MANCHIDA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE prosecution version, in brief, is that at about 9.30 a.m., on Sept. 29, 1971, accused Manchida went to PW3 Nahar Singh's house, situate in Jodhpur City and told him that he was wanted by his friend Raj Kumar at Bajrang Hotel, near the Railway Loco Running Shed. Nahar Singh accompanied Manchida and both of them reached the vicinity of the above Hotel. To his utter surprise Nahar Singh saw accused Shankaria, Mohania, Kishnia and some 9 or 10 other persons standing nearby Accused Shankaria, had a slip in his hand, Mohania was armed with some lethal weapon and 3 or 4 other persons were equipped with 'lathis'. Some time latter Raj Kumar (P.W. 4.) also reached the spot after having visited his uncle. On seeing Raj Kumar, Manchida cried that he should be restrained from proceeding ahead and should be subjected to beating. Shankaria then attacked Raj Kumar and inflicted clip injuries to him. 6 or 7 other persons also thrashed Raj Kumar with hockey sticks. The victim fell down after having received certain injuries on his person. In the meantime Manchida took out his knife (Ex. 3) from his pant -pocket. He inflicted a knife injury to Nahar Singh's abdomen. Nahar Singh fell down, as a result of the wound sustained by him. Manchida then rushed towards Raj Kumar and he kicked him also and then he returned towards Nahar Singh. Chetan Ram (P.W 2) and Ram Kishore (P.W 9), who were sitting inside Bajrang Hotel, hastened their approach towards Nahar Singh and rescued him. Thereafter accused Manchida and his party -men took to their heels. Ram Kishore went to the police station, Sardarpura, Jodhpur, and lodged first information report, marked Ex P. 2. The police registered a case and, took over investigation After the completion of the investigation a challan was presented to the Court of Addl. Munsiff Magistrate No. (sic1), Jodhpur against Manchida, Shankarlal and Achluram. Learned Addl. Munsif Magistrate No. 1, Jodhpur, conducted preliminary inquiry and committed accused Manchida, Shankar Lal and Achluram to the court of Sessions Judge, Jodhpur. The case was tried by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Jodhpur. Accused Manchida and others were charged under Sections 307, 326 and 149, I.P.C., to which they pleaded not guilty. In support of its case the prosecution examined 14 witnesses. Manchida in his statement, recorded under Section 342, Cr. P.C., pleaded not guilty. In support of its case the prosecution examined 14 witnesses. Manchida in his statement, recorded under Section 342, Cr. P.C., pleaded ignorance of the prosecution allegations. He also deposed that the prosecution witnesses had resorted to falsehood and that their statements should not be relied upon because of their harbouring an animosity against him. In defence be examined one witness Hussain Khan. The trial court convicted accused Manchida under Section 326, I.P.C. and sentenced him to three years' rigorous imprisonment plus a fine of RSection 200/ -, or with three months' rigorous imprisonment in default of payment of fine, for the injuries caused to Nahar Singh. He has also been held guilty under Section 323, I.P.C for causing simple injuries to Raj Kumar and sentenced to three months' rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs 50/ -or with fifteen days' rigorous imprisonment in default of payment of fine. The substantive sentences have been made concurrent. The court acquitted Achlu Ram It, however, convicted Shankaria under Section 323, I.P.C., but because he was below 21 years of age, benefit of the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act was extended to him after due admonition.

(2.) DISSATISFIED by the above verdict, accused Manchida has taken this appeal The contention of learned Counsel for the appellant is that the medical, evidence given in the case by three doctors, namely. Dr. P.L. Bafna (P.W. 10), Dr. D.L. Kanwar (P.W. 7) and Medical Jurist Dr. S.K. Pathak (P.W. 11), is unworthy of credence. The testimony of all these three Doctors is variegated and, therefore, its benefit should go in favour of the appellant. Learned Counsel's further argument is that according to the prosecution evidence the occurrence is alleged to have taken place in front of Bajrang Hotel at the place marked 4 in the site -plan, Ex. P. 12. It is also in the prosecution evidence that blood was found at the Railway Hospital Road at the place marked 15 in the above document. The presence of blood at the place marked 5, according to the learned Counsel gives an indication that the fight did not take place as revealed by the prosecution witnesses at the place marked 4 in the plan, The benefit of this inconsistency, counsel urges, should accrue to the accused. Learned Counsel, in the end. argued that the trial court went wrong in placing faith on the testimony of Nahar Singh (PW. 3) and Raj Kumar (P.W 4). He pointed out some inconsistencies and contradictions in their statements. Learned Counsel then told the court that the fight in fact took place between some 'Muslims' and Nahar Singh and as there was animosity between Nahar Singh and Manchida, the latter has been falsely implicated in the case.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant attacked the above evidence of Dr. Pathak with be -wildering asperity. He submits that when Dr. Pathak had already concluded that the punctured wound, found on the parson of Nahar Singh, was simple in nature, he could not have, at the instance of the police, drastically modified his views at a subsequent stage. He according to him, had been influenced by the operation notes.