TMI Blog1973 (12) TMI 103X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... us villages, armed with Lathis, Bhalas, and Pharsas suddenly appeared and started attacking the unoffending Dukhharan and his relations in field No. 39. Names of 25 persons, including the appellants, are mentioned in the First information Report lodged at Police Station Mirgan. in District Saran, at 2.15 p. m. on 15-7-1965. In his evidence Dukhharan stated that he ran away to a distance of 2 to 3 bighas to the south but returned to the scene of occurrence when the accused had dispersed and then he found a number of other persons lying injured. They were his brother Sitaram, P. W. 20, Tapi Bhagat, P. W. 3, Nagina Koeri, P. W. 13, Smt. Fekani, P. W. 17, and Laldhari who was lying unconscious and who )never regained consciousness. Injuries, proved by Dr. B.N. Dwivedy, P.W. 4, who examined the injured on 15-7-65 between 4-45 p.m. and 7 p.m. were: Two scratches and 4 Ecchymoses, all simple injuries, with some blunt weapon were sustained by Dukhharan. Two Ecchymoses, simple injuries, with a blunt weapon were' found on Fegn Bhagat. Two Ecchymoses, simple injuries with a blunt weapon were found on Smt. Hirachia. Smt. Phekan had one Ecchymoses, a simple injury with a hard weapon Sitaram ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r. 5. One incised wound, 1-1/4 x 1/4 x 1/4 on the front of right thumb. Injury No. 2 , was of grievous nature and other of simple nature. Injury No. 1, caused by sharp pointing weapon such as Bhala and other by sharp cutting such as pharas (?) . All the in juries mentioned above were shown to have been caused within 12 hours of their examination so that they could be caused on the morning of 15-7-65. The accused did not produce any witness in defence. The statement of Ramanandan Chaudhary under Section 342 Criminal Procedure Code setting out the defence version was : Ramanandan and some others had purchased some Shikmi land from Nathuni Dube and had grown Makai on it. When he was ploughing one of the purchased plots numbered 30, at about 8 a.m. on 15-7-65, Dukhharan, Sitaram, Birjan Nagina, Inder Sain, Tapi Bhagat came there and protested against the ploughing. As Ramanandan did not pay any attention to their protests, Dukhharan and Sitaram attacked him with Pharasas so that he fell down and became unconscious. A Marpit took place after Ramanandan had fallen down. The suggestion was that the party of Dukhharan itself had atta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... I., Tappi Bhagat, P. W. 3, Ramjit Shah, P. W. 5 Ram Chandra Sharma, P. W. 8, Km. Ram Rati, P. W. 9, Smt. Sujhani, P. W. IO, Smt. Lachminia Devi, P. W. II, Smt. Gulzaria, P. W. 12, Nagina Koeri, P. W. 13, Smt. Minia, P. W. 14, Smt. Vekani, P. W. 17, Smt. Marchhia, P. W. 19, and Dukhharan, P. W. 22, make no mention whatsoever of any incident involving the coming of Laldhari to the scene of occurrence or any attack upon him. D- ukhharan, P. W. 22, who was in his own field with his brother Sitaram, had stated that he had run away and come back to the field where he found Laldhari lying unconscious. But, he did not mention even this fact in the F. I. R. to the Investigating Officer when he came to the spot. By that time he was bound to have seen Laldhari lying unconscious just as his brother Sitaram saw it if he could be believed. The omission from the F. I. R. made by Dukhharan, was, however, not put to him. Nevertheless, the fact that the incident was omitted and no- mention is made whatsoever of the injury of Laldhari by thirteen alleged eye witnesses is significant in judging whether Laldhari was injured during the incident on the field of Dukhharan for which the F.I. R. was lodged ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... collie and attack the unoffending Dukhharan and members of his family without any apparent reason. Dukhharan had stated that. he and his father used to pay rent of Shikmi land to Tapesar Dubey and Dhanraj Dubey. He admitted that Raghubir Chaudhary and the accused Rajdhari and Jamuna had a sale deed executed in respect of the above mentioned Shikmi land and that they had asked him to give up possession of the Shikmi land to which he did not agree. He also admitted that this was the cause of the ill-feeling between him and the two accused Rajdhari and Jamuna. He also stated that he had filed an application before the Block Development Officer, Nathwa, for granting him a receipt in respect of the rent of the Shikmi land, but his request was turned down. Furthermore, he admitted that proceedings under Section 145 Criminal Procedure Code had taken place between the parties over this land. Thus, this Shikmi land was the cause of dispute between Dukhharan, Rajdhari, and Jamuna, accused, in which the other accused persons could not have any real interest. It appears to us that Radheyshyam Gupta, P. W. 23, the Investigating Officer had not been sufficiently careful or ast ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the foot prints and trampling found in the Shikmi land . It is thus clear that the prosecution had not placed the whole set of relevant facts before the Court. The accused, not infrequently, try to conceal their injuries in such cases as they become evidence of involvement in an incident. The duty of the Investigating Officers is not merely to bolster up a prosecution case with such evidence as may enable the Court to record a conviction but to bring out the real unvarnished truth. It is apparent that the prosecution witnesses had tried to omit altogether any reference to at least the injuries of the appellant Ramanandan because there was a cross case in which such an admission could have been made use ofto support the prosecution in that case. Dukhharan, however, made a very feeble and obviously untruthful attempt to account for the injuries of Ramanandan by saying that he had snatched a pharsa from one of' the members of the crowd and had started swinging it around. He could not, however, state whether any one was in jured by it. He even, stated that he did not recognise the man from whom he had snatched the pharsa. Although he said that he knew Ramanandan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rattack upon Ramanandan and others. This may also explain why, persons from other villages are said to have joined in the attack upon the party of Dukhharan probably out of sympathy for Ramanandan. We think that the Trial Court had, after coming to the conclusion, on quite unsatisfactory material, that the whole occurrence must have taken place on field No. 39, failed to examine the manner in which the ,dispute must have originated and the occurrence developed, perhaps by stages, into one resulting in injuries of so many persons. It appears from the statements of persons actually injured that they were not able to make out all the members of the crowd, which assembled, but they could remember those who had inflicted injuries upon them. In the circumstances brought out from the total evidence in the case, both occular and circumstantial, we think that it will not be safe to convict any person for any offence other than that revealed by the injuries he is shown to have inflicted upon an actually injured witness deposing against him. An injured witness, in any case, would not easily substitute a wrong person for his actual assailant. It has not been shown to us that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d Ramnath were also convicted under Section 324 I. P. C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years each. Appellants Muni, Ramayan, Kishundeo Ahir, Sheopujan Chamar, Ramsewak, Palakdhari, Swaminath, Raja Ahir, were convicted under Section 323 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. No separate sentence was passed against Rajdhar, Sheopujan Chamar, Ganga Chaudhary and Ramnath under Section 148 or against Jamuna, Muni-Chamar, Ramayan, Ramanandan, Kishundeo Ahir, Ramsewak, Palakdhari, Swaminath, Raja Ahir for conviction underSection 147 I.P.C. The sentences so passed were directed to run concurrently. When the appellants took their appeal to the High Court neither the evidence of the witnesses nor the cases of the individual accused except Jamuna were discussed at all. The High Court observed that, in view of the arguments, advanced, it would reduce the sentences of each of the accused persons, other than Jamuna appellant, by half. So far as Jamuna appellant was concerned, it dealt with the case only to point out that the head injury was a stray one. This injury had been held, by the High Court also, to be outside the scope of the comm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h the Trial Court had correctly employed against individual accused persons. We think that the use of Sections 147 and 149 against them was also justified. The High Court had reduced all sentences by half. We maintain their convictions. But, as we are informed that the sentences awarded have been undergone almost for the whole period by each convict appellant, we think that ends of justice will be served by reducing their sentences to the periods already undergone. The result is that we give Jamuna Chaudhary, appellant, the benefit of doubt for the offence under Section 304 I. P. C. and acquit him of the charge for it. We, however, hold Jamuna Chaudhary guilty of offenses punishable under Section 147 I. P. C. with the other accused. We maintain all the convictions of the other accused persons also. But, we reduce the sentences of the appellants for various offenses of which they have been convicted to the periods already undergone. This appeal is allowed .to the extent indicated above. As the sentences of all the appellants are reduced to the period already undergone, they will be released forthwith unless wanted in some other connection. Appeal partly allowed. - - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
