BHAGWAN DAS Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellants stand convicted as under in Sessions Trial No. 54/85 of Hoshangabad Sessions Division, vide judgment, dated 18.8.1986, which is under challenge in this appeal. Conviction Sentence Appellant No. i u/S 302/34 and u/s. 324/34 Life Imprisonment R.I for 2 years and a fine of I.P.C. Rs. 750/- in default R. .1 for six months. Appellant No. 2 u/s. 302/34 and u/s. 324 Life Imprisonment R.I for 2 years and a fine I.P.C. of Rs. 750/- in default RI. for six months. Appellant No. 3 u/s. 302/34 and u/s. 323 Life Imprisonment R.I for six months and a fine of I.P.C. Rs. 350/- in default Rot for three months.

(2.) Appellant Tarachand is the father. The other two appellants are his sons. They reside in village Mothiya, P.S. Itarsi. As per the prosecution, Lalla alias Jamnaprasad (the deceased) was the brother of Navin Kumar (P.W. 1), both sons of Revatiprasad (P.W. 2). Maltibai (P.W. 3) is the widow of Lalla. On 18.7.1984 at about 1.06 p.m. when all these persons were inside their house, the appellants came there duly armed and raised a false alarm that a serpent has entered their house. Hearing this alarm, Lalla opened the door and no sooner he emerged at the door-step appellant Chimanlal dealt a ballam blow on his chest as a result of which he fell down. When Navin emerged he too was given a ballam blow by/ Chimanlal on the abdomen. Then appellant Bhagwandas gave one Gandasa blow which landed on the left hand of the Navin. When Revatiprasad\came out, Tarachand dealt a lathi blow as a result of which he fell down. The incident was reported to the police. At the instance of police, Laxminarayan Totaniya, Naib Tahsildar and Executive Magistrate (P.W. 4) recorded the dying declaration of Lalla, the same date at 4.00 p.m. which is Ex. p. 7. Dr. P.D. Agarwal (P.W.10) found a contusion and a lacerated wound on Revatiprasad Vide report. Ex. p. 18 and three incised wounds on Navin, vide re port, Ex. P-20 Lalla was admitted in Hamidiya Hospital, Bhopal, where he died the same night at 11.10 p.m. Therefore, inquest was held and post mortem conducted by Dr. Rajkumar Singh (P.W. 9). His report is Ex. P. 13, from which Tit is seen that the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage resulting from the injory found on the abdominal region. This injury also resulted in fracture of 8th and 9th ribs which in turn had caused rupture of the greater omentum. In the opinion of the doctor, this injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The injury found on the person of other two were simple in nature. During the course of the trial, material was produced to show that all the three appellants also received multiple injuries during the course of the same transaction. They too were sent for medical examination by the police and the same doctor, i.e. Dr. P.D. Agarwal examined them soon after the incident. He found 4-1/2x 1/ 2x muscle deep over right parietal region of Tarachand for which X-ray was advised, vide certificate, Ex. D-6 Bhagwandas was found to have one incised wound 2-1/2x 1 x muscle deep over the right back of upper one third of forearm, detained in Ex. D-7. Chimanlal had three injuries one of which 5x 2 involving the bone beneath over left leg. The report, Ex. D-8, shows that the bond beneath the incised wound was found cut. Navin, his father Revatiprasad and one other were tried in S.T. No. 63/85, u/s. 307 I.P.C. for injuries allegedly caused by them to the appellants which ended in acquittal. The trial Judge, found the testimony of Navin and his father reliable and convicted and sentenced the appellants as aforesaid.

(3.) Appellants learned Counsel argued that the prosecution failed to explain the injuries found on the person of the appellants. The said injuries were obviously caused during the course of the same transaction and, therefore, it was imperative for the prosecution to have tendered some explanation. Therefore, in absence of any such explanation, the learned trial Judge was apparently in error in burshing aside this aspect of the case merely on the assumption that none of the appellant had sustained a grievous hurt and, therefore, the non-explanation of their injuries was inconsequential. Learned Counsel contends the observation that none of the appellants had sustained grievous hurt itself is fallacious as the bone below the incised wound of Chimanlal was cut and thus, he had sustained a grievous hurt. Then, it was not necessary for sustaining a plea of self defence that any of the appellants must have received grievous hurt. The defence version is that the deceased, his brother Navin and their father had come to appellants house armed with weapons and had opened the assault as a result of which the injuries found on appellants were caused and the appellant resorted to violence only in exercise of their right of private defence of their person. In view of Lakshmi Singh and others v. State of Bihar1 wherein it has been held: It seems to us that in a murder case, the non-explanation or the injuries sustained by the accused at about the time of the occurrence or in the course of altercation is a very important circumstance from which the Court can draw the following inferences: