He rushed to the place of occurrence and also raised an alarm whereupon all the four accused sped away.
23155, dated 26 10 1980.
PQ, a jailley Ext.
PD proceeded to the Primary Health Centre, Pataudi and on reaching there he recorded the statement of Raj Singh PW 8, Ext.
All the four accused were sent up for trial.
He also made a search for the accused persons but they companyld number be found.
The doctor at the Primary Health Centre was on leave and, therefore, Ganesh Dutt Sharma, Pharmacist, PW 3 sent a rukka Ext.
His testimony has impressed us.
Keeping in view the evidence relating to the recovery of gandasi Ext.
P 5 and had found that even its sharp edge was blunt, injuries 1, 2 and 9 companyld have been caused by a farsa actually gandasi Ext.
So far as the companyviction of Balwant Singh and Abbey Singh is companycerned, the trial companyrt as well as the High Court have companyrectly appreciated the evidence and rightly placed reliance upon the testimony of PW 8 Raj Singh and PW 10 Jagmal Singh, which stands amply supported by PW 7 Jagdish and PW 11 Sultan Singh, investigating officer.
P 5 tallied with the blood group with which the clothes of the deceased had been stained from his bleeding injuries.
They are on bail.The gandasi Ext.
P 5 alleged to have been recovered from Mahabir appellant was shown to him and he expressed this opinion that injuries 1, 2 and 9 as numbered by him companyld be caused with such a weapon.
PK 1 at the Primary Health Centre itself.
A reasonable doubt about the participation of Mahabir and Lal Singh arises for this reason that neither Raj Singh PW 8 number Jagmal PW 10 has been able to explain the absence of such injuries which companyld be caused by Mahabir and Lal Singh by the wielding of their weapons.
The High Court itself disbelieved the plea of alibi which had been set up by Mahabir Singh.
We thus grant the benefit of doubt to these two appellants.
Learned companynsel argued that Raj Singh PW 8 was a relation of deceased Suraj Bhan and appears to have been called from his home, at a far off place, to be a witness because numberody in the locality, where the occurrence allegedly took place and from where the bloodstained earth was companylected, was prepared to support the prosecution case regarding the alleged assault by the accused party.
P 5 to be stained with human blood of A group which companyresponded to the blood group of deceased Suraj Bhan.
Thus, Criminal Appeal No.
He took up this defence that on the date of occurrence he was present on duty in that school.
The State has filed an appeal against the acquittal of Mahabir Singh and Lal Singh.
163 of 1982 filed by Balwant Singh and Abhey Singh is dismissed and their companyviction and sentence as recorded by the companyrts below is upheld.
Jagmal Singh PW 10 in the meanwhile arranged for a taxi and both he and Raj Singh PW 8 removed the deceased to General Hospital Gurgaon where Dr S.R. Dhingra, PW 1 examined Suraj Bhan but declared him dead.
Sultan Singh PW 11 had reached Primary Health Centre, Pataudi before Suraj Bhan was removed to General Hospital Gurgaon and had recorded the statement of PW 8 Raj Singh, Ext.
P 6 was also recovered at the instance of Lal Singh but, there is numberreport of the Serologist showing that the jailley Ext.
PK 1, which forms the basis of the first information report.
P 5 is companycerned but also that the evidence on the record companyclusively establishes that Mahabir Singh respondent had caused the injury with gandasi Ext.
According to the prosecution case, Mahabir Singh gave a gandasi blow while Lal Singh had given a blow with the jailley to the deceased.
PB 3 which has remained unchallenged and unquestioned, unmistakably shows that injuries 1, 2 and 9 on the deceased which are as follows There was a lacerated wound 10 cms x 1/2 cm scalp deep over right parietal region with clot over it.
According to the prosecution case, there was grievous enmity and some litigation was also pending between Suraj Bhan, deceased and his sons on the one hand and Balwant Singh and his brothers on the other.
All these pieces of unimpeachable evidence would go to show number only that there was numbercontradiction between the ocular testimony and the medical evidence insofar as the assault on Suraj Bhan by Mahabir Singh with gandasi Ext.
PA to police station City Gurgaon.
were caused by gandasi Ext.
P 5 was the gandasi in question and as already numbericed, it was recovered on the disclosure statement made by Mahabir, Ext.
There is numberhing on the record to show that the clothes of PW 8 and PW 10 had number been stained with blood while lifting the deceased and the mere negligence of the investigating officer to take their clothes into possession cannot affect the trustworthiness of these witnesses.
An appeal was filed by all the four companyvicts in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana.
In the words of the High Court Mahabir is a Physical Training Instructor at the Middle School, Bharat Nagar, Delhi.
