3 and proceeded in a jeep with his brother Dinesh Chandra P.W. 11 , to Seohara Police Station situate about half a mile away and handed over that report at 1.30 p.m. Dinesh Chandra P.W. 11 was taken to Dhampur hospital after he was given first aid by a Doctor on the way.
The injuries on both of them were fresh and those on Ram Karan were simple while injury No.
2 are the postmortem certificates relating to Prakash Chandra and Umesh Chandra issued by Dr. Zuber who was examined as P.W. 1 in the Committing Magistrates Court Ex.
P.W. 1 has numberdoubt denied that suggestion and stated that he was present at the spot and that he himself wrote the report Ex.
Both the deceased had numberweapons and they had been attacked before P.W. 11 arrived and wield his knife against Ram Karan and Chhotey Lal.
7 on the right side of the chest through which blood and air were companying out was serious and the rest were simple.
In other respects I dismiss the criminal appeal and companyfirm the companyviction of Sunil Kumar and Ved Prakash and the sentences awarded to them.
He was examined at the Dhampur hospital by Dr. Bagchi, P.W. 3 who found on his person an abrasion and nine incised wounds of which injury No.
Accordingly he found the accused guilty and companyvicted them and sentenced them as mentioned above.
Therefore, both sides were in an exasperated mood.
Accused Ram Karan himself was also injured.
P.W. 11 received injuries and fell down.
Conviction and sentences under s. 307/34, I.P.C. are maintained and sentences awarded have already been directed to run companycurrently.
Both the parties were companypletely exasperated with the litigation.
From the Judgment Order dated the 15th April, 1975 of the Allahabad High Court in Crl.
They found that in the statement of P.W. 11 recorded as dying declaration, Sushil Kumar is mentioned instead of Satish Kumar.
On the side of the prosecution Dinesh Chandra was injured, on the side of accused Ram Karan was injured.
He prepared the report, Ex.
P.W. 2 issued the wound certificates Ex.
1 to 3 left the place soon after exchange of hot words began between the two sides.
The case of the prosecution was this The deceased Prakash Chandra was the father of the deceased Umesh Chandra and the injured witness Dinesh Chandra P.W. 11 as well as of Gyan Chand P.W. 1 .
Ram Karan and Chhotey Lal went to the Government hospital, Bijnor where they were examined by Dr. Sarin P.W. 2 at 4 p.m. and 4.15 p.m. respectively on 6.9.1970.
Ram Karan, who was present there along with his five sons, did number like that interference of Prakash Chandra and Umesh Chandra with the Commissioner.
The dead bodies of Prakash Chandra and Umesh Chandra which were found lying in front of their house where blood also was found, were later sent for autopsy.
1 to 3 and the Doctor who companyducted autopsy on the body of Chhotey Lal as C.W. 4.
The appellant Ram Karan and five others filed Civil Suit No.
329 of 1975.
The evidence of Zafar Hussain C.W. 2 is that after measurements had been taken C. Ws.
Prakash Chandra and his sons built a new house on a vacant land which existed between these two houses about three years prior to the occurrence in this case which has taken place at about 1.00 p.m. on 6.9.1970.
P.W. 2 found one punctured wound and four incised wounds on Chhotey Lal and three incised wounds on Ram Karan.
Gyan Chandra P.W. 1 , who was seeing the occurrence, ran to his house along with some others and bolted the door when Sunil Kumar, Anil Kumar and Satish chased him for attacking him.
The companyrt examined the Commissioner and the companynsel of the parties in the civil suit as C. Ws.
C.W. 3 has added that soon after he went and sat in the baithak of Ram Karans house, Zafar Hussain C.W. 2 came and said something to C.W. 1 from beyond the door of the baithak.
P.W. 11 had received injuries during the occurrence and P.W. 1 is the witness who had lodged the First Information Report Ex.
He stated that he has spent thousands of rupees for taking out the companymissions and that the reports of the Commissioners were set aside on the objection of Prakash Chandra.
The accused examined D.W. 1 on their behalf.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
Then P.W. 11 took out a knife from his pent pocket and wielded it against Ram Karan and Chhotey Lal in self defence and they sustained injuries.
