INDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SIX petitioners, namely, Inder Singh, Om Singh, Sukhbir, Ishawar, Smt. Sunehri and Smt. Kamla were brought to trial under Sections 148, 323 and 325 read with Section 149, Indian Penal Code before the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Sonepat for causing injuries to Mohinder Singh PW and having been found guilty thereof, Inder Singh, Sukhbir and Ishwar were sentenced to various terms of imprisonment and fine. Instead of sentencing Smt. Sunheri and Smt. Kamla accused to any sentence of imprisonment they were ordered to be released on probation for a period of two years each to keep peace and be of good behaviour. On appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat, upheld their convictions but reduced their sentences of imprisonment under all the counts till the rising of the Court while maintaining the sentences of fine with their default clause. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners have come up in revision.

(2.) THE prosecution case in brief is that on 3rd July, 1978, Mohinder Singh PW was present in his fields in the area of village Badhana and at about 2.30 P. M., his mother Smt. Lado came there to serve meals to him and in the meantime the accused Inder Singh, Ishwar, Om Singh and Sukhbir having lathis and jailies and Smt. Sunehri and Smt. Kamla having Kasolas were seen coming towards that side. It is alleged that Om Singh raised a lalkara that Mohinder Singh be taught a lesson as he was alone there. Thereupon, Ishwar opened the attack by giving a jaili blow on the head of Mohinder Singh followed by Sukhbir who gave a lathi blow to him. Inder Singh and Om Singh gave some Jaili and lathi blows to Mohinder Singh on his arms and legs. When Mohinder Singh tried to run away, he was surrounded by the said accused. While Mohinder Singh was lying on the ground, Om Singh and Sukhbir accused gave some lathi blows to him. On hearing the alarm raised by Smt. Lado, Ashok Kumar and Zile Singh reached there and rescued Mohinder Singh. Injured Mohinder was removed to Civil Hospital, Sonepat. On receipt of intimation from the doctor Partap Singh Assistant Sub-Inspector went to the said hospital to record the statement of injured but he was unfit to make a statement. Since the condition of the injured was serious, be was referred to Civil Hospital, Rohtak. where the doctor medically examined him and found as many as 11 injuries on his person as detailed in the medico-legal report Ex. PA. On X ray, under injury No. 5, fracture of 8th and 10th right ribs was noted. The accused were arrested. On interrogation by the Investigating Officer, Inder Singh, Om Singh and Sukhbir accused suffered disclosure statements leading to the recovery of their jailies and lathi from the specified places of concealment. After necessary investigation, the accused were challaned and sent for trial.

(3.) MOHINDER Singh and Smt. Lado PWs had proved the participation of all the six petitioners in the assault. The evidence of these witnesses clearly shows that they gave graphic description of the assault with regard to the order, the manner and the parts of the body with absolute consistency which gives an impression that they have given a parrot-like version acting under a conspiracy to depose one set of facts and one set of facts only. It is strongly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the witnesses who are sworn enemies of the petitioners have combined in a conspiracy to implicate the petitioners falsely because of their animosity. It seems to me that taking the entire picture of the narrative given by the witnesses, in the peculiar facts of this case, the contention cannot be said to be without substance. It seems to me that having regard to the serious animosity which the witnesses have against the petitioners, they must have made it a condition precedent to depose in favour of the prosecution. Dr. D.P. Arora who had examined Ishwar and Smt. Sunehri accused found 5 injuries on the person of Smt. Sunehri accused out of them two were on the head and three injuries on the person of Ishwar accused and out of them one injury was on his head. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, there can be no doubt that they had received these injuries in the course of the assault because it has not been suggested or contended that the said injuries could be self-inflicted nor it is believable. In these circumstances, therefore, it was the bounden duty of the prosecution to give a reasonable explanation for the injuries sustained by the aforesaid two accused. Not only the prosecution witnesses have given no explanation but they have categorically stated that they did not see any injury being caused on the persons of these accused. Indeed if the eye-witnesses could have given such graphic details regarding the assault on the complainant party and yet they deliberately suppressed injuries on the persons of the accused, this is a most important circumstances to discredit the entire prosecution case. On the other hand, it is the definite case of the petitioners that the cattle of the complainant party strayed into the sugarcane field of the accused party and when the latter objected. they were attacked by the complainant party and then the accused party caused some injuries to them in self defence. The fact that Ishwar and Smt. Sunehri had as many as 8 injuries on their persons including three injuries on the vital parts of their bodies, this circumstance probabilises the defence version.