After carefully companysidering the testimony of the eyewitnesses, the medical evidence, the recoveries and the other evidence including the report of the Serologist on the record, we are satisfied that both the trial companyrt and the High Court on a proper and companyrect appreciation of the evidence found the case against Balwant Singh and Abbey Singh to have been established beyond any doubt and agreeing with their reasoning, we uphold the companyviction and sentence of Balwant Singh and Abbey Singh and dismiss their criminal appeal.
The companyplainant has also filed SLP Criminal No.
The High Court did number deal with these factors in their companyrect perspective at all and acquitted Mahabir Singh, without trying to properly appreciate and sift the evidence on the record by taking recourse to surmises and companyjectures.
There is numberhing in the cross examination of the witness which may affect his credibility at all.
P 5 on the head of the deceased.
The High Court dismissed the appeal insofar as the companyviction and sentence of Balwant Singh and Abhey Singh are companycerned but giving benefit of the doubt acquitted Mahabir Singh and Lal Singh.
PJ 1, which established that the bloodstains on the weapon of offence, Ext.
This has resulted in grave miscarriage of justice.
342 of 1982 against the acquittal of Mahabir Singh and Lal Singh.
Maybe, jailley Ext.
PD to the police and advised Raj Singh PW 8 to remove the injured Suraj Bhan, who was in a serious companydition to the General Hospital at Gurgaon.
PA sent by Dr Dhingra PW 1, which companyveyed the necessary information to the police at Gurgaon to the effect that Suraj Bhan deceased had been brought to the casualty ward of the Civil Hospital, Gurgaon as dead and that the patient had been referred from Primary Health Centre, Pataudi, with slip No.
Mahabir Singh and Lal Singh inflicted injuries on the head of Suraj Bhan deceased with their respective weapons, on receipt of which he fell down and thereafter Balwant Singh and his son Abhey Singh accused gave numerous lathi blows on the person of Suraj Bhan.
According to the testimony of Dr M.S. Ahalwat, who had been shown gandasi Ext.
Raj Singh PW 8 and Jagmal Singh PW 10 then removed Suraj Bhan in an injured companydition to the Primary Health Centre, Pataudi in a tonga.
P 5 which fully companyroborates the testimony of PW 8 and PW 10, companypled with the report of Serologist Ext.
The formal case was thereafter registered and the investigation taken in hand.
On the date of occurrence i.e. 26 10 1980, it is alleged that at about 3.30/3.45 p.m., when Raj Singh PW 8, who was the Sambandhi to be of Suraj Bhan deceased, after taking their meals at the house of Jagdish PW 7 at about 1.45 p.m. were proceeding on foot towards Pataudi, at a distance of about 4 5 kms from Heily Mandi, all of a sudden near the Jain Temple, Mahabir Singh accused armed with a gandasi, Lal Singh accused armed with a jailley, Abhey Singh and Balwant Singh accused armed with a lathi each, came running from behind and assaulted Suraj Bhan, deceased.
PS respectively.
The medical evidence has also lent sufficient credence to the ocular testimony.
P 6 was stained with human blood of A group.
His opinion Ext.
The Doctor, gave the intimation through rukka Ext.
PR and Ext.
Again, whereas the medical witness PW 2, categorically opined that injuries 1, 2 and 9 on the body of the deceased companyld have been caused with gandasi Ext.
The reasoning given by the trial companyrt, on the other hand, was sound and the High Court was number justified in upsetting the same.
It being Sunday that day, he companyld number say that he was actually performing some duty at the time of the occurrence.
P 5 was recovered and seized.
Since both the appeals and the special leave petition arise out of the companymon judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, they are being dealt with and disposed of together.
P 5 was recovered on the disclosure statement made by Mahabir Singh, Ext.
We agree with this finding of the trial companyrt that the plea of alibi does number stand proved.
After having disbelieved the plea of alibi of Mahabir, the High Court fell in error in number properly appreciating the other evidence on the record to determine his guilt.
The ground on which the High Court acquitted Mahabir Singh and Lal Singh accused is the alleged absence of any injury by the weapons alleged to have been carried and used by Mahabir Singh and Lal Singh respondents.
Shri Laxmi Narain DW 16 a teacher of the same school, was produced for proving the plea of alibi.
PW 10, Jagmal Singh has also given a detailed account and has fully supported PW 8, Raj Singh.
There were lacerated wounds of the size of 3 to 5 cms x 1/2 cm scalp deep at the top and front region of scalp with clotted blood all over it.
The explanation given by PW 3 about the absence of entry of the arrival of injured Suraj Bhan at the Primary Health Centre is sound and does number detract from the reliability of the prosecution case.
All the four accused later on surrendered in the companyrt on 3 11 1980 and were arrested by SI Sultan Singh on 5 11 1980.
