HAR SAHAI AND LALLU Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY his judgment dated Oct. 1982 6, Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2, Alwar has convicted the appellant Har Sahai for offences u/ss. 307 and 325 IPC and Lallu appellant for offence u/s 325/34, 324 and 323 I. P. C. The former has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for four years and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- for offence under sec. 307 IPC and to six months rigorous imprisonment under Sec. 325, IPC. So far as Lallu appellant is concerned, he has been sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- for offence under Sec. 325/34 IPC, to one year's rigorous imprisonment under Sec. 324, IPC and three months rigorous imprisonment under sec. 323 IPC. The sentences awarded to both the appellants have been made to run concurrently.

(2.) THE injured in this case are Prabhati Lal (PW/3), Ram Kishore (PW/4) and Prahlad (PW/7 ). Prabhati Lal and Prahlad are real brothers while Ram Kishore was cousin of these two persons. THE incident took place on March 10, 1982, at about 2 pm. THE First Information Report of the incident was lodged by Prabhati Lal (PW/3) at police Station Malakheda. THE version of the incident as given by Prabhati Lal in the FIR (Ex. P/ll) was that on March 10, 1982, he, his brother Prahlad and Ram Kishore were at their house. At about 2 p. m. the appellants who are real brothers and their neighbours were also sitting with them. Somstimes thereafter the appellant Prahlad injured got up and went to the house of the appellants. After about half an hour Prabhati Lal and Ram Kishore heard the noise about killing from the side of the appellants. THEreupon Parbhati Lal, Ram Kishore and Amar Singh rushed towards the house of the appellants. THEy saw that in the chowk in front of the house of the Patti Lallu appellant caught hold of Prahlad and Har Sahai inflicted injury on the left side of the head on Prahlad by a wooden-foot of a cot. THE first informant Ram Kishore and Amarsingh tried to rescue Prahlad and during that Lallu appellant inflicted 'farsi' blow on the head of Prabhati and, Ram Kishore inflicted a 'farsi' blow from the reverse side on the head of Amarsingh and Har Sahai dealt with another blow with the wooden-foot of the cot. On their raising cry Ram Kishore Meena, Hari Singh Meena, Bhambu Meena and others came to the spot and rescued the injured. Prahlad was then taken to Malakheda Hospital in an unconscious condition. Prahlad had injuries on his head. THE delay in lodging of the First Information Report was explained in this manner that they had told that they will make the report after Prahlad regains consciousness. Prahlad had not regined consciousness. It was mentioned that there was enmity between Prabhati Lal and his family members and the appellant on account of some land dispute. On the basis of this report, Station House Officer, Police Station, Malakheda registered a case and proceeded for investigation. He prepared site-plan. Accused Har Sahai was arrested on March 23, '82. According to the prosecution, Har Sahai gave an information that the wooden-foot of the cot was hidden under chhapar of his residential house. In pursuance of this information recovery of the wooden foot was made from the 'chhapar' of the house of Har Sahai and the same was seized under the seizure memo Ex. P/23. After necessary investigation charge-sheet was filed against the appellant in the Court of Special Judicial Magistrate, who committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Alwar and ultimately, the case came by transfer to the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Alwar. THE Addl. Sessions Judge after trial held both the appellants guilty for the offence already mentioned above and sentenced them as aforesaid.

(3.) PURAN Chand, Assistant Sub-Inspector, Police Station, Malakheda has been examined as PW/2 and he has deposed that on receiving the letter Ex. P/9 from the hospital, he made entry Ex, P/19 in the roznamcha and reached the hospital. He found that Prahlad was unconscious and was not in a state so as to give any statement. Prabhati Lal Ram Kishore and Amar Singh did not give any statement and told him that they would give statement after Prahlad regained consciousness. He accordingly made entry Ex. P/20 in the roznamcha. That is also the reason for the delay mentioned by Prabhati Lalin the First Information Report, Ex. P/ll. It is true that Prahlad was unconscious when PURAN Chand (PW/12) reached the place of incident. However, Prabhati Lal (PW/3) professes to have reached the place of incident which was at a distance of about 50 to 60 yards from his house and presents himself as eye-witness to the incident and deposes that he had seen that Lallu appellant has caught hold of Prahlad and Hari Sahai inflicted a blow on his head by the wooden foot of the cot. Thereafter he narrated the injuries inflicted on him, Ram Kishore and Amar Singh. If that statement be correct, the entire incident was known to Prabhati Lal and he could have at least narrated that part of the incident to the police which he had seen. It is not necessary that First Information Report should be an encyclopaedia. The allegations in it should only reveal the commission of a cognizable offence. One has to understand Prabhati Lal's explanation for the delay in lodging the FIR in case he would not have put forth himself as eye-witness to the incident. The fact that Prabhati Lal and other injured had denied to lodge the report or to give a statement for the reason that Prahlad was unconscious, can lead to two conclusions viz. either Prabhati Lal was not an eye witness to the entire incident or that he had gone along with Prahlad and other injured to the house of the appellants. Either of these inferences would prove fatal to the case of the prosecution when it is kept in mind that the appellants had also sustained injuries on their bodies. The prosecution has not at all explained as to how the appellants sustained injuries which even an incised wound on the body of Har Sahai appellant and two lacerated wounds on Lallu appellant. One of the injuries on Lallu was found grievous. Neither Prabhati Lal nor Ram Kishore or Amar Singh stated that they had gone armed to rescue. They had only reached on hearing the cry. The fact that the incident took place in front of the house of the appellants can give an indication that Prahlad and his associates had gone to the house of the appellants and that the appellants had sustained injuries. This can reasonably lend support to the theory of private defence to person available to the appellants and urged before this Court, as alleged before the trial Court.