CRIMINAL APPEAL 222 of 2001 on 19 December 1998

1. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 437-DB OF 2000

Milakh Raj, Lal Chand and Labh Chand

……APPELLANTS

Versus

State of Haryana……RESPONDENT

2. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 352-DBA OF 2001

State of Haryana……APPELLANT

Versus

Milakh Raj and Labh Chand……RESPONDENTS

3. CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 222 OF 2001

Har Bhagwan Singh……PETITIONER

Versus

State of Haryana and Lal Chand ……RESPONDENTS

CORAMHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHTAB S.GILLHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA

Present:-Mr. N. K. Sanghi, Advocatewith Mr. Munish Garg, Advocate,Mr. Aditya Sanghi, Advocate andMr. Aditya Pal Singh, Advocatefor the appellants.Mr. Vinod Ghai, AdvocateMr. S. S. Randhawa, Additional Advocate General, Haryana.

MEHTAB S.GILL, J

We will be deciding Crl. A. No.437-DB of 2000, Crl. A. No.352-DBA of 2001 and Crl. Revision No.222 of 2001 by a commonjudgment/order as they arise out of the judgment/order passed by the Ld.Sessions Judge, Sirsa, dated 21.8.2000/24.8.2000.

Learned Sessions Judge, convicted Milakh Raj son of LalChand and Labh Chand @ Rodi son of Lal Chand to undergo imprisonmentfor life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each for the offence under Section302/34 IPC, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorousimprisonment for a period of three months. Lal Chand son of Sona Ramwas convicted and sentenced to undergo five years rigorous imprisonmentand to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- and in default of payment of fine to furtherundergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months under Section307 IPC. Dharmo Bai wife of Lal Chand was convicted and sentenced tosimple imprisonment for one year (already undergone) for the offence underSection 323 IPC.

The case of the prosecution is unfolded by the statement of HarBhagwan given to SI Janardan in Govt. Hospital, Sirsa.

Har Bhagwan stated, that the house of his uncle Lal Chand sonof Sona Ram is adjacent to his house. There is a vacant plot in front of hishouse. His uncle Lal Chand has sown potato crops in the land. On18.12.1998 at 1:30 am, his uncle Lal Chand and his wife Dharmo Bai wereinstalling wire on their land. Har Bhagwan's mother Narain Bai, brotherSatnam Chand and his wife Sunita Bai were standing in front of the house.Har Bhagwan was working in the field nearby. When Har Bhagwan's CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 437-DB OF 2000

mother and Satnam Chand asked Lal Chand not to instal the wire, hot wordswere exchanged. On hearing the alarm, Milakh Raj son of Lal Chand armedwith gandhalaand Labh Chand @ Rodi armed with kappacame there. LalChand hit a kasiablow from the sharp side on the head of Har Bhagwan'smother. Second Kasia blow on the chin of his mother. Darmo Bai gave alathi blow on the cheek of his mother, on the left side. When his brotherSatnam Chand tried to rescue his mother, Milakh Raj gave an injury withhis gandhala on the left side of the head of Satnam Chand, Labh Chand @Rodi gave injuries with his kappaon the back side of the head, neck andright lips of Satnam Chand. Har Bhagwan's brother's wife Sunita cameforward, then Dharmo Bai gave her injuries with lathi on her head, back andboth hands. Har Bhagwan and his wife Reshma then went to rescue hismother and sister. All the appellants thereafter ran away. Appellants hadalso dragged his mother.

On the basis of this statement, FIR Ex.PQ was recorded on18.12.1998 at 9:40 pm and the special report reached the Judicial MagistrateIst Classl, Sirsa on 19.12.1998 at 12:05 am.

The prosecution to prove its case, brought into the witness box Dr. S. L. Aggarwal PW1, Dr. Viresh Bhushan PW2, Dr. G. S.Somani PW3,HC Rajbir Singh PW4, Amar Singh PW5, HC Amar Nath PW6, C OmParkash PW7, C Rajbir Singh PW8, C Vinod Kumar PW9, Har BhagwanPW10, Sunita PW11, HC Sombir Singh PW12, Dr.V. K. Gupta PW13, Dr.Baldev Singh PW14 and SI Janardhan PW15.

To understand the relationship, following is the table:- Sona Ram|

( having two sons )

_________Son_ ______________Son___________________||||||||||||Sanja Ram Lal Chand-------- ||| ||| | all|| ||| | all1. Wife- Naraini Bai, injured,1. wife- Dharmo Bai |accusednot examined2.Son-Milakh Raj |3. Son-LabhChand |not examined2.Son-Milakh Raj |3. Son-LabhChand |2. Son-Har Bhagwan(PW10)3. Son-Satnam Chand (Deceased)4. Wife of Satnam Chand 3. Son-Satnam Chand (Deceased)4. Wife of Satnam Chand Sunita (PW11)

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused therecord with their assistance.

