Nafe Singh vs State Of Haryana

4. On 30.5.2002, Kanwar Singh (PW.4) complainant along with his brother, namely, deceased Bhanwar Singh was working in the fields known by the name of Yamuna belt. Ram Phal son of Sugna, resident of Goela Khurd, was also ploughing 2 his fields. Besides, the sons of the complainant, namely, Vinod and Mukesh, were also working in the field. At about 12 noon, appellant Nafe Singh armed with a Ballam, Dheeraj armed with a Gandasi and Angrej Singh armed with a lathi, came to their fields and raised a lalkara that Bhanwar Singh be taught a lesson for ploughing the fields, whereafter Nafe Singh gave a Ballam blow to Bhanwar Singh on the right side of his chest on its lateral side lower part, while Deeraj gave a Gandasi blow on his left knee and Angrej gave a lathi blow to him. Upon this, Bhanwar Singh cried "Mar Diya Mar Diya" and on hearing his noise, Vinod and Mukesh went to rescue their uncle Bhanwar Singh; but they were also inflicted injuries by the above three accused with their respective weapons. When Kanwar Singh - complainant along with Ram Phal intervened, the accused along with their respective weapons fled away from the spot. Accused Nafe Singh while leaving told them that his brothers Sahab Singh and Iqbal Singh has lot of money and can manage the affairs. Kanwar Singh, complainant along with Ram Phal went to the spot and found his brother Bhanwar Singh lying dead. Thereafter, Hari Singh son of Phula Singh and his wife Kiran Sarpanch who were coming from the fields along with Jhota - Buggi took the injured to village and subsequently, to Civil Hospital, Panipat. Complainant Kanwar Singh made statement exhibits PB before ASI Randhir Singh in regard to the occurrence which led to registration of formal FIR exhibit PB/1 after making an endorsement Ex.PB/2. After commencement of investigation, both the injured, Mukesh and Vinod, were got medico-legally examined and their medical reports exhibits PE and PF were obtained. The police then moved an application Ex. PG for recording their statements and vide endorsement Ex. PG/1 the injured were declared fit to make statement. The police 3 also moved an application Ex. PH/3 for conducting post-mortem on the body of Bhanwar Singh deceased and post-mortem report Ex. PH, was given. Thereafter, a rough site plan, Ex. PH of the place of occurrence was prepared. The dead body of Bhanwar Singh was got photographed and photographs Ex. P3 to Ex. P6 along with their negatives Ex. P7 to Ex.P10 were collected. A scaled site plan of the place of occurrence Ex. PC was got prepared. Blood soaked earth was also collected from the place of occurrence and taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex. PD. Thereafter, proceedings under Section 174 Cr.P.C. were conducted. All the three accused, named above, were arrested out of whom accused Nafe Singh made a disclosure statement Exhibit PQ on the basis of which he got recovered Ballam, Exhibit P/2, which was taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex. PQ/2 after preparing its rough Khaka Ex. PQ/1. Further, the rough site plan of the place of recovery of the said weapon of offence Exhibit PQ/3 was prepared. Later the other two accused namely, Dheeraj and Angrej Singh produced weapons of offence i.e. Gandasi Ex.P1 and Lathi taken into possession vide recovery memos Ex. PS and Ex. PW/1 after preparing their rough khakas Ex. PR and Ex. PR/1 respectively. The police then moved an application Ex. PH/1 for getting opinion from the doctor about the nature of injuries caused to deceased Bhanwar Singh with Ballam and obtained report Ex. PH/2.

5. On completion of investigation, the accused-appellants were charge- sheeted under Sections 302/324/323 read with Section 34 IPC. As the accused pleaded innocence, trial was held. In order to substantiate the accusations, 15 witnesses were examined. The accused persons in their statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short "the Code") took the 4 plea of innocence and false implication as well as the plea of self-defence. The trial court placed reliance on the evidence of the witnesses and directed conviction. It did not find any substance in the plea that this being a case of free fight, Section 302 will have no application.

6. Questioning the correctness of the judgment of their conviction, three convicted accused preferred appeal before the High Court which was numbered as Appeal No. 87DB of 2005. By the impugned judgment, the High Court altered the conviction of the two accused persons to Section 324 and 323 IPC and considering the period of sentence already served, they were directed to be set at liberty unless required in any other case. The appeal of the present appellant was dismissed.

9. It is to be noted that in some cases conviction is made in terms of Section 304 Part-I IPC and in some cases conviction is made in terms of Section 304 Part-II IPC.

11. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent.

April 23, 2009.