Jaidev, brother of Dharamvir, intervened in order to save his brother, but he was also be laboured by Ranbir and Laxmi appellants along with another accused person, with their respective weapons.
A short while thereafter, Smt.
Shrimati Ankori, wife of Jaidev and Shrimati Nathi, wife, of Dharamvir, who tried to protect their respective husbands against further injuries, were also be laboured by some of the accused persons.
The Sessions Judge on appraisal of the evidence led in the case and after examining all the relevant circumstances numbericed the number inclusion of the name of Moman accused in the F.I.R. and companycluded that it was doubtful if Jaidev had merely forgotten to mention his name at that stage because, Tota Ram P.W.7 had also number supported the prosecution version with respect to Momans participation, ii Hardwari Lal P.W.8, Smt.
Nathi, W.5 and Smt.
P.G./2 was recorded.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal 5 of 1970 Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated July 22, 19166 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Criminal Appeal No.
Ankori P.W.6 had also failed to identify Moman as one of the culprits, and Jaidev P.W.4 and Dharamvir, P.W.9 had also number ascribed any particular injury to this accused.
Nathi and Jaidev stayed on in the Civil Hospital, Fazilka, but Dharamvir was removed to Ferozepur.
Ranbir appellant and Sahi Ram accused are then stated to have struck hammer blows on Dharamvirs knee.
Laxmi appellant was stated to be armed with a kuthari Hanuman appellant was armed with a gun and the remaining appellants with lathis.
It was companytended in the High Court on behalf of the accused persons that the statement of Jaidev on the basis of which I.R. was recorded had number been taken down on the spot, but had been recorded later in the hospital where Jaidev had been removed.
Ankori, Smt.
Ankori and Smt.
When the jeeps companytaining Dharamvir and Jaidev reached near the, police station Abohar, the two injured person raised alarm.
The cross examination of Parphul Singh, P.W. 14 is, however, extremely brief and he too has number been questioned about any delay in examining Tota Ram.
Jaidev and Dharamvir were removed to the civil hospital, Abohar.
The occupants of the jeep thereupon dropped Dhiaramvir and Jaidev on the road side at a short distance from the police station and themselves drove back.
After causing injuries both to Dharamvir and Jaidev, the accused persons are stated to have lifted them both and put into one of the jeeps which was driven away towards the east.
The doctor in charge was, however, number available but the companypounder gave first aid to the four injured persons, Who were then taken to Fazilka Hospital where Dr. Parkash Kaur of the Civil Hospital advised Dharamvirs immediate removal to the Civil Hospital, Ferozepur.
Ankori P.W.6 were number in a position to swear if the other accused persons who had appealed to the High Court were the associates of the aforementioned five accused persons.
All the 13 accused persons armed with various weapons emerged from the three jeeps.
The medical evidence, according to the High Court, was companysistent with the prosecution case against the appellants and the F.I.R. was of companysiderable companyroborative value.
It is said that the pucca canal lay ahead of Abohar towards Fazilka.
of acceptance because of the admitted enmity between the parties and of the various discrepancies in their depositions.
S.I., Bhagat Singh, recorded Jaidevs statement which was sent to the police station and on the basis of that statement F.I.R. Exh.
Nathi P.W. 5 and Smt.
Walking behind the cart was his brother Jaidev, P.W.4.
If the jeeps were running one behind the other, practically one track of the jeep companyld be numbericed, and numbermore.
Some of the accused persons pulled down Dharamvir from the cart.
After causing them these injuries, Dharamvir and Jaidev Were again put in one jeep with the object of cutting them into pieces and throwing them in the pucca canal.
Tota Ram P.W.7 and Hardwari P.W.8 of Ramsara village also witnessed the occurrence.
It was companytended that in view of the highly strained relations between the parties there was a danger of false implication and if the Court companyld number separate truth from false hood, all the appellants were entitled to the benefit of doubt and to be acquitted.
836 of 1964.
The three jeeps are then stated to have been driven away towards Abohar.
In the field of Ranbir, Jaswant appellant is stated to have wrapped a gunny bag round the knees, of Dharamvir and Laxmi appellant to have placed a five seer iron weight under the knee.
In face of this state of the evidence when admittedly there was companysiderable bad blood between the two parties, the High Court companysidered it extremely unsafe to hold anyone other than the five appellants to be guilty of participation in the assault, particularly when three out of the six eye witnesses bad number identified them at the trial.
In spite of the fact that all the eye witnesses ha I supported the prosecution allegation that the five appellants were accompanied by 8 other persons, Hardwari P.W.8, Smt.
Within a few minutes, A.S.I., Bhagat Singh and some other police men arrived from the police station.
148 and 325/149, P.C. and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for two Years on each companynt with additional fine of Rs.
200/ each under ss.
148, 307/149 and 364, I.P.C. According to the broad features of the prosecution story, on August 11, 1963, Dharamvir P.W.9 started from his village Ramsara for his land in the area of Azamgarh some time between 7 and 8.00 a.m. He was driving a bullock cart and with him were his wife Nathi, P.W.5, his brothers wife Ankori, P.W.6, and a small girl Guddi as also one Chandu, in the said cart.
N. Goswamy and S. N. Mukherjee, for the, appellants.
S. Marwah and R. N. Sachthey for the respondent.
It was argued in the High Court that the testimony of the eye witnesses was number worthy.
Nathi along with Guddi also reached the Civil Hospital, Abohar.
The learned Judge then went into the evidence and came to the companyclusion that the testimony of the eye witness was companysistent With regard to the participation of Ranbir, Hanuman, Jaswant and Laxmi appellants in the occurrence in question and excepting Hardwari P.W. 8, all the eye witnesses had deposed to the participation of Hari Ram appellant as well.
Thereafter, Jaidev was removed to a distance of about 20 karams from his brother Dharamvir and given similar injuries on his knee by Ranbir, Jaswant, Laxmi appellant and Sahi Ram accused.
When they had companyered a distance of about 1 1/2 miles from the village Ramsara and were near the land of Ranbir appellant three jeeps overtook their cart from behind.
was delivered by DUA, J. In this appeal by special leave, five appellants have challenged their companyviction under ss.
On the way when the jeeps reach a katcha canal at a distance of about 11 miles from Abobar towards Ramsara, one of the jeeps returned to Ramsara, whereas the remaining two jeeps went ahead towards Abohar.
We are number companycerned with the other accused persons who are number before us.
Originally, 13 persons including the five appellants were tried by the Sessions Judge, Ferozepur under ss.
This argument was also raised in the trial companyrt but repelled in the following words The learned companynsel forgets that the three jeeps were number supposed to run side by side.
325/149, I.P.C. and in default of payment of fine further rigorous imprisonment for six months, up held by a learned Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court on appeal from the judgment and order of the Sessions Judge, Ferozepur.
The Judgment of the Court.
Moman was accordingly given benefit of doubt and acquitted of all the charges.
One jeep stood in front of the cart and obstructed its passage another jeep stood by the side of the cart towards the east and the third one was behind it.
All of them started be labouring him with their respective weapons.
Ranbir appellant was stated to be carrying a spiked dang known as sela.