Dr. Vinesh Bhushan PW2 prepared the MLR reports of NarainiBai Ex. PD, Sunita PW11 Ex. PE and appellant Lal Chand and Dharmo Bai.There are two injuries on the person of appellant Lal Chand both beingfractures on the head. Appellant Dharmo Bai has also received an injury onthe head. These injuries have not been explained in FIR Ex. PQ. Theseinjuries go unexplained by the prosecution though Dr. Vinesh BhushanPW2 has stated, that both appellants Lal Chand and Dharmo Bai reached thehospital at 3 pm. Thereafter, the complainant party reached the hospital at3:40 pm. The Investigating Officer SI Janardhan PW15 was aware of thepresence of both appellants Lal Chand and Dharmo Bai in the hospital buthe did not record their statement nor did he go any further to find out as tohow they had received the injuries on the head.

Appellant Lal Chand has taken a specific stand in his statementunder Section 313 Cr. P. C. He has stated as under:- “I am innocent. On the day of occurrence, I alongwith mywife Dharmo Bai was present in our potato field and we were putting barbed wire on our side. Satnam Chand and NarainBai objected to it. We reiterated that as we were putting thebarbed wire in our side of the field, they had no right toobject. On this, Satnam Chand and Narain Bai broughtgandasas from their house and caused injuries to me while Iwas sitting on the ground in our field. I was chased bySatnam Chand and Narain Bai, who caused injuries to me. I,in my self defence and in order to save myself, caused someinjuries to Satnam Chand and Narain Bai. When my wifeDharmo Bai tried to interfere physically to save me, she wasgiven lathi blow by Sunita. My wife also gave a blow ofwooden pillar, which we were erecting, to Sunita in her selfdefence. The occurrence took place in our potato field, asstated above, and the complainant party was at fault. HarBhagwan PW was not present at that time. We the wholefamily, I have been involved in this case after fabricating thefalse FIR in conspiracy with the Police Officers and they havefalsely challaned us. I received grievous injuries on the head,but the police did not take any action due to their connivancewith the complainant party. The alleged recoveries werefoisted upon us only to make the case strong in the Court. ”

It has come in evidence of Sunita PW11 that pillars had beenerected on the piece of land where the wires were being put. Learnedcounsel for the appellants has rightly argued that if the fight had taken placeat the time when the pillars were being put, appellants would have been thenat fault. But at that time, the complainant party did not object to. Putting upthese pillars must have taken a lot of time. It was at the time when the wireswere being put, that objection came from the side of complainant party.

Arguments

If we go through the site plan Ex. PY, it is clear, that the bodyof the deceased was well within the land which was in possession of appellant Lal Chand. It seems that deceased Satnam Chand alongwith hiswife Sunita PW11 entered the portion of land which was in physicalpossession of appellant Lal Chand and it is thereafter that the quarrelerupted.

Learned counsel for the State has argued that deceased SatnamChand was dragged from point H to point C. This does not seem to be so.Dr.G.S.Sumani PW3, who conducted the post mortem, prepared report Ex.PG shows no dark marks on the person of deceased Satnam Chand. If hehad been dragged, there would have been scratch marks or bruises on hisbody as the land over which he has been dragged was cultivated land,having a rough surface.

Har Bhagwan PW10, brother of the deceased, on the fatefulday was present in the fields. He was running a shop of pesticide at Sirsa.Occurrence had taken place at 1;30 pm. He had gone to see his piece ofland. He is a natural witness to the occurrence. Though he has suppressedthis from the Court that it is deceased Satnam Chand who entered the landof the appellants.

The other eye witness to the occurrence Sunita PW11 is thewidow of the deceased. She was injured in the occurrence. Both deceasedSatnam Chand and Sunita PW11 opened the attack on Lal Chand andDharmo Bai and it is thereafter appellants inflicted injuries on the person ofSatnam Chand.

Taking the nature and number of injuries on the person ofSatnam Chand, it is clear that appellants exceeded the right of privatedefence to person and property. Appellants were four in number whileSatnam Chand and Sunita PW11 were just two. Appellants could have easily pushed Satnam Chand and Sunita PW11 away.

From the above discussion and observation, we find it a fit caseto convict Milakh Raj son of Lal Chand and Labh Chand son of Lal Chandunder Section 304-I IPC and sentence them to undergo six years rigorousimprisonment. Lal Chand son of Sona Ram is sentenced to undergo 2 yearsrigorous imprisonment. We will not interfere in the sentence of appellantDharmo Bai as she was convicted under Section 323 IPC and has alreadyundergone her sentence.

With above modification in the conviction and sentence, appealis dismissed.

( MEHTAB S. GILL )JUDGE

08.12.2009mamta

( RAM CHAND GUPTA)JUDGE

WHETHER TO BE REFERRED TO REPORTER? YES/NO