Judgment:
1 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE MADHYA PRADESH, JABAPLUR SB: HON. SHRI JUSTICE N.K.GUPTA. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1003 OF 199.State of Madhya Pradesh. Vs. Randheer Singh & others. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the appellant/State. Shri Aseem Dixit, Advocate for the respondents. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT
(Delivered on the 13th day of July, 2012) The State has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 30.6.1997 passed in ST No.328/1996 by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar by which the respondents were acquitted from the charges of offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 324/149 of IPC.
2. The prosecution case, in short, is that on 20.7.1996 at about 6:00 PM complainant Harprasad (PW-6) was taking his bullocks from his field to his house situated in the village Orja. When he reached in front of the house of respondent Dev Singh, the respondents collected with the sticks. Respondent Dev Singh had an axe. They started assaulting the complainant Harprasad. On hearing his cry, Harnam Singh (PW-10), Munna (PW-7), Jahar Singh (PW-5), Nathuram (PW-11) etc. came 2 to the spot and tried to save the victim Harprasad, but the respondents assaulted them due to which they also sustained injuries. Thereafter the respondents threatened the complainant and other persons that if the report was lodged about the incident, then they would be killed. complainant Harprasad was taken to the Police Station where he lodged the FIR Ex.P-15 at about 11:50 PM. The injured persons were sent to the hospital for their examination and treatment. Dr. A.K.Dave (PW-13) examined the injured Munna, Jahar Singh, Harprasad, Harnam Singh and Nathuram and prepared his reports Ex.P-18A to Ex.P-23A. All of them sustained simple injuries. Injury No.1 of Harnam Singh which was on his lumber region was found to be caused by a sharp cutting weapon whereas injuries of other victims as well as the victim Harnam Singh were found to be caused by hard and blunt object. After due investigation, the police had filed a charge sheet before the concerned Magistrate, but since a counter case was triable by the Court of Sessions, because one Ghanshyam was killed, present case was also committed to the Sessions Court so that it could be tried simultaneously with the counter case. Ultimately, it was transferred to the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar”
3. The respondents abjured their guilt. They did not take any specific plea. However, they have stated that the complainant and his companions were aggressors, who killed one Ghanshyam. The respondents were trying to save the deceased Ghanshyam, and therefore they did not commit any offence. No defence evidence was adduced by the respondents.
4. The learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar after considering the prosecution evidence acquitted the respondents from all the charges appended to them.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length.
6. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that, in the present case as many as five persons were injured due to the assault done by the respondents, and therefore they created unlawful assembly with deadly weapons. They assaulted the various victims voluntarily, and therefore they should be convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 324, 323 read with Section 149 or 34 of IPC.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the prosecution story as mentioned in the FIR is not according to the factual position of the incident. The complainant and his 4 companions were aggressors, who created a problem in front of the house of the respondent Dev Singh and they killed one Ghanshyam. A counter case was also prosecuted against the complainant and his companions, and therefore if any injury found to the victims of this case, then such injury could be caused in saving the victim Ghanshyam. In such circumstances, the respondents were entitled for the benefit of right of private defence, which was given by the trial Court to them, and therefore it is prayed that the instant appeal filed by the State may be dismissed.
8. After considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, it is to be seen as to whether the respondents can be convicted for any crime and if yes, then what would be the sentence.
9. Jahar Singh (PW-5), Harprasad (PW-6), Munna (PW-7), Harnam Singh (PW-10) and Nathuram (PW-11) were examined as injured eye-witnesses whereas Sardar (PW-8) and Lalsingh (PW-9) were examined as eye- witnesses but they turned hostile. It appears that there was a quarrel between two parties, and therefore Sardar (PW-8) and Lalsingh (PW-9) were not interested in making any statement towards any of the party. Looking to their statements, it is apparent that they wanted to remain neutral between the parties, and therefore by 5 their turning hostile, no affect would be caused on the testimony of the injured eye-witnesses. On considering the evidence given by these injured eye-witnesses, it would be apparent that they have stated that Raghuvir Singh assaulted the victim Harnam by an axe, whereas Dev Singh assaulted the victim Nathuram by a stick and Mangal Singh and Govind Singh assaulted the victim Munna by sticks. Randhir Singh assaulted the victim Harprasad by a stick. There is a lot of contradictions between the statements of these witnesses. However, looking to the medical evidence given by Dr. A.K.Dave (PW-13), there was one injury caused by an axe to the victim Harnam on his back, and therefore it can be accepted that the accused Raghuvir Singh assaulted the victim Harnam by an axe on his back. It is alleged against various accused persons that they assaulted the victims by axes but no such allegation was confirmed by the medical evidence, and therefore such allegations cannot be accepted.
