RAMSINGH Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants, who are real brothers, have been convicted under S. 307 of the Penal Code for attempting to murder Narayan Singh (P.W. 1) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months each.

(2.) The conviction is based on the solitary testimony of the victim Narayansingh (P.W.1). There being background of enmity between him and the appellants, his testimony has to be scanned with caution. In paragraph No. 1 of his testimony, he stated that Bundelsingh (appellant No. 2) dealt a Lohangi blow to the left side of his head. That is not only not supported by medical evidence, but is also contrary to his version in the first information report (Ex.P.1) that Bundelsingh dealt Lohangi blows to his legs and back. In the same para, he stated that Laljiram (appellant No. 3) dealt an axe-blow to his left leg. That is inconsistent with his version in the first information report that Laljiram dealt an axe-blow to his right hand. In the same para of his deposition, he stated that Amarsingh (appellant No. 4) dealt an axe-blow to his left shoulder. That is also inconsistent with the medical evidence as also his version in the first information report that Amarsingh dealt an axe-blow to his left hand. In the same para, he stated that Ramsingh (Appellant No. 1) dealt an axe-blow to his right hand whereas, in the first information report, he had stated that Ramsingh dealt an axe-blow to his left leg. Those versions in para No. 1 were also departed from by him in paras Nos. 6 and 7 of his deposition. Departing from his earlier version in para No. 1 that Laljiram dealt an axe-blow to his left leg, he stated, in para No. 6, that Laljiram dealt blow to his head and that he did not remember whether Laljiram dealt blow to his leg. Departing from his earlier versions in para No. 1 with regard to Amarsingh and Ramsingh, he stated that they dealt one axe-blow each at his back and that, in all, he sustained 10-15 injuries on his back. That is negatived by the medical evidence. The testimony of Dr. Pannalal Rathor (P.W. 4) shows that no injury was found on his back.

(3.) Apart from the above-mentioned self-contradictions, it is significant that the earth at the spot of the alleged incident was not found blood-stained. Narayansingh (P.W. 1) tried to explain that, about 10-15 minutes after beating him, the appellants returned to the spot and obliterated the blood-stains with their feet. That was never before stated by him. Such a version is conspicuously absent from the first information report lodged by him and his own daughter Parwatibai (P.W. 2), aged about 11 years, who is said to have reached the spot almost immediately after the mar-pit, does not support it. The said explanation for the absence of bloodstained earth at the spot given by Narayansingh (P.W. 1) is obviously an afterthought fabrication. In any case, according to him, even after the alleged obliteration, he remained lying at the spot with bleeding injuries for a sufficient time during which his blood was flowing on the earth. That being so, had the alleged incident taken place at the spot where it is alleged to have occurred, the investigation officer should have found blood-stained earth there and seized it therefrom. It is surprising that the investigating officer C.P. Choudhary (P.W. 8) did not find blood-stained earth there although the victim Narayansingh (P.W. 1) is said to have remained lying there till the arrival of the investigating officer.