Dayawatis younger sister, Mahindri, aged about 19 years, had separated from her husband, Bhule Gujjar, resident of Kamala, District Meerut, and was living with her father, Harbans deceased in village Ankhir.
After the occurrence, both the accused remained in abscondence.
The learned Sessions Judge companyvicted both Rattan Lal and Tej Ram for the murder of Harbans deceased and each of them was sentenced to imprisonment for life, Tej Ram was companyvicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 and also under Section 449, Penal Code.
4 and 5 were located on both sides of the forehead while there was a big companytusion mark injury 12 on the chest.
An incised wound 3 x 1/2 into scalp deep on the head, longitudinally.
Thereupon, Mahindri started living with Rattan Lal accused in village Rithoj which is at a distance of about 20 miles from Ankhir.
On hearing the hue and cry of the victims, the neighbour, Ranjit Singh, and Chowkidar Khem Chand, who was there on patrul, were attracted to the spot.
These injuries, according to the medical witness, though number individually fatal, companytributed, to the shock and haemorrhage, which caused the death almost immediately.
P.W. 5 testified that Rattan Lal and his brother Tej Ram accused had often visited village Ankir prior to the occurrence.
The injuries found were as follows An incised wound 4 x 1/2 on the front of head, placed longitudinally.
All these witnesses companysistently stated that both Rattan Lal and Tej Ram had made a companycerted assault on the deceased with a Pharsa and lathi, respectively.
An abraded companytusion 2 x2 on the right shoulder.
There was side to side fracture of the skull parietal bones .
As against Rattan Lal, companyaccused, the statements were transferred under Section 512, Criminal Procedure Code, as proceedings under that section had been taken when Rattan Lal was absconding.
Two companytusions 5 x 1 1/4 on the back below injury No.
A lacerated wound on the tip of the right ring finger.
Contusion 1 x 2 on the left shoulder.
An abraded area 3 x 1/2 on the back of left forearm.
Harbans deceased made an application to the Magistrate and got a warrant issued under Section 100 of the CrPC, alleging that his daughter Mahindri, had been wrongfully companyfined by Rattan Lal against her will.
On the midnight intervening the 15th and 16th of October, 1969, Rattan Lal, armed with a Pharsa a sharp edged weapon , and Tej Ram, armed with lathi, came to the house of the deceased.
During the four or five months preceding the occurrence, Rattan Lal and his brother, Tej Ram, came, several times to the house of the deceased in Ankhir and unsuccessfully attempted to persuade him to send away Mahindri with them.
The medical evidence thus lent inferential support to the earlier version of Mahabir that Tej Ram also had assaulted the deceased with lathi.
10, placed obliquely.
There was other reliable evidence on the record, also, companyfirming this companyclusion.
Tej Ram was number a stranger.
The death, in the opinion of the medical witness, was due to shock and haemorrhage, as a result of the aforesaid injuries which were ante mortem and sufficient in the ordinary companyrse of nature to cause death.
He found 14 injuries on the dead body.
There was fracture of the skull 4 long, extending from side to side in the parietal bones, Blood was found clotted between the skull and the membranes, There was a companytusion on the back of right lung.
A reddish companytusion 4 long on the back obliquely placed.
P.W. 3 had also received injuries at the hands of Tej Ram.
They witnessed the entire occurrence.
Rattan Lal and Tej Ram awakened and asked the deceased to send Mahindri with them.
With regard to the testimony of the eye witnesses, the High Court, in agreement with the trial companyrt, found as under Three witnesses, namely Bhagwati, Mahabir and Rajbir, are quite natural witnesses.
Bhagwati is the widow of the deceased, whereas the other two wit nesses are his sons whose presence In the house of the deceased in the dark hours of the night is quite natural.
Reddish companytusion 6 long obliquely placed on the back in the middle.
The deceased was the person who had thwarted the repeated attempts made by the two accused to take Mahindri back with them.
On account of this, the two brothers accused were nursing a grudge against the deceased.
10 or injury No.
Two of those blunt weapon injuries Nos.
In the meantime, Rattan Lal, who was absconding, was also arrested and put on trial.
A companytusion 1 1/2 x 1/2 on the front of forehead the left side.
Bhagwati P. Wt 2 had also testified how both the accused Tej Ram and Rattan Lal, had repeatedly visited their house and made unsuccessful attempts to persuade the witness and the deceased to send Mahindri with them.
Secondly, the fate of the prosecution case against Tej Ram.
There were infiltrations of clotted blood in the skull.
But the relations of Mahindri with Rattan Lal became strained and the latter started maltreating her about four or five months before the occurrence.
The deceased, his two sons, Mahabir and Rajbir, his daughter, Mahindri, and his wife, Bhagwati, were present in the house.
3 was, also, individually sufficient to cause death and that the internal lung injury companyld be due to external injury No.
The mainstay of the prosecution case was the testimony of five eye witnesses, namely, Mahabir P, W. 1 , Rajbir P.W. 3 , the sons, and Bhagwati, the widow of the deceased P.W. 2 , and Ranjit P.W. 4 , the neighbour and Khem Chand, Chowkidar P.W. 5 .
Their version on this point receives companyroboration number only from the medical testimony but from circumstantial evidence, also.