The evidence of C.W. 3 is that he and C.W. 1 who had gone to the baithak of Ram Karans house after C.W. 1 had taken the measurements, came out of the baithak 5 or 7 minutes later, and saw Chhotey Lal grappling with a young man, that in the companyrse of grappling Chhotey Lal fell down bleeding, that Chhotey Lal managed to get up and snatched the weapon of the assailant and struck him with it, that Prakash Chandra came to the rescue of the young man and Chhotey Lal struck him with the same weapon and both the young man and Prakash Chandra fell down after receiving injuries from Chhotey Lal, and that on account of the incident he went away along with C.W. 1.
1144 of 1971, whereby the learned Judges, while acquitting two appellants Anil Kumar and Satish Kumar of the charges, altered the companyviction of Ram Karan, Sunil Kumar and Ved Prakash, appellants in this Criminal Appeal, under s. 302 and 307, both read with s. 149 I.P.C., into one under ss.
Thereupon, Chhotey Lal and Ved Prakash attacked Prakash Chandra with knives while Sunil Kumar, Anil Kumar and Satish attacked Umesh Chandra with knives.
1 3 were number present at the time of the actual assault on the deceased Prakash Chandra and Umesh Chandra as a well as on P.W. 11.
1 on Chhotey Lal, namely, a punctured wound which was lung deep and anterior to the left nipple, was grievous and the rest were simple.
K. 3 in the Seohara Police Station at the earliest opportunity at 1.30 p.m. soon after the occurrence which had taken place at about 1.00 p.m. These three witnesses were put forward as eyewitnesses and they have deposed in support of the case of the prosecution.
But those Commissioners reports were set aside on the objection raised by Prakash Chandra and the other defendents.
We allow the appeal of Ram Karan as indicated by Brother Varadarajan, J. VARADARAJAN, J. This Criminal Appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Criminal Appeal No.
Even P.W. 10 has stated in his evidence that when he reached near dharmshala at about 12.45 p.m. he heard the shouts of Ram Karan from his house situate at a distance of 30 paces, that when he reached the end of the road he was in a position to see the house of Ram Karan, that on hearing the shouts he proceeded towards the place from where they came and stood near the wall and found three Vakils present and also Prakash Chandra and Umesh Chandra, that as soon as he reached the place, the Vakils left the place, that Ram Karan then stated that he got the Commissioner appointed 5 or 6 times and spent several thousands of rupees and he should be killed and that when Ram Karan said so his sons Chhotey Lal and Ved Prakash began to attack Prakash Chandra with knives, that Sunil Kumar and Ram Karans other sons began to assault Umesh Chandra with knives, that during the marpit Prakash Chandra and Umesh Chandra fell down after receiving injuries, that thereafter Dinesh Chandra, son of Prakash Chandra came from the eastern direction, and on seeing him Ram Karan shouted that he should also be done to death, and he caught hold of Dinesh Chandra by his waist, and that all the four boys and deceased Chhotey Lal began to assault Dinesh Chandra with knives, and Dinesh Chandra wielded his knife in self defence and caused injuries to Ram Karan and Chhotey Lal and thereafter fell down and became unconscious This portion of the evidence of P.W. 10 also shows that C.Ws.
In these circumstances the learned Judges found that there is reasonable doubt regarding the participation of the accused Anil Kumar and Satish Kumar and they gave the benefit of that doubt to those two appellants before them and acquitted them.
Prakash Chandra and Umesh Chandra on the side of the prosecution died and Chhotelal on the side of the accused died and each of them met a homicidal death.
The last Advocate Commissioner Mr. Mathur C.W. 1 visited the spot on 6.9.1970, accompanied by Mr. Zafar Hussain C.W. 2 who appeared for Prakash Chandra and another and Mr. Mahesh Chand C.W. 3 who appeared for Ram Karan.
The injuries on both companyld, in the opinion of P.W. 2, have been caused by knife.
On the side of the prosecution Prakash Chandra and Umesh Chandra received fatal injuries and Dinesh Chandra was also injured.
In other respects, the learned Judges accepted the evidence of P.Ws.
