NATHU RAM Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is Criminal Misc. No. 31306-M/1998 whereby Nathu Ram (petitioner herein) is claiming bail in case FIR No. 56 dated 26.3.1998 under Sections 302/307/323/324/148/149 IPC, 25-54-59 Arms Act in P.S. Dhand, Distt. Kaithal. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 25.3.1998 at about 9 p.m., Jaipal Singh, PW was going to his house from the side of river after answering the call of nature. When he reached in front of the house of his brother, he saw that his brother-Dharam Singh and Raghbir Singh were coming from the side of their old residential houses to the Baithak of his brother-Prem Singh. As soon as they reached in front of the house of Kehar Singh, they saw Kehar Singh standing in front of his house. When Kehar Singh saw Dharam Singh and Raghbir Singh, he challenged them that the enemies had come and they would not be allowed to go. Sukhbir Singh s/o Nathu Ram with a gun in his hand, Satbir Singh s/o Nathu Ram with a Lathi in his hand, Nathu s/o Basanta (petitioner herein) with a Gandasi in his hand, Mahavir s/o Kehar Singh with a lathi in his hand, Om Parkash s/o Kehar Singh with a Gandasi in his hand and Ramesh s/o Kehar Singh with a Gandasi in his hand came out of their house. Sukhbir fired gun-shot on Dharam Singh. He fired gun-shot at Raghbir Singh. Thereafter, Om Parkash dealt gandasa-blow on the head of Raghbir. Thereafter, Nathu and Ramesh inflicted gandasi-blow on the head and ear of Raghbir. Thereafter, all of them caused injuries to Dharama with lathi and gandasi. After that, Sukhbir also opened two-three fires which Jaipal Singh could not observe as to whom those fire-shots had hit and as to whom those fire-shots had been directed. Dharama and Raghbir raised alaram 'Maar-Diya, Mar Diya'. Jaipal Singh continued witnessing carnage standing in the corner of the house as he was afraid of gandasis and gun. In this carnage, Dharama lost his life.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that to, Nathu and Ramesh, the attribution is that they inflicted gandasi-blows on the head and ear of Raghbir. He submitted that the doctor who medically examined Raghbir did not find more than one injury on the head/ear of Raghbir, and if he found only one injury on the head/ear of Raghbir, the same could not be attributed to both Nathu and Ramesh. He submitted that the doctor found only one incised wound 12 cm x 1 cm over the left side of the scalp on frontal and parietal area. He submitted that this injury could not be attributed to both Nathu and Ramesh. He submitted that if the injury attributed to a particular accused does not find mention in the MLR, his participation in the occurrence would be doubtful and his presence in the occurrence would also be doubtful. In support of his submission, he drew my attention to Jasbir Singh v. State of Punjab, 1999(1) RCR(Crl.) 461. In this case Nathu's son Sukhbir is said to have been armed with gun and Nathu's son Satbir is said to have been armed with lathi and Nathu himself is said to have been armed with gandasi and further Mahabir, Om Parkash, Ramesh sons of Kehar Singh are said to have been armed with lathis and gandasas and Sukhbir is said to have fired gun-shots injuring Dharam. Om Parkash is said to have dealt gandasi-blow on the head of Raghbir. Second gun-shot is said to have been fired by Sukhbir. All of them are said to have caused injuries to Dharam with Lathi and gandasi. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the doctor who performed post-mortem examination did not find any gandasi-blow on the dead-body of Dharam. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the same injury on the head could not have been attributed to Om Parkash, Nathu and Ramesh.