Case: Kasturi Lal Vs. State of Haryana

High Court was that it found it proved from the evidence recorded by it that appellant Kasturi Lals brothers and other relations were employed in the police department at the relevant time and that the investigations of the case had been tainted and an effort had been made to mould it in his favour. The High Court did not however give its reasons for holding that the investigation was tainted or moulded in favour of appellant Kasturi Lal and, did not state in what respect the evidence was tainted or moulded. As it is, we find it difficult to ignore the argument of Mr. Anthony that even if it were assumed, for the sake of argument, that the appellant had some junior policed officers as his relations, that could not be said to corroborate the evidence of those who claimed to have witnessed the incident, or to lend support to their version in that regard, when there was, as mentioned above, a discrepancy in the evidence of the medical officer and their version in regard to the infliction of injuries by axes on the head of the deceased. 8. The other reason which prevailed with the High Court was that there was evidence to show that appellant Kasturi Lal followed Girdhari Lal (PW 4) to village Mehra along with Gurmukh Singh and Mangal Singh. What Girdhari Lal stated in this connection was that the ran towards village Mehra after he had been beaten by the accused and that on reaching there he narrated the incident to sarpanch Ram Kishan (PW 10). According to the witness, in the meantime, appellant Kasturi Lal, and Gurmukh Singh and Mangal Singh followed him there, to beat him. So as the witness did not state that he was followed to village Mehra by Khazan Singh and Gurdial Singh accused, the High Court took the view that Kasturi Lals case was distinguishable from their case and he did not deserve an acquittal. But we find that here again the High Court fell into an error. As has been pointed out by Mr. Anthony it did not take notice of the fact that there was no mention in the first information report, which had been recorded by Girdhari Lal himself, that appellant Kasturi Lal followed him to village Mehra alone or in the company of Gurmukh Singh and Mangal Singh accused. The report makes a mention of Girdhari lals running to village Mehra and narrating the incident to sarpanch Ram Kishan, but it does not mention that there was any pursuit by appellant Kasturi Lal or any other accused. The High Court also lost sight of the fact that Madan Lal (PW 5) and Smt. Ram Piari (PW 7), who were examined as the other eyewitnesses of the incident, stated clearly that all the seven accused ran after Girdhari Lal, to village Mehra, after beating the deceased. So even if the statement of Ram Kishan (PW 10), which runs counter to the version given by the prosecution, is left out of consideration, if appears that the High Court did not read the evidence correctly even though it had a material bearing on the second circumstance mentioned any it for distinguishing the appellants case from that of Khazan Singh and Gurdial Singh accused. 9. Our attention has been invited by Mr. Goswami to the question of motive, and it has been argued that while appellant Kasturi Lal had a motive for committing the offence, there was no such motive in the case of the acquitted accused Khazan Singh and Gurdial Singh, so that it was another reason for distinguishing his case. Mr. Anthony has argued, on the other hand, that the High Court did not come to grips with the evidence on the question of motive also, and that was why it failed to appreciate that the case of Kasturi Lal was not distinguishable from the case of the acquitted accused on that account also. 10. It has been stated by Girdhari Lal (PW 4) that accused Khazan Singh and Gurdial Singh were first cousins, and appellant Kasturi Lal was the brother-in-law of Gurdial Singh. The witness has stated further that accused Ajit Singh was the nephew of Khazan Singh and that Gurmukh Singh, Mangal Singh and Pooran Singh, the other accused, were on visiting terms with the remaining accused. Girdhari Lal has stated that there was fight between his brothers and accused Ajit Singh and Khazan Singh in 1961, and that accused Gurmukh Singh and Pooran Singh used to cultivate some Land the paddy crop of 1967. Then he has stated that Mohan Singh, brother of Ajit Singh, removed the barley crop of Sardari Lal in 1967 and there were cross security proceedings against them. The witness has further stated that the field of Sardari Lal and Madan Lal and they used to cultivate it, and that a dispute was raised in the respect by kasturi Lal, Gurdial Singh, Pooran Singh, Gurmukh Singh, Ajit Singh, Khazan Singh and Mangal Singh. It would thus appeal that the evidence regarding motive was common to all the accused and was not confined to appellant Kasturi Lal who could not be said to have motive different from the acquitted accused Khazan Singh and Gurdial Singh. Then there is the further fact that all three of them were not found to have received any injuries in the alleged incident so that their cases were not different in that respect also. 11. Thus the reasons given by the High Court for distinguishing the case of Kasturi Lal from that of Khazan Singh and Gurdial Singh were not correct, and there is justification for the argument of Mr. Anthony that such a distinction would not have been made if the High Court had read the evidence correctly in all material particulars. So when the case of kasturi Lal was not distinguishable from that of Khazan Singh and Gurdial Singh, the High Court erred in taking the view that he was not entitled to acquittal.

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

Explanation:
1[ds]It would thus appeal that the evidence regarding motive was common to all the accused and was not confined to appellant Kasturi Lal who could not be said to have motive different from the acquitted accused Khazan Singh and Gurdial Singh. Then there is the further fact that all three of them were not found to have received any injuries in the alleged incident so that their cases were not different in that respect also11. Thus the reasons given by the High Court for distinguishing the case of Kasturi Lal from that of Khazan Singh and Gurdial Singh were not correct, and there is justification for the argument of Mr. Anthony that such a distinction would not have been made if the High Court had read the evidence correctly in all material particulars. So when the case of kasturi Lal was not distinguishable from that of Khazan Singh and Gurdial Singh, the High Court erred in taking the view that he was not entitled to acquittal.