Som Raj @ Soma vs State Of H.P

1. Consequent upon an intimation to the police, by Dr. B.M. Gupta (PW5), Senior Medical Officer, Community Health Centre, Indora (hereinafter referred to as the CHC, Indora); the statement of Nek Ram, (PW1) was recorded at the CHC, Indora, on 29.7.2000; leading to the registration of First Information Report bearing no.123 of 2000 under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, at Police Station, Indora. The aforesaid statement was recorded by ASI Shiv Kanya (PW12). In his statement, Nek Ram (PW1) asserted that there was a ‘bhandara’ (feast for devotees, during a Hindu ceremonial congregation) following a ‘yagya’ (Hindu ritual ceremony) at the residence of Kishan Singh (PW2) at village Khanda Saniyal on 29.7.2000. Nek Ram (PW1) disclosed, that he along with his brother Sardari Lal (since deceased) had been invited to the ‘bhandara’ and were present at the residence of Kishan Singh (PW2). The complainant Nek Ram (PW1) affirmed, that he was helping in serving food at the ‘bhandara’. Whilst he was in the kitchen at about 9.30 p.m., he (Nek Ram, PW1) was informed by his nephew Sohan (PW3) and Shamsher Singh (PW8) that the accused-appellant Som Raj alias Soma was quarrelling with his brother Sardari Lal. On being so informed, he had immediately reached the place of altercation, and had found the accused-appellant Som Raj assaulting his brother Sardari Lal. He also pointed out, that he had seen Som Raj picking up a ‘darat’ (a traditional agricultural implement used by agriculturists in northern India, for cutting branches of trees. It is also used by butches for beheading goats and sheep. The implement has a handle and a large cutting blade), from the house of Kishan Singh (PW2) and giving his brother Sardari Lal a blow with it, on the back portion of his head. After the first blow, the accused-appellant was in the process of giving a second blow when the complainant Nek Ram (PW1) along with others present at the place of occurrence, had caught hold of him. The ‘darat’ was then snatched from his hands. According to Nek Ram (PW1), blood was oozing from the injury suffered by Sardari Lal. Accordingly, Sardari Lal was immediately taken to the CHC, Indora. Sardari Lal had reached the hospital at about 10.45 p.m. He was declared dead at about 11.15 p.m.

2. Consequence upon the registration of First Information Report no.123 of 2000 at Police Station, Indora, on 29.7.2000, the Police initiated investigation into the matter. On completion of the same, the accused- appellant was sent to face trial for commission of the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. During the course of the trial, the prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses including six witnesses of occurrence (Nek Ram - PW1, Kishan Singh - PW2, Sohan - PW3, Mohinder Singh

3. The statement of the accused-appellant was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure after the prosecution had concluded its evidence. In his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused-appellant projected a different version of the incident. According to the accused-appellant, there was an altercation between his brother Hari Singh (DW5) at the entrance of the residence of Kishan Singh (PW2) during which a “gorkha” (a Nepali living in India) named Rana gave a ‘darat’ blow to his elder brother Hari Singh (DW5) which accidentally hit the deceased Sardari Lal. He further stated, that information about the occurrence (as narrated by him) was given by his brother Hari Singh (DW5) to the Magistrate, Nurpur, on the day following the incident, i.e., on 30.7.2000. The accused-appellant examined five witnesses in his defence including Hari Singh (DW5) and Dr. V.K. Singla (DW2), Medical Officer, Community Health Centre, Choori, who had examined Hari Singh - DW5 and had recorded the injuries found on his person.

iii) Karnail Singh was examined by the prosecution as PW3. The statement of Karnail Singh (PW3) was on the same lines as those of Nek Ram (PW1) and Kishan Singh (PW2). He too was confronted during the course of cross-examination with the version of the accused-appellant, namely, that the injury in question had been caused by a “gorkha” named Rana. The aforesaid suggestion put to the witness, was denied by him.

5. In so far as the accused-appellant is concerned, after recording his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, he examined five witnesses in his defence. The statement of Dr. Deepak Sharma, Block Medical Officer Gangath was recorded as DW1. DW1 affirmed that on 30.7.2007, he had examined Hari Singh (DW5) and had found bruises over his lower jaw and also found three shaky teeth. During the course of his cross- examination, he acknowledged that no application was filed by Hari Singh (DW5) before him, requiring him to conduct his medical examination. He denied as incorrect, the suggestion that he had prepared the medico-legal certificate (Exhibit D3) in connivance with Hari Singh (DW5). He also acknowledged, that the injuries suffered by Hari Singh, could result from falling on a hard surface. Dr. V.K. Singla, Medical officer CHC, Choori, was examined as DW2. DW2 stated that on 31.7.2000 (two days after the occurrence), he had examined Hari Singh in his capacity as Dental Surgeon, Gangath, and had given his opinion as at Exhibit D1. Harnam Singh, Havaldar Head Constable, Police Station Nurpur, appeared as DW3. He confirmed that a rapat roznamacha (entry in the Daily Diary of the Police Station) was recorded at Police Station Nurpur, in respect of the injuries suffered by Hari Singh. He pointed out, that no action had been taken in the matter, as the incident in question was within the jurisdiction of Police Station, Indora. The statement of Dev Raj, Hawaldar Head Constable, Police Station, Indora, was recorded as DW4. He merely produced the original ‘rapat roznamcha’ of Police Station, Indora, to affirm the factual position depicted by Harnam Singh, Havaldar Head Constable (DW3). The statement of Hari Singh was recorded as DW5. In his statement, he acknowledged, that the accused-appellant was his younger brother and the deceased Sardari Lal was his nephew. He also acknowledged, that he alongwith his family members, attended the ‘yagya’ held by Kishan Singh (PW2) at his residence on 29.7.2000. During the course of his deposition, he attempted to provide an alibi to the accused-appellant by asserting, that the accused-appellant Som Raj had gone to Chintpurni on the date of occurrence. He further stated, that Som Raj was visiting their other younger brother who lived at Chintpurni. He also endeavoured to substantiate the factual position asserted by the accused-appellant in his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In this behalf he deposed, that a ‘gorkha’ named Rana had an altercation with him outside the house of Kishan Singh (PW2). During the aforesaid altercation, Rana had given him a blow on his mouth, which had resulted in one broken tooth. He further stated, that when the aforesaid Rana attempted a second blow with a ‘darat’ at him, he had ducked, whereupon the blow had landed on the deceased Sardari Lal, which resulted in the death of Sardari Lal. Hari Singh (DW5) further testified, that he had lodged a report with the police. He deposed, that he had also gone to the Civil Hospital, Nurpur for treatment, whereupon he was referred to the Dental Surgeon at Gangath. Hari Singh (DW5) deposed further, that having noted down his complaint, the same was forwarded by Police Station, Nurpur, to the Police Station, Indora.

22. The above are only broad guidelines and not cast-iron imperatives. In most cases, their observance will facilitate the task of the court. But sometimes the facts are so intertwined and the second and the third stages so telescoped into each other, that it may not be convenient to give a separate treatment to the matters involved in the second and third stages.”

12. In view of our aforesaid conclusions, the instant appeal being devoid of merit, is dismissed.

February 22, 2013.