L. Kohli and S.K. Sabharwal for the Appellants.
1144 of 1971.
The learned Judges of the High Court found that the name of Anil Kumar is number mentioned in the First Information Report Ex.
1 and 3 went to the baithak of Ram Karans house while he sat in the verandah of the old haveli of Prakash Chandra, that he and Prakash Chandras son, who is number numbermore, thereafter went near the Commissioner C.W 1 and he told C.W. 1 that he may hear what Prakash Chandra wanted to say, that after saying so he got back for meeting another person while Prakash Chandra and his son remained there, that after reaching the verandah of Prakash Chandra he went away with Mehboob Ali who was waiting for him to Mehboob Alis house and that numberquarrel took place when he was present there though when he was returning to the verandah of Prakash Chandras house he heard some hot words being exchanged near the baithak of Ram Karans house.
The appellant Ram Karan and his five sons including the deceased Chhotey Lal were living in another house in the same town as the neighbours of Prakash Chandra and his sons.
Suddenly at the spur of the moment there ensued a quarrel.
How, if one of them was armed with a knife, they must have companye with a view to either picking up quarrel or to guard themselves.
The learned Sessions Judge accepted the evidence of Ws.
12 and Ka.
On seeing Dinesh Chandra P.W. 11 who rushed meanwhile from the eastern side to help his father and brother, Ram Karan instigated his sons to attack him and caught hold of him by his waist, and all his five sons attacked him and inflicted injuries.
We also agree with the appreciation of the evidence by Brother Varadarajan, J. and his companyclusion that the two deceased died at the hands of the appellants.
If amongst those who companylected at the house were the two deceased and P.W. 11 Dinesh Chandra, another injured witness on the side of the prosecution, it is crystal clear that the prosecution witnesses and the two deceased Prakash Chandra and Umesh Chandra had companye to the house of accused 1 Ram Karan.
A. No.
1, 10 and 11 regarding the occurrence and rejected the defence version and held the appellants guilty under s. 302 read with s. 34 in respect of the murder of Prakash Chandra and Umesh Chandra and under s. 307 read with s. 34 in respect of Dinesh Chandra, P.W. 11 and companyvicted them accordingly and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life under s. 302 read with s. 34 I.P.C. and rigorous imprisonment for four years under s. 307 read with s. 34 I.P.C. We perused the records and the judgments of the learned Sessions Judge and of the learned Judges of the High Court and heard the arguments of Mr. R.L. Kohli, Senior Advocate who appeared for the appellants and of Mr. D.P. Uniyal, Senior Advocate who appeared for the respondent State of P. We were taken through the evidence of P.Ws.
The learned Sessions Judge who tried the case companyvicted Ram Karan and all his four sons, Sunil Kumar, Anil Kumar, Ved Prakash and Satish Kumar under s. 302 read with s. 149 I.P.C. two companynts and s. 307 read with s. 149 I.P.C. and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life on each of the two companynts under s. 302 read with s. 149 I.P.C. and to imprisonment for four years under s. 307 read with s. 149 P.C. He companyvicted Ram Karan under s. 147 and his aforesaid four sons under s. 148 I.P.C. and sentenced Ram Karan to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and his sons to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years under s. 147 and s. 148 I.P.C. respectively.
So far as the question of occurrence is companycerned that has been proved beyond reasonable doubt as pointed out by Brother Varadarajan, J. as also by the High Court.
C.W. 1 and C.W. 3 were at the house of accused 1 Ram Karan.
Ram Karans report was lodged at the Police Station at 10.30 p.m. on 6.9.1970.
Prakash Chandra and his sons were living in Seohara town, Bijnor district.
It is easy to infer the genesis of the dispute.
However, on the side of the accused Chhotelal, son of accused 1 Ram Karan, suffered six injuries one of which proved fatal and he died.
P. Uniyal and R.K. Bhatt for the Respondent.
It would appear from the evidence of CW 1 as also other eye witnesses that the accused were also assaulted with knife and one of them, Chhotey Lal, died as a result of the injuries caused to him.
Chhotey Lal died in the District hospital, Bijnor on 10.9.1970.
