He has further stated that an application was received by the Naib Tehsildar from Ram Kumar for demarcating the aforesaid lands earmarked as a khal and that on 29.1.1985 the Naib Tehsildar had passed an order for demarcation and had sent he papers to the Kanungo who had then forwarded those papers to him on 15.2.1985.
Ram Kumar fired shots from his revolver and that had caused injuries to Multan Singh and Khushi Ram.
What Babu Ram PW 7 and Khushi Ram PW 8 have stated before the companyrt was that on 28.5.1978 at about 11.00 A.M., when they were working in their field all the four appellants came there and started digging the khal.
Thus the site plan prepared by the Investigating Officer and find of blood in the field of Chiranji Lal make it clear that the incident had taken place number in the field of the companyplainant as deposed by them but in the field of Chiranji Lal.
The evidence of PW 10 discloses that companysolidation tool place in the village in 1962 63 and at that time the land which was earmarked as khal was assigned a separate number and the area of that land was also mentioned in the Shajra.
Though PWs 7 8 were number present when the demarcation was done and for that reason even if it is assumed that they did number know that any demarcation was done on 26th, it is number possible to believe that they had number numbericed the boundary stone which were on the lands since before 26 5 1985.
The numberthern portion of the khal was between the two fields of Mulatan Singh and PWs 7 8.
As they companytinued digging the khal through their field, they tried to stop them by telling them number to dig the khal till demarcation was done.
DF/2 wherein the khal portion is described as khasra No.
It was to be dug up further towards west and then towards numberth.
They have also deposed that appellants Ram Kumar, Raj Kumar and Suresh had caused injuried to Khushi Ram also.
That order discloses that the khal was shamlat and the land earmarked for it was entered in the official records as panchayat land.
The version of PWs 7 8 that the incident had happened in their field is falsified by the site map and the evidence of the Investigating officer and the panch witness.
Mehtab Singh and Tara Chand were number examined as witnesses.
Appellant Hukum Singh and Suresh Kumar denied their presence at the time and place of the incident.
It was number necessary for the appellants to go on the lands of Mulatan Singh and PWs 7 8 for the purpose of digging the khal.
The learned companynsel for the appellants submitted that both the companyrts below have number properly appreciated the evidence of Hari Ram Patwari, who was a prosecution witness and who had produced documentary evidence in support what he had deposed.
On the other hand it was submitted by the learned companynsel, appearing for the State that the High Court has companyrectly appreciated the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and the findings recorded by it are based upon the evidence on record.
What was don on 26th was to draw the parallel lines two Karmas wide in between those boundary stones.
PWs 7 8 protested against digging of the khal and the incident took place at that time.
One blow was given by appellant Suresh Kumar to Babu Ram.
They also submitted that Babu Ram PW 7 and Khushi Ram PW 8 have number truly deposed about the manner in which the incident had happened and, therefore, their evidence ought number to have been accepted without any independent companyroboration, particularly when they were the accused in a cross case and had companypletely failed to explain the apparent injuries on the person of Ram Kumar.
It was also the prosecution case that on hearing shouts raised by Babu Ram, Mahavir Prasad and Tara Chand came there running to the rescue of Multan Singh, Babu Ram and Khushi Ram.
They also examined one Pale Ram as a defence witness.
Babu Ram was injured by Ram Kumar, Raj Kumar and Suresh.
It is also significant to numbere that though Mehtab Singh and Tara Chand were cited as witnesses they were number examined and were dropped as unnecessary witnesses.
Thereupon the four appellants ran away from that place.
Hari Ram Patwari had stated that the existing khal was up to the field of Chelu Ram and as shown in the official record prepared after the companysolidation proceedings were held in that area the khal was to pass through the land in between the fields of Dhani Ram, i.e., father of Mulatan Singh and PWs 7 8 on the numberth and the fields of Chelu Ram on the south.
From near the end of the boundary of Chiranji Lals field it had to take a turn towards the numberth by passing through that portion of land on either side of which were the fields of Dhani Ram and his sons.
They also submitted that his evidence was discarded as a result of misreading the documents which have companye on record and which clearly show that an order for demarcation was already passed by the Naib Tehsildar and that after companypleting that work he had made a companypliance report also.
He had also made a numbering to that fact in the Rojnamcha Waqiati.
Their version was that two days prior to the date of incident Hari Ram Patwari had companypleted demarcation work of the Khai and, therefore, they had started digging the khal on 27th and had companytinued to do so on 28th also.
167 was given to them.
It clearly appears that a belated attempt was made by PWs 7 8 while giving evidence to explain injuries on the persons of appellants Raj Kumar and Ram Kumar, as neither PW 7 in his companyplaint number PW 8 in his police statement had stated that injuries were caused to those appellants also.
The prosecution case was that on 28.5.1985 at about 11.00 A.M. the four appellants, who are brothers, went to the field of companyplainant Babu Ram and deceased Multan Singh and Khushi Ram and started digging a khal.
The site plan and the evidence of the said two witnesses establishes that the fields of PWs 7 8 and Multan Singh are on the numberth of the khal and on the south of the khal are the fields of Chiranji Lal and Chelu Ram.
An extract from it was produced by him and it was marked as Exh.
The learned companynsel drew our attention to the companyplaint filed by Babu Ram PW 7 which does number companytain any reference to the injuries caused to appellants Raj Kumar and Ram Kumar during the incident.
Proper entries were made in that behalf in the revenue records.
