1. Conviction under Sections 148, 302/149, 324/149, and 323/149 IPC following a violent clash during a marriage procession stemming from political rivalry. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
1996 Supreme(SC) 1739
1996(8) Supreme 108
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
G.N. Ray and G.B. Pattanaik, JJ.
Bhartu & Ors. -Appellants
versus
State of Haryana -Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 307 of 1987
Decided on 24-10-1996
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : Kapil Sibal, Sr. Advocate and Dr. I.B. Gaur, Advocate.
For the State : Ajay Siwach, Advocate for P.P. Malhotra, Advocate.
For the Respondent : J.P.Goyal, Sr. Advocate R.P Goyal and K.K. Gupta, Advocates.
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINT
Non-explanation of minor and small injuries on the person of accused can not be held to be fatal to prosecution case.
Non-explanation of minor and small injuries on the person of accused can not be held to be fatal to prosecution case.
Subject
Criminal Law - Homicide
Act Referred
Headnote
Indian Penal Code, 1860-Sections 148, 302/149, 324/149, 323/149-Appeal against conviction-Appellants armed with deadly weapons like gandasi, lathi, jaili attacked complainant party-Faction rivalry and grudge between parties on account of panchayat election-Prosecution case deposed by three eye witnesses who themselves were injured in the incident appearing wholly convincing-Non-explanation of injuries of accused persons-Injuries were minor and small-Its non-explanation could not be held to be fatal to prosecution case-Medical evidence was not contrary to oral evidence-Conviction and sentences awarded did not merit any interference. (Paras 5 & 6)
Legal Category Hierarchy
- crime and sentencing
- practice and procedure
-
constitutional law
- special leave petition (Para 4)
Table of Contents
2. Challenge to conviction based on unbelievable prosecution story, unexplained injuries on accused, contradictions between medical and ocular evidence, and alleged influence causing delayed FIR. (Para 3 )
3. Injured witnesses provided corroborative and convincing testimony; minor injuries on accused do not require explanation; medical evidence supports ocular accounts of assault. (Para 5 , 6 )
4. Minor or simple injuries on the accused, especially when examined significantly after the incident, do not necessarily invalidate the prosecution case or require explanation. (Para 6 )
5. Appeal dismissed; convictions and sentences affirmed; appellants directed to surrender for serving the remaining sentence. (Para 6 )
6. Does the failure of the prosecution to explain minor injuries sustained by the accused necessarily entitle them to an acquittal?
No. The court held that the prosecution is not obliged to explain injuries that are minor or simple in nature, particularly when it is not established that such injuries were sustained during the incident. (Para 6 )
7. How should a court treat apparent contradictions between ocular testimony and medical evidence regarding the specific site of an injury?
If medical evidence confirms the presence of an injury at the site mentioned in the ocular testimony, the testimony remains credible and the accused cannot be granted the benefit of doubt. (Para 6 )
8. Does a delay in lodging an FIR create reasonable doubt if the injured witness was medically unfit to make a statement initially?
No. If the delay is explained by the precarious medical condition of the witness and the statement is recorded as soon as the treating doctor certifies the witness as fit, the delay does not vitiate the prosecution case. (Para 6 )
JUDGMENT
G.B. Pattanaik, J.-This appeal is directed against the conviction and sentence passed against the appellants by the Sessions Judge, Jind and upheld by the High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 494 of 1984. The five appellants stood charged under Section 148 IPC, 302/149 IPC, 324/149 IPC and 323/149 IPC. The learned Sessions Judge convicted all of them for all the offences charged and sentenced them to imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.100/- or in default further rigorous imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 302/149 IPC, one year R.I. for offence under Section 148 IPC, one year R.I. for offence under Section 323/149 IPC and six months R.I. for offence under Section 323/149 IPC with the further direction that the sentences would run concurrently. All of them preferred criminal appeal to the High Court against their conviction and sentence. The complainant filed a criminal revision which was registered as 1483 of 1984 praying for enhancement of sentence and grant of compensation to the complainant. The criminal appeal as well as the criminal revision was disposed of by the impugned judgment of the High Court dated 26th April, 1985. The criminal appeal filed by the appellants was dismissed and the criminal revision filed by the complainant was allowed to the extent that the amount of fine if released shall be paid to the heirs of the deceased. Thus, the present appeal.
2. The prosecution case in brief is that the Panchayat elections had been held in village Shambo on 25th June, 1983 and in the said elections the people belonging to the complainant party had voted for one Surjit Singh who had contested for the post of Sarpanch. Said Surjit Singh was, however, defeated and on that score the supporters of Jagat Ram had grudge against the complainant party. On 17th July, 1983 at 8.30 p.m. the marriage procession of one Ram Rattan son of appellant Mange was being taken around the village. Mange was a partyman of Jagat Ram. When marriage procession was being lead by a group consisted of mostly womenfolk and the accused appellants. The accused were in a drunken state and were singing filthy songs. When the procession reached the house of Gita Ram, some of the witnesses, namely, Tara Chand (P.W.8), Sita Ram (not examined), Narain Dutt (P.W. 9), Ganga Bishan (P.W.10) requested the accused persons not to sing filthy songs. The deceased Ram Pal also requested the accused persons not to sing filthy songs and proceed with the marriage procession. Shortly after the altercation, the accused appellants armed with deadly weapons like gandasi, lathi, jaili attacked the complainant party. Appellant Manphul assaulted the deceased Ram Pal with gandasi and the blow fell on the left arm of the deceased, appellant Bhartu attacked the deceased by giving a blow on his head by means of gandasi. Karta Ram, Bhira and Mange the three other appellants also assaulted the deceased with the weapons in their hands. Apart from assaulting the deceased, they also attacked different persons belonging to the complainant party who were consequently injured. On hearing about the incident several other villagers came running to the spot and therefore, the accused persons left the place with the weapons in their hands. Injured Tara Chand, Ganga Bishan. Narain Dutt, Sita Ram and Ram Pal were removed to the hospital at Rajound where Ram Pal succumbed to the injuries. Tara Chand though initially was in a precarious condition but his condition was improved and at 1 a.m. the treating doctor certified him fit to make a statement and accordingly his statement was recorded by Sub-Inspector Bhup Singh and on the basis of the said statement formal F.I.R. (Ex.P.EE) was drawn up. The Investigating Officer then made the inquest over the dead body of the deceased Ram Pal and sent his dead body for autopsy. The Investigating Officer then started investigation and on completion of investigation submitted a charge-sheet. The Magistrate committed the accused
