CHANDRABHAN SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant, Chandra Bhan Singh, has been convicted Under Section 326, Penal Code and sentenced to ten years' ft. I. whereas the remaining appellants, Mulaim Singh, Bhumiraj Singh, and Jodh Singh were convicted Under Section 326 read with Section 34. Penal Code and also sentenced to ten years' R. I. by and Civil and Sessions Judge, Etah.

(2.) ACCORDING to the prosecution case, Shaitan Singh, deceased, who had been residing in another village in the house of his married sister, had shifted to village Datauli, his home, a year before the occurrence on 23-2. 1966 for which the appellants were prosecuted. It is alleged that, although Shaitan Singh had hia own bouse in village Datauli, he had arranged to take his meals at the house of the appellant Mulaim Singh. It is said that be was able to do so because he bad arranged to get Chandra Bhan Singh appellant, the son of the appellant Mulaim Sing, married. On 21st of February, 1966, Km. Vimla, the daughter of the appellant Mulaira Singh and sister of Chandra Bhan Singh, is said to have disappeared. Shaitan Singh waa suspected of complicity in this affair. On 23rd of February, 1966, at about 10 A. M. apparently when the feelings of Mulaim Sicgb and Chandra Bban Singh were worked up, these two accused, together with Bhumiraj Singh and Jodh Singh, who are said to be nephews of Mulaim Singh, are alleged to have caught hold of Saitan Singh on the road at a place in front of the house of Mulaim Singh and to have carried him inside a courtyard of the house of Mulaim Singh and Chandra Bhan Bingh where they chopped off all the fingers and thumbs of Shaitan Singh and also to have strunk blows with a gandasa on the wrist of their victim. In the meantime, Sugriv Singh, P, W, 1, Devi Singh, P. W. 2, and Diwari Lai, P. W. 3,who were sitting at the shop of Bhojraj, carpenter, nearby, are alleged to have reached there and to have succeeded in persuading the appellants to spare the life of Shaitan Singh. The injured was then carried to the house, and, after that, taken to police station Jaithra in a bullock cart, at a distance of about four miles from the place of occurrence where a first information report was lodged at 5. 30 P. M. on 23. 2. 1966 by Shaitan Singh himself. The first information report sets out a summary of the ooourrence and its reason, as stated above, and gives the names of the four accused as the assailants of Shaitan Singh and the names of Devi Singh, P. W. 2, Sugriv Singh, P. W. 1, and Dewari Lai, P. W. 3, three out of the four eye-witnesses mentioned there. It is stated in the first information report that witnesses had gone into the courtyard as the door of the house of Mulaim Singh was open. The victim was taken to hospital at Jaithra, and, thereafter, sent to the District Hospital at Etah where he died on 10th March. 1966.

(3.) THE learned Civil and Sessions Judge, who had the advantage of seeing the witnesses depose, not only believed the three alleged eyewitnesses of the occurrence but also relied on the first information report lodged by Shaitan Singh as a dying declaration. The postmortem report (Ex. Kha. 2) gives Asphyxia, resulting from tetanus, as the cause of death. Dr. 0. P. Batra, who had prepared the postmortem report, had also stated that tetanus could be caused by even a scratch and that there was no necessary connection between the tetanus, which caused the death of the victim, and the injuries sustained by him during the occurrence. According to the doctor, the injuries were not such as to make death probable from injuries only. The learned Civil and Sessions Judge had, however, given the finding that tetanus had developed on the body of Shaitan Singh a9 a result of the in-juries caused by the appellants because no other injury was proved on the body of the deceased. The learned Judge observed that, although no anti-tetanus injection was given to the de-n ceased, so that his life could be saved, the resuiting tetanus could not have supervened if no injuries had been inflicted upon the victim by the appellants. He held that, since the gandasa used in inflicting the injuries was said to be out of use, the rust near the edges of the gandasa had tetanus germs on it. The last mentioned finding was certainly based on pure conjecture as the actual gandasa alleged to have been used in causing the injuries on Shaitan Singh was not found so as to be produced at all as a piece of evidence at the trial.