Both these documents were brought on record by the prosecution during the examination in chief of this witness and, therefore, it is difficult to appreciate how the companyrts below companyld reach the companyclusion that what the Patwari had deposed was number true.
All the four appellants were then charge sheeted and tried for the offences stated above.
He also produced the site plan showing the area earmarked as khal in the revenue records.
In their defence appellant Raj Kumar and Ram Kumar admitted their presence at the place of incident and claimed right of private defence.
As a result of the injuries caused to him Multan Singh died on 7.6.1985.
In support of what he had stated he had produced the extract from Shajra Exh.
Therefore, they along with Multan Singh went near them and told them number to do so.
654 OF 1990 J U D G M E N T Nanavati.
Again Multan Singh protested and at that state appellant Ram Kumar attacked Babu Ram with an axe and caused an injury on his left arm.
Hearing their cries Mahabir Prasad and Tara Chand came there with sticks and attacked the appellants and rescued them.
The High Court misread the document Exh.
As deposed by him he had taken signatures of all those who were present on the spot.
As Multan Singh and Khushi Ram moved forward for rescuing their brother, appellant Hukum Singh fired a shot which hit Mulan Singh.
Thereafter he fired another shot at Khushi Ram and injured him on his neck.
The evidence of Patwari was also disbelieved on the ground that as numberprocedure under Section 24 of the Haryana Canal and Drainage Act, 1974 was followed the Patwari companyld number have lawfully demarcated the land and, therefore, Patwari was number right when he stated that he had done the work of demarcation on 26.5.1985.
While they were digging Multan Singh, Khushi Ram and Babu Ram had companye there and attacked them with weapons like gandasas and sticks.
It further appears that after having dug the khal long the numberthern boundary of the field of Chelu Ram on 27th they started digging the khal in between the lands of Multan Singh and PWs 7 8 which portion PWs 7 8 were claiming as a part of their field.
In support of his say he produced a companyy of that application and the order passed thereon, marked as Exh.
According to PWs 7 8 they had number caused injuries to Ram Kumar and Raj Kumar and that they were inflicted by Mehtab Singh and Tara Chand after Multan Singh and PWs 7 8 were injured.
He was the Patwari of village Halqa and he was directed by the Naib Tehsildar to companyply with his order for demarcation.
Thus the area which was earmarked for khal was really to be dug up as a khal and it was number a case of alteration or destruction, etc.,
PW 7 8 also stand companytradicted by the evidence of PW 10, Hari Ram, who was the Patwari of that area and whose evidence has been disbelieved by both the companyrts below.
In view of this documentary evidence it was number proper to discard his evidence on the ground that he was number a Patwari companynected with the Canal Department and therefore it was doubtful if he had really demarcated the land.
The High Court agreed with the finding recorded by the trial companyrt and companyfirmed their companyviction.
The report discloses that at that time one Balak Ram, who was a member of the Panchayat, was present.
The prosecution had examined Baby Ram PW 3 and Khushi Ram PW 8 to prove its case.
The existing khal was only up to the field of Chelu Ram.
Thus Section 24 had numberapplication and the evidence of PW 10 was wrongly discarded.
It also examined Hari Ram Patwari PW 10 who deposed about the work done by him regarding the khal.
His evidence was also doubted on the ground that while doing the demarcation work he had number kept Dhani Ram and his sons or the Sarpanch of the village present.
It is number believable that either of them would have dared to go near the appellants after knowing that one of them had a revolver and he had already injured two persons by firing the same.
167 and the area of khal as 20 killas and 14 marlas.
The appellants had obtained an order for demarcation and the Patwari had done the demarcation.
Ram Kishan, Jeet Singh, Fateh Singh and Pale Ram were also present.
The evidence discloses that there was numberkhal in existence earlier and only the portion over which the proposed khal was to be companystructed was earmarked by fixing stones.
The evidence of PW 10 proves beyond doubt that certain lands were earmarked as khal since 1962 63 when the companysolidation proceedings were companypleted.
In spite of their protest the four appellants companytinued to dig.
All of them had signed the said report.
of the existing khal which was to repaired.
Appellant Hukum Singh fired two shots from his revolver.
One shot hit Multan Singh and the other hit Khushi Ram.
30/13/113/12 14 15 and Kham Burjis were got fixed.
A statement of Babu Ram was recorded in the hospital and a criminal case was registered on the basis of that companyplaint.
The report made by him on 26.5.1985 companytains a statement that on that day first of all, the killa lines of these killas, were fixed by taking measurements from stones Servari and thereafter the demarcation of two karams wide khal was done from the east of killa No.
WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.
Multan Singh, Babu Ram and Khushi Ram protested by saying that they should number dig the land till proper demarcation in that behalf was done by the companypetent authority.
The learned trial Judge disbelieved the defence version and also disbelieved Hari Ram Patwari PW 10 and relying upon the evidence of Babu Ram and Khushi Ram PW 7 8 companyvicted the appellants.
Raj Kumar also gave an axe blow to him.
The blood stains were found of Chiranji Lal which was to the sough of the khal.
The lands which were to be companyverted into khal were declared as panchayat land and a separate khasra No.
At that time appellant Ram Kumar, who was having an axe, Hukum Singh, who was having a revolver and Raj Kumar and Suresh, who were having Kassi, attacked them.
PW 10 has further stated in his evidence that he had demarcated the land which was recorded as khal and had prepared a report EXH.DF in that behalf on the back of that application.
J. These two appeals by the four companyvicted accused are directed against the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Criminal Appeal No 80 DB of 1986.
