Case: Balwant Singh Vs. State of Haryana

he was stated to have joined the army, while Tej Singh was given up by the public prosecutor on the ground of having been won over.11. The accused, other than Mange Ram and Tej Singh, denied the prosecution allegations. According to them, they were not present at the scene of occurrence. The version of the occurrence on behalf of Mange Ram and Tej Singh was given by Mange Ram in the following words :"Mam Kaur had sold a gher to Attar Singh etc. We pre-empted that and had taken possession. I had stocked my harvested wheat crop there for thrashing it. Tej Singh and I were working there. Attar Singh, Mehtab Singh, Kabul Singh, Dharam Singh and Ram Singh P.W.s came there. They started giving me abuses and asked us to remove the Bunga of wheat crop. We refused. They started beating us with lathis. We also beat them with out weapons. I had a jelli. Tej Singh had a lathis. We raised hue and cry. Kure, Jai Lal, Shib Narain, Kanshi Ram, Bhartu and Parkash came to our help. They were armed with lathis. The P.W.s did not stop beating us. Our helpers then started beating the P.W.s and thus rescued us. I and Tej Singh then went to the Thana to lodge a report. The Thanedar refused to record our report. He came to the village with us. The Thanedar then arrested all of us in the village."In defence, one witness Kure was produced in support of the version of Mange Ram.12. As stated above, the trial court acquitted all the eight accused, while the High Court on appeal convicted the seven accused-appellants.13. We have heard Mr. Kohli on behalf of the appellants and Mr . Goswami on behalf of the State, and are of the view that there is no merit in the appeal. The prosecution case about the seven accused appellants having assaulted Mehtab Singh, Attar Singh, Kabul Singh and Dharam Singh is supported by the evidence of Mehtab Singh (P.W. 11), Attar Singh (P.W. 12), Kabul Singh (P.W. 14) and Mari (P.W. 15). We agree with the learned judges of High Court that there appears to be no cogent ground to disbelieve the evidence of those witnesses. The mere fact that they are related to each other would not be a sufficient ground for discrediting their testimony. Mehtab Singh, Attar Singh and Kabul Singh had injuries on their persons and there can be hardly any manner of doubt regarding their presence at the scene at the scene of occurrence. It is also most difficult to believe that the injured witnesses would spare their real assailants and falsely involve innocent persons as those responsible for causing injuries to them. The trial court rejected the evidence of the eye-witnesses on the ground of their being related to each other. This circumstance, as pointed out by the High Court, did not warrant the rejection of their testimony. The trial court also referred to the discrepancy, in the prosecution evidence on the point as to whether there were some persons ploughing nearby field. This discrepancy, as observed by the High Court, was not of a material character and did not militate against the credibility of the prosecution witnesses.14. The medical evidence shows that as many as 56 injuries were found on the persons of Mehtab Singh, Attar Singh, Kabul Singh and Dharam Singh. Out of them, six injuries were grievous. Four of the injuries had been caused by sharp-edged weapon, and five of them had been caused by sharp-pointed weapon. If the injured prosecution witnesses accompanied by Dharam Singh and Ram Singh had attacked Mange Ram and Tej Singh as stated by Mange Ram, it is difficult to believe that Mange Ram and Tej Singh would escape with only three visible injuries, while as many as 56 injuries would be caused to the complainant party. The version of the occurrence as given by Mange Ram, in our opinion, is not worthy of credence and has been rightly rejected by the High Court. We also find that the injuries on the person of Mange Ram and Tej Singh accused have been fully explained by Mehtab Singh P.W. According to the witness, he and Attar Singh had small dandas in their hands and wielded them to ward off the blows of the accused.15. There is a discrepancy in the prosecution evidence as to whether Sub-Inspector Gurmej Singh got some intimation about the occurrence when he was on patrol duty or whether he got it at the police station. This circumstance, as held by the High Court, did not justify the throwing out of the entire prosecution case. There is no cogent evidence on the record to show that the intimation received by the Sub-Inspector was precise and not vague before he arrived at the place of occurrence.16. Mr. Kohli has argued that the five injuries caused by sharp-pointed weapon on the persons of Mehtab Singh, Attar Singh and Kabul Singh P.Ws. could be the result of three blows with jellis. The two injuries caused by sharp-pointed weapon on the person of Mehtab Singh, according to the learned counsel, could have been the result of one blow. Likewise, two of such injuries on the person of Kabul Singh could be caused by a single blow. This contention, even if accepted, in out opinion, would not make much material difference. Three of the accused, according to the prosecution case, were armed with jellis and there is nothing to rule out that each of them gave one blow to the injured witnesses. Assuming that one of the accused with jelli did not cause any injury, that fact would not exculpate him because the conviction of the accused is for the offence under Section 326 read with Section 149, I.P.C. The circumstances of the case indicate that the injuries which were caused to Mehtab Singh, Attar Singh and Kabul Singh were in prosecution of the common object of all the accused-appellants to cause grievous injuries.

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

Explanation:
0[ds]13. We have heard Mr. Kohli on behalf of the appellants and Mr . Goswami on behalf of the State, and are of the view that there is no merit in the appeal. The prosecution case about the seven accused appellants having assaulted Mehtab Singh, Attar Singh, Kabul Singh and Dharam Singh is supported by the evidence of Mehtab Singh (P.W. 11), Attar Singh (P.W. 12), Kabul Singh (P.W. 14) and Mari (P.W. 15). We agree with the learned judges of High Court that there appears to be no cogent ground to disbelieve the evidence of those witnesses. The mere fact that they are related to each other would not be a sufficient ground for discrediting their testimony. Mehtab Singh, Attar Singh and Kabul Singh had injuries on their persons and there can be hardly any manner of doubt regarding their presence at the scene at the scene of occurrence. It is also most difficult to believe that the injured witnesses would spare their real assailants and falsely involve innocent persons as those responsible for causing injuries to them. The trial court rejected the evidence of theon the ground of their being related to each other. This circumstance, as pointed out by the High Court, did not warrant the rejection of their testimony. The trial court also referred to the discrepancy, in the prosecution evidence on the point as to whether there were some persons ploughing nearby field. This discrepancy, as observed by the High Court, was not of a material character and did not militate against the credibility of the prosecution witnesses.14. The medical evidence shows that as many as 56 injuries were found on the persons of Mehtab Singh, Attar Singh, Kabul Singh and Dharam Singh. Out of them, six injuries were grievous. Four of the injuries had been caused byweapon, and five of them had been caused byweapon. If the injured prosecution witnesses accompanied by Dharam Singh and Ram Singh had attacked Mange Ram and Tej Singh as stated by Mange Ram, it is difficult to believe that Mange Ram and Tej Singh would escape with only three visible injuries, while as many as 56 injuries would be caused to the complainant party. The version of the occurrence as given by Mange Ram, in our opinion, is not worthy of credence and has been rightly rejected by the High Court. We also find that the injuries on the person of Mange Ram and Tej Singh accused have been fully explained by Mehtab Singh P.W. According to the witness, he and Attar Singh had small dandas in their hands and wielded them to ward off the blows of the accused.15. There is a discrepancy in the prosecution evidence as to whetherGurmej Singh got some intimation about the occurrence when he was on patrol duty or whether he got it at the police station. This circumstance, as held by the High Court, did not justify the throwing out of the entire prosecution case. There is no cogent evidence on the record to show that the intimation received by thewas precise and not vague before he arrived at the place of occurrence.Mr. Kohli has argued that the five injuries caused byn on the persons of Mehtab Singh, Attar Singh and Kabul Singh P.Ws. could be the result of three blows with jellis. The two injuries caused byn on the person of Mehtab Singh, according to the learned counsel, could have been the result of one blow. Likewise, two of such injuries on the person of Kabul Singh could be caused by a single blow.This contention, even if accepted, in out opinion, would not make much material difference. Three of the accused, according to the prosecution case, were armed with jellis and there is nothing to rule out that each of them gave one blow to the injured witnesses. Assuming that one of the accused with jelli did not cause any injury, that fact would not exculpate him because the conviction of the accused is for the offence under Section 326 read with Section 149, I.P.C. The circumstances of the case indicate that the injuries which were caused to Mehtab Singh, Attar Singh and Kabul Singh were in prosecution of the common object of all theto cause grievous injuries.