There was infiltration of clotted blood in the scalp under injuries 4 and 5, also.
The circumstances which point to the participation of Tej Ram in the assault on the deceased in pursuance of a pre arranged plan, and his having a companymon intention with Rattan Lal, to murder the deceased may be set out as under Tej Ram also, in companymon with his brother Rattan Lal, was nursing a grudge against the deceased.
P.W. 4 was a neighbour.
Thereupon, Rattan Lal and Tej Ram made a companycerted attack on the deceased, causing numberless than 15 injuries, as a result of which, the deceased died at the spot shortly thereafter.
His statements Exhibits P.A.A. and P.B.B. , which were made in the Court of the Committing Magistrate and Sessions Judge at the earlier trial, were transferred under Section 33 of the Evidence Act.
The deceased did number agree.
Both the accused appealed to the High Court against the order of their companyviction.
The time chosen was dead of night, The occurrence took place at about 1 or 2 A.M. They came armed, Rattan Lal with a Pharsa and Tej Ram with a lathi Both the accused made a determined, companycerted attack, causing numberless than 14 15 injuries and killing the deceased almost at the spot, All the injuries were companylectively sufficient to cause immediate death in the ordinary companyrse of nature.
Death according to the Doctor P.W. 1 must have followed almost immediately the receipt of the injuries.
Mahindri was also number agreeable to go with them.
After the occurrence, Mahabir accompanied by Khem Chand, went to Police Station, Faridabad and lodged a companyplaint there on October 16, 1969, at 6.30 a. m. The special report about the murder reached the Illaqa Magistrate on the same day at 12 numbern, at Gurgaon.
When all persuasive attempts failed, the accused planned to abduct and bring Mahindri by killing the deceased who was an obdurate stumbling block in their way.
There was thus numberdifficulty in identifying the two culprits at the time of the incident by these witnesses.
An abraded companytusion on the outer side of the right arm 6 below the shoulder.
He was the brother of Rattan Lal, the subrogated son in 1aw of Bhagwati.
The villagers also companylected.
According to the prosecution story, the deceased allowed Rattan Lal accused to take Mahindri as his second wife.
One of the incised wounds on the head attributed to the companyaccused Rattan Lal was also individually sufficient to cause death in the ordinary companyrse.In Dr. Kalras opinion, incised injuries 1, 2 and 3 had been caused with a sharp edged weapon like Pharsa and the other injuries with a blunt weapon that injury No.
A companytusion 8x1 on the left side of the chest.
In execution of that warrant, Mahindri was recovered and allowed to go to her fathers house in village Ankhir.
His house is situated in the vicinity of the place of the incident.
Underneath the external injuries 10 and 11, which were, also companytusions on the back middle of chest, there was an internal injury to the lung on the right side.
During the period of some months preceding the occurrence both the brothers several times visited the deceased and attempted to persuade him to send Mahindri back with them.
He flashed his torch and saw both the accused assaulting the deceased with their respective weapons.
Tej Ram, respondent was first arrested and put on trial in the companyrt of the Sessions Judge.
did number depend upon the transferred testimony of Mahabir only.
By its judgment, dated January 23, 1974, the High Court maintained the companyviction of Rattan Lal, but acquitted Tej Ram of the charge under Section 302/34, I.P.C. Hence, this appeal by the State against the order of Tej Rams acquittal.
The post mortem examination on the dead body of Harbans deceased was companyducted by Dr. S.K. Kalra P.W. 1 on October 16, 1969.
When Rattan Lal and Tej Ram tried to drag away Mahindri, her brothers Mahabir and Rajbir intervened, but Tej Ram gave lathi blows to them also.
He had a torch with him.
There were other eyewitnesses, also, namely Bhagwati P.W. 2 , Rajbir P.W. 3 , Ranjit P.W. 4 and Khem Chand Chowkidar P.W. 5 .
P.W. 5 is the village Chowkidar and he was patrolling the area at 2 a. m. on the night of occurrence.
The villagers did number pursue them on account of fear.
The deceased was, therefore, an anathema to them.
Then Rattan Lal and Tej Ram tried to take away Mahindri by force from the house of the deceased.
Firstly, the medical evidence rendered by Dr. Kalra shows that there were numberless than eleven injuries caused with a blunt weapon on the body of the deceased.
All these eye witnesses were natural and probable witnesses.
Rajbir and Mahabir P. Ws.
The miscreants ran away.
After the remand of the case for retrial of Tej Ram, Mahabir, who had lodged the First Information Report, died in an accident.
A companytused wound lx 1/4 skin deep on the front of the forehead placed longitudinally on the right side.
An incised wound 4x 3/4 on the left side of the head, placed longitudinally.
The deceased intervened.
P. Ws.
Dayawati was a one eyed woman and was otherwise number mentally sound.
to the Sessions record.
S. Sarkaria, J. This appeal by special leave by the State of Haryana directed against a judgment, dated January 23, 1974, of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, arises out of these circumstances Dayawati, elder daughter of Harbans deceased was married to Rattan Lal, elder brother of Tej Ram, respondent herein.
Both these witnesses having numberanimus to falsely involve the appellants if the appellants were number the real culprits.
It is necessary to set out the particulars of those injuries as they indicate that two types of weapons were used in causing those injuries.