10. Each of the witnesses has tried to narrate the story according to their own view. They have stated about the assault caused to the victims by a particular respondent, but that was not confirmed by other witnesses specifically the victim who sustained the injuries, and therefore it would be better to assess the 6 testimony of each injured witness relating to his own injury. Harprasad (PW-6) has stated that he was the person on whose shouting the remaining witnesses approached the spot. Harprasad informs about the injuries sustained by him that Randhir Singh was the person who assaulted him. Remaining witnesses have admitted that on hearing the shouting of Harprasad, when they reached to the spot, all the respondents were assaulting the victim Harprasad, but it was not confirmed by Harprasad himself, and therefore the testimony of other witnesses cannot be accepted that Harprasad was assaulted by all the respondents. Harprasad sustained only three injuries and according to him such injuries were caused by Randhir Singh. Harnam Singh (PW-10) has admitted that Raghuvir Singh assaulted him by an axe causing injury on his back, and thereafter someone assaulted him by 2-3 sticks, but he could not name that person who assaulted him by stick. None of other witnesses could say that amongst the respondents, who was the person, who assaulted the victim Harnam by a stick. Therefore this fact is proved that Raghuvir Singh assaulted the victim Harnam by an axe on his back.
11. Nathuram (PW-11) has stated that he was assaulted by Randhir Singh and Dev Singh by sticks, whereas Harprasad has stated that Nathuram was 7 assaulted by Dev Singh by a stick. There is no statement of any eye-witnesses that Randhir Singh assaulted the victim Nathuram by stick. If Nathuram did not say such fact in his case diary statement, therefore only this fact is proved that Dev Singh assaulted the victim Nathuram by a stick. Munna (PW-7) has stated that the respondents Mangal Singh and Govind Singh assaulted him by sticks. His statement was duly confirmed by Dr. A.K. Dave with the help of MLC report Ex.P-18A. Therefore, it is proved that Munna was assaulted by respondents Mangal Singh and Govind Singh. Jahar Singh (PW-6) sustained two injuries, but he did not say anything about the injuries as to whom caused him those two injuries. Harnam Singh (PW-10) has stated that Jahar Singh was assaulted by Govind Singh and Babu Singh, but it was nowhere confirmed by witness Jahar Singh himself. However, he has reluctantly stated that Babu Singh assaulted him by stick in his left hand and Govind Singh assaulted him by stick on his left knee. His statement relating to assault was duly confirmed by Dr. A.K. Dave with MLC report Ex.P-19A. Under such circumstances, it is established that each of the respondents has participated in assaulting at least one victim of the case.
12. All the eye-witnesses have stated that when Harprasad was taking his bullocks from the street where 8 the house of Dev Singh was situated, a quarrel took place and thereafter on hearing the cry of Harprasad, remaining victims reached to the spot. However, they have accepted that each of them was the accused in the case tried for murder of Ghanshyam. If they reached to the spot unarmed, then there was no possibility that they could kill one Ghanshyam. Therefore, it appears that the story narrated by the witnesses is not correct. On the contrary, they reached to the spot with arms and they started assaulting the deceased Ghanshyam. If the complainant and his companions were not aggressors, then Ghanshyam could not die in the incident if he was the person who started assaulting the victims. But looking to the evidence of all the injured witnesses, it is apparent that there is no allegation that Ghanshyam assaulted any of the injured witnesses, and therefore the trial Court has rightly held that when the complainant and his companions were assaulting the deceased Ghanshyam, then in trying to save the deceased Ghanshyam, the respondents tried to stop the complainant and his companions in doing such a crime. Under such circumstances, if the respondents had caused some injuries to 4-5 persons, then it cannot be said that they assaulted the victims voluntarily. On the contrary, it is apparent that they were saving the deceased 9 Ghanshyam, and therefore they had assaulted the complainant and his companions in furtherance of their right of private defence. Under such circumstances, the respondents were entitled to get the advantage of right of private defence and therefore it can be said that they did not commit any crime.
13. The incident took place suddenly in respect of the respondents, because they were not aware that the complainant party would start the quarrel with the deceased Ghanshyam and they would kill him. Therefore, it cannot be said that the respondents were already prepared for the present crime. Each of them was trying to stop at least one of the assailants, and therefore it cannot be said that the respondents had any common intention or common object in assaulting the various victims. It is apparent from the evidence that each of the victims was being assaulted by either one or two of the respondents, and therefore it cannot be said that assault done by the respondents was in furtherance of the common object, and therefore it cannot be said that the respondents made any unlawful assembly. If the unlawful assembly was not constituted, then the respondents could not be convicted for the offence under Sections 147, 148 of IPC. As it is discussed above that the respondents had assaulted the victims to save the life of the deceased 10 Ghanshyam, therefore due to right of private defence, they had not committed any crime. Hence, the respondents cannot be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 324 or 323 of IPC either directly or with the help of Section 34 of IPC.
14. On the basis of above discussion, it is apparent that the trial Court has rightly acquitted the respondents from all the charges levelled against them. Therefore the appeal filed by the State deserves to be dismissed. Consequently, the appeal filed by the State is hereby dismissed.
15. The respondents are on bail, and their presence is no more required. Hence, it is directed that their bail bonds shall stand discharged.
16. A copy of this judgment be sent to the trial Court with its record for information and compliance. (N.K.Gupta) Judge 13/7/2012 Ansari.