BHARTU Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the conviction and sentence passed against the appellant by the Sessions Judge, Jind and upheld by the High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 494 of 1984. The five appellants stood charged under Sections 148 IPC, 302/149, IPC, 324/149, IPC and 323/149, IPC. The learned Sessions Judge convicted all of them for all the offences charged and sentenced them to imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 100/- or in default further rigorous imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 302/149, IPC, one year R. I. for offence under Section 148, UIPC, one year R. I. for offence under Section 323/149, IPC and six months R.I. for offence under Section 323/149 IPC with the further direction that the sentences would run concurrently. All of them preferred criminal appeal to the High Court against their conviction and sentence. The complainant filed a criminal revision which was registered as 1483 of 1984 praying for enhancement of sentence and grant of compensation to the complainant. The criminal appeal as well as the criminal revision was disposed of by the impugned judgment of the High Court dated 26th April 1985. The criminal appeal filed by the appellants was dismissed and the criminal revision filed by the complainant was allowed to the extent that the amount of fine if released shall be paid to the heirs of the deceased. Thus, the present appeal.

(2.) The prosecution case in brief is that the Panchayat elections had been held in village Shambo on 25th June, 1983 and in the said elections the people belonging to the complainant party had voted for one Surjit Singh who had contested for the post of Sarpanch. Said Surjit Singh was, however, defeated and on that score the supporters of Jagat Ram had grudge against the complainant party. On 17th July, 1983 at 8.30 p.m. the marriage procession of one Ram Rattan son of appellant Mange was being taken around the village. Mange was a partyman of Jagat Ram. When marriage procession was being led by a group consisted of mostly womenfolk and the accused appellants. The accused were in drunken state and were singing filthy songs. When the procession reached the house of Gita Ram, some of the witnesses, namely, Tara Chand (P. W. 8). Sita Ram (not examined), Narain Dutt (P. W. 9). Ganga Bishan (P.W.10) requested the accused persons not to sing filthy songs. The deceased Ram Pal also requested the accused persons not to sing filthy songs and proceed with the marriage procession. Shortly after the altercation, the accused appellants armed with deadly weapons like gandasi, lathi, jaili attacked the complainant party. Appellant Manphul assaulted the deceased Ram Pal with gandasi and the blow fell on the left arm of the deceased, appellant Bhartu attacked the deceased by giving a blow on his head by means of gandasi. Karta Ram, Bhira and Mange the three other appellants also assaulted the deceased with the weapons in their hands. Apart from assaulting the deceased, they also attacked different persons belonging to the complainant party who were consequently injured. On hearing about the incident several other villagers came running to the spot and, therefore, the accused persons left the place with the weapons in their hands. Injured Tara Chand, Ganga Bishen Narain Dutt, Sita Ram and Ram Pal were removed to the hospital at Rajound where Ram Pal succumbed to the injuries. Tara Chand though initially was in a precarious condition but his condition was improved and at 1 a.m. the treating doctor certified him fit to make a statement and accordingly his statement was recorded by Sub-Inspector Bhup Singh and on the basis of the said statement formal F.I.R. (Ex. P.EE) was drawn up. The Investigating Officer then made the inquest over the dead body of the deceased Ram Pal and sent his dead body for autopsy. The investigating Officer then started investigation and on completion of a investigation submitted a charge-sheet. The Magistrate committed the accused persons to the Court of Session and ultimately the learned Sessions Judge tried them. The defence of the accused persons was that it is the complainant party who took recourse of violence and misbehaved with the ladies going in procession in barat party and as a measure of self-defence the accused persons retaliated and in course of the incident Ram Pal died. The learned Sessions Judge on through scrutiny of the entire evidence on record and relying upon the ocular statement of the injured witnesses P.Ws. 8, 9, and 10 came to the conclusion that the prosecution case has been established beyond doubt and accordingly convicted the appellants for different offences for which they stood charged. The learned Sessions Judge relying upon the evidence of Dr. Shyam Kalra (P. W. 1) who had medically examined Ram Pal on 17th July, 1983 as well as the evidence of Dr. Surinder Kumar Mittal (P. W. 6) who had conducted the autopsy over the dead body of deceased Ram Pal came to the conclusion that the death of deceased Ram Pal was homicidal in nature. The learned Sessions Judge also considered the plea of right of private defence as taken by the accused persons and negatived the same in view of the cogent evidence of three injured witnesses referred to earlier. One of the accused, namely, Manphul had taken a plea of alibi and examining the same the learned Sessions Judge discarded the said plea as the material on record did not support the aforesaid plea. The accused persons also had taken a plea that some of them had been injured in course of incident and the prosecution not having explained the injuries on the accused persons the entire prosecution case is liable to be discarded. The learned Sessions Judge considered the aforesaid plea but did not find any substance in the same on the ground that it has not been established that injuries on the accused persons were sustained in course of the incident and further that the injuries in question were so minor or simple injuries that the prosecution is not obliged to explain the same. With these conclusions the Sessions Judge having convicted and sentenced the accused appellants as already stated, they had moved an appeal to the High Court. Before the High Court the counsel appearing for the appellant did not challenge the conclusion of the Sessions Judge with regard to the homicidal death of deceased Ram Pal. In view of clinching evidence of the three injured witnesses who have given a detailed narration of the incident and not being able to impeach the testimony by way of cross-examination, the counsel for the appellants instead of attacking the evidence, raised contentions to create doubt about the prosecution case as a whole on the ground of delay in lodging the F.I.R. and non-examination of the injuries witnesses and non-explanation of the injuries found on accused Bhartu and Mange. The learned counsel for the appellant also raised the plea of self-defence but High Court on reappreciation of the entire evidence negatived all the contentions raised and affirmed the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge.

(3.) Mr. Kapil Sibal, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants mainly raised the following contentions in assailing the judgments of the learned Sessions Judge and the judgment of the High Court: