MUNSHI RAM Vs. HARYANA STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LONG and short of the prosecution case set up against accused petitioner Munshi Ram is that around 3.10 p.m. on November 17, 1979 when victim Phul Kumar had diverted the canal water supply to his own filed from the field of the accused and communicated his having done so to the accused, two other co-accused named Pala Ram and Om Parkash came running and caught hold of Phul Kumar from behind. Munshi Ram the principal accused then gave a Kassi blow on the head of Phul Kumar which hit him on the back portion of his head. On the victim raising alarm of 'Maar Diya, Maar Diya' Ram Chander and Kapur Singh, who were both working in a nearby field, reached there and saw the occurrence. All the three accused then ran away from the place of occurrence on the seeing the two witnesses arrive. Munshi Ram carried the Kassi, the weapon of offence with him, while running away from the place of occurrence after the event.

(2.) ON being charged with the commission of the offence under Sections 326/34 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, all the three accused pleaded 'not guilty' thereto and claimed to be tried. Vide its impugned judgment dated November 30, 1984 learned trial Court acquitted co-accused Pala Ram and Om Parkash, convicted principal accused Munshi Ram of the commission of the offence under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years. In Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 1984 and Criminal Revision No. 4 of 1984 both decided on March 21, 1986 learned lower Appellate Court maintained the conviction and sentence awarded to accused petitioner by the learned trial Court. Feeling aggrieved therefrom convicted accused Munshi Ram has filed Criminal Revision No. 594 of 1986 in this Court.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner urged with vehemence that Dr. Raj Pal Singh P.W.5 having admitted in cross-examination, "In case the Kassi is lying on the ground with his sharp side on upward side and a person falls on it then the injury in question can be caused" the explanation rendered by the accused in the course of his statement under Section 33 Criminal Procedure Code well fits in for the injury found on the person of the victim and the accused gets absolved of all blemish. There is hardly any merit in this argument. It was held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Mohan Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1975 SC 261 that implicit reliance cannot be placed on expert opinion because the expert expresses the opinion given hypothesis of the Kassi lying on the ground with sharp side upward and the deceased falling on it which is contrary to the eye-witness account of the occurrence narrated by the two independent prosecution witnesses. Both the witnesses examined by the prosecution are neighbouring landowners and their presence in their adjoining fields at the time of occurrence is most natural. There is nothing to discredit their eye-witness account of the occurrence. In Punjab Singh v. State of Haryana, 1984 Criminal Law Journal 921 their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed, "Medical evidence cannot override direct evidence about assault by particular weapon when direct evidence is satisfactory and reliable."