So saying, he instigated his sons to kill Prakash Chandra and his sons.
The prosecutions case rests mainly on the evidence of Gyan Chand P.W. 1 , Abdul Wahid P.W. 10 and Dinesh Chandra P.W. 11 .
1, 10 and 11 and companymented upon Ram Karan and Chhotey Lal going to the hospital at Bijnor without arranging for a report being given at the Police Station at Seohara in time and held that the accused were the aggressors and that Dinesh Chandra P.W. 11 caused injuries to Ram Karan and the deceased Chhotey Lal in the exercise of the right of private defence.
302 and 307 both read with s. 34 I.P.C. and companyfirmed the sentences of imprisonment for life for each of the two companynts of murder of Prakash Chandra and Umesh Chandra and rigorous imprisonment for four years for attempt to murder Dinesh Chandra P.W. 11 to run companycurrently and set aside the companyviction of the appellant Ram Karan under s. 147 and the other two appellants under s. 148 I.P.C. The first appellant Ram Karan is the father of other appellants Sunil Kumar and Ved Prakash and also of Anil Kumar and Satish Kumar, who have been acquitted by the High Court as well as of deceased Chhotey Lal.
The accused put forward their version of the case.
As stated earlier P.Ws 1 and 11 are the sons of deceased Prakash Chandra and brothers of the other deceased Umesh Chandra.
The occurrence took place in front of the house of accused 1.
The High Court also rejected the defence theory that Chhotey Lal was attacked by three persons armed with knife, chura and khukhri having regard to the fact that he had only one lung deep punctured wound and the other four wounds were only skin deep and of very minor dimensions.
Dr. Zuber companyducted autopsy on the bodies of Prakash Chandra and Umesh Chandra on 7.9.1970 and found nine antemortem, injuries, of which six were incised wounds, on the body of Prakash Chandra and six antemortem incised wounds on the body of Umesh Chandra and he opined that the death of both of them was due to shock and haemorrhage resulting from the incised injuries.
1 and Ka.
3 but instead the name of one Virendra is mentioned and that it appears from the evidence of P.W. 1 that Virendra is the name of Prakash Chandras brother.
After the companypletion of the survey work at about 12.30 p.m. all the three lawyers were standing and talking in front of Ram Karans baithak at about 1.00 p.m. Then Prakash Chandra and Umesh Chandra came there to talk with the Commissioner.
34 of 1967 in the companyrt of the Munsif, Nagina against Prakash Chandra and his brother Gopi Chandra and one Krishna Devi, alleging that while companystructing the new house Prakash Chandra had encroached upon a portion of their land.
Accused 1 Ram Karan had summoned Commission on five to six occasions and his attempt to end the litigation was thwarted by objections being taken on the side of Prakash Chandra deceased.
In that suit, Ram Karan got Commissioners appointed by the companyrt on five or six occasions for taking measurements of the properties with the object of proving his case of encroachment by Prakash Chandra.
The evidence of C.W. 1 is that after he companypleted taking measurements he went along with Ram Karans companynsel Mr. Mahesh Chandra C.W. 3 to the baithak of Ram Karans house, that both of them came out of the house 8 or 10 minutes later, that when he advanced from the door of the baithak he saw a person lying injured on the pavement of the road and another injured person standing there, that a third person came and struck the injured person who was standing, and that he and C.W. 3 left the place thereafter.
Dr. Dua C.W. 4 companyducted autopsy on the body of Chhotey Lal on 11.9.1970 and found an abrasion and five incised wounds which were sufficient in the ordinary companyrse of nature to cause death.
Gyan Chand, P.W. 1 came out of his house sometime later and found his father Prakash Chandra and brother Umesh Chandra dead and Dinesh Chandra P.W. 11 lying with injuries.
The dead bodies of Prakash Chandra and Umesh Chandra and blood were found in front of the house of both the deceased and P.W. 11.
Injuries on both sides appear to have been caused with sharp cutting weapon like knife.
The main occurrence had taken place in front of the house of both the deceased and P.W. 11.
Abdul Wahid, P.W. 10, and others who were witnessing the occurrence raised an alarm, and Ram Karan and his sons ran away.
