explanation:
0[ds]We think that this conclusion is correct. Immediately after the incident all the members of the complainants party except PW 1 Prem who was a minor had accompanied the injured Chhotu and Bhura in the bullock cart. On reaching the dispensary it was realised that since the medical officer was not available it was necessary to remove the injured to Kekri Hospital. PW 20 returned with the bullock car to the village and thereafter went to Kekri Hospital by bus. It was there that PW 2 Bhura requested him to him inform police. PW 20 thereafter went to the police station and lodged the complaint. In these circumstances we do not think that the delay is unexplained. We, therefore, see no substance in this contentionWe have carefully read the prosecution evidence and we do not think that the prosecution witnesses are guilty of suppression of facts