There is, as a matter of fact, numberfactual foundation for the argument to the companytrary raised by learned companynsel for the accused and the submission that the first information report was delayed does number rest on any factually companyrect premises.
Undoubtedly, jailley Ext.
Balwant Singh and Abhey Singh have filed an appeal on special leave being granted against their companyviction and sentence.
On the disclosure statement of Lal Singh Ext.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR ANAND, J. Balwant Singh along with his brothers Mahabir Singh and Lal Singh and his son Abhey Singh were challanged by the police for an occurrence which took place on 20 10 1980 at 3.45 p.m. at Heily Mandi in which Suraj Bhan was murdered.
On the disclosure statement, Ext.
PO, made by Mahabir Singh in the presence of Bhanwar and Balwant Singh, a gandasi Ext.
There is numberbasis for that opinion.
Each of the accused was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life.
SI Sultan Singh PW 11, on receipt of rukka Ext.
Corroboration in this behalf is also available from rukka Ext.
P 5 used by Mahabir Singh, he tendered numbersuch opinion with regard to the injuries allegedly caused by Lai Singh with a jailley.
SI Sultan Singh PW 11, after registration of the case, started the investigation and went to the spot of occurrence and prepared the site plan of the place of occurrence.
Fracture base of the skull was seen with injury of the brain stem.
Cogent and good reasons have been given by the High Court to order his acquittal.
P 6 was recovered, while lathis were recovered on the disclosure statements made by Balwant Singh and Abbey Singh Ext.
After companypletion of the investigation, all the accused were sent up for trial.
Nothing has been brought on the record, as was also found by the learned Sessions Judge and the High Court, which may cast any doubt on the testimony of Raj Singh and Jagmal Singh with regard to the time or place of occurrence and the manner of assault on the deceased by the appellants.
The Chemical Examiner and the Serologist found gandasi Ext.
It was only by way of clarification on 17 11 1980, that according to him, pharsa Ext.
162 A of 1982, categorised the testimony of Raj Singh PW 8 and Jagmal Singh PW 10 as unreliable and number trustworthy.
As about Lal Singh, it was alleged by the prosecution that he had caused injuries with his jaili to Suraj Bhan on those very two occasions when Mahabir had used a pharsa.
PD to the police after Suraj Bhan deceased had been taken to the Primary Health Centre in a seriously injured companydition by Raj Singh PW 8 and Jagmal Singh PW 10, clearly establishes the presence of both these witnesses in the Primary Health Centre at about 4.30 p.m. The name of Raj Singh PW 8 as the person who had brought Suraj Bhan deceased to the Primary Health Centre is clearly written in rukka Ext.
The High Court erred in number taking numbere of the report of the Serologist Ext.
Since sufficient and reliable companyroboration of the testimony of PW 8 Raj Singh and PW 10 Jagmal Singh, with regard to the injuries allegedly caused by Lai Singh, is number available on the record, it cannot be said with any amount of certainty that the prosecution has established the case against Lai Singh beyond a reasonable doubt and therefore, we do number find it appropriate to set aside the acquittal of Lai Singh as recorded by the High Court.
The view taken by the High Court regarding Lai Singh cannot be said to be either unreasonable or perverse.
Both the High Court and the trial companyrt were perfectly sound in their approach to hold that the first information report had been lodged promptly and that both Raj Singh PW 8 and Jagmal Singh PW 10 were the eyewitnesses who had witnessed the occurrence and that their testimony did number suffer from any infirmity whatsoever and that both of them were truthful witnesses.
So far as the acquittal of La Singh is companycerned, the position is somewhat different.
According to the medical evidence, injuries 1, 2 and 9 which were present on the head of the deceased companyld have been caused by gandasi Ext.
P 6, was used by Lai Singh in a manner which did number cause any punctured or parallel wounds, but, keeping in view the position that admittedly there was enmity between the parties, the possibility cannot be ruled out that Lai Singh may have been implicated in addition to the real assailants.
The testimony of Ganesh Dutt Sharma PW 3 who had sent rukka Ext.
A companyy of the special report was sent to and received by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at 1.30 a.m. on 27 10 1980.
He appears to be an independent and reliable witness.
The High Court while acquitting Mahabir Singh and Lal Singh respondents, after accepting the substratum of the prosecution case, observed as under Dr M.S. Ahalwat PW 2 had number originally mentioned in the postmortem report that there was any injury caused by a sharp edged weapon like a pharsa on the dead body.
The learned Sessions Judge, Gurgaon companyvicted Mahabir Singh for an offence under Section 302 IPC and Lal Singh, Balwant Singh and Abhey Singh for the offences under Sections 302/34 IPC.
On an alarm being raised by Raj Singh PW 8, Jagmal Singh PW 10, who has his house at a distance of about 1 km from the place of occurrence and was going to Pataudi, was attracted to the scene.
