Back
2007 Supreme(SC) 611
2007(3) Supreme 945
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Punjab and Haryana High Court)
S.B. Sinha and Markandey Katju, JJ.
Raj Pal & Anr. — Appellants
versus
State of Haryana — Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 639 of 2007
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 4988 of 2006)
Decided on 27-4-2007
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : K.B. Sinha, Sr. Advocate, Mrs. Kawaljit Kochar and Ms. Kusum Chaudhary, Advocates.
For the Respondent : Rajeev Gaur ‘Naseem’ and T.V. George, Advocates.
IMPORTANT POINT
Merely because prosecution failed to explain injuries on accused, there is no absolute rule that ipso facto prosecution case should be thrown out but non-explanation of injuries on accused is an important circumstance which has to be taken into consideration in deciding whether benefit of doubt should be given to accused.
Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 302/34 — Appellants armed with pharsi and lathi assaulted deceased saying that they would teach him lesson for suspecting them as thieves of buffaloes — PW9 and PW10 rescued deceased and claimed to be eye-witnesses — Conviction by trial Court and upheld in appeal by High Court — Appeal — Ocular evidence that accused armed with pharsi gave blow on head of deceased was contradicted by medical evidence as doctor did not find any incised wound and only a lacerated wound on head was noticed — Clear inconsistency between ocular version and medical version — Other accused was stated to have inflicted lathi blow on head of deceased but in post mortem report only one injury was found on head — Accused in their statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. accepted that they did attack deceased but in self defence — Evidence and circumstances showed that it was possible that it was a case of bona fide self defence — Injuries on accused included an injury on head and ordinarily self inflicted injuries could be on non-vital parts — Major discrepancies in prosecution case — Appellants deserved to be given benefit of doubt and conviction was liable to be set aside.
Held : We are of the opinion that in this case the benefit of doubt has to be given to the accused and it is possible that it is a case of bona fide self-defence. (Para 18)
In Bishna vs. State of West Bengal (2005) 12 SCC 657 one of us (Hon. S.B. Sinha, J) have discussed in great detail the law of private defence and the effect of non-explanation by the prosecution of the injuries on the accused. (Para 19)
While there is no absolute rule that merely because the prosecution has failed to explain the injuries on the accused ipso facto the prosecution case should be thrown out, the non-explanation of the injuries on the accused is certainly an important circumstance which has to be taken into consideration by the Court in deciding whether the benefit of doubt should go to the accused. In Bishna’s case (supra) the entire law on the point has been discussed in great detail, and hence it is unnecessary to repeat it here. (Para 20)
The injuries on the accused include an injury on the head, which is a vital part of the body. Ordinarily self-inflicted injuries are on non-vital parts. The injury on the head of the accused Jai Pal required stitches. It is difficult to believe that this was self-inflicted. Moreover, in the present case, as noticed above, there are very important discrepancies in the prosecution version. It is true that minor discrepancies will not necessarily lead to the rejection of the prosecution case, but when there are major discrepancies and unexplained injuries on the accused it is an important factor to be taken into account. (Para 21)
While we are not in a position to say that the version of Jai Pal is necessarily correct, it certainly throws a reasonable doubt upon the entire prosecution version when it is coupled with other circumstances (such as major discrepancies between the ocular version and the medical evidence) which have already been referred to above. (Para 23)
In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the benefit of doubt has to be given to the appellants. The appeal is allowed. The impugned judgments of the trial court and the High Court are set aside. (Para 24)
JUDGMENT
Markandey Katju, J. — This appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment dated 8.12.2005 passed by the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 67-DB/1997.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
3. The prosecution case is that Raj Pal and Jai Pal appellants are brothers inter-se, being sons of Hari Chand. A panchayat was held in the village, in the month of February 1990, in connection with the theft of buffaloes of Yad Ram. Hira Lal complainant, Karan Singh, and Kure Ram had also attended the Panchayat, in which Sohan Lal (@ Melha) deceased, who was uncle of Yad Ram, had suspected the appellants to be the thieves. It is alleged that since then the appellants had been nourishing a grudge against Sohan Lal.
4. On 5.8.1990, Hira Lal complainant, PW 10 Zile Singh and one Diwan Singh were smoking “huqqa”, in front of the baithak of Shadi Lal. At about 1.00 p.m. Sohan Lal was returning to his house after grazing buffaloes in his fields. When he reached in front of Parshadi’s house, Jai Pal and Raj Pal appellants who were armed with pharsi and lathi respectively came near him and said that they would teach him a lesson for suspecting them as the thieves of buffaloes. Jai Pal then gave a pharsi blow and Raj Pal gave a lathi blow on Sohan Lal’s head. He fell on the ground. Even in fallen condition, Raj Pal gave 2-3 more lathi blows which hit him on his back. Seeing this, Hira Lal (PW 9), Zile Singh (PW 10), and Diwan Singh reached the spot and rescued Sohan Lal from the clutches of appellants. In the rescuing process, Jai Pal also received injuries. The appellants, thereafter, fled away from the spot with their respective weapons. Zile Singh and Surender son of Hans Lal removed Sohan Lal (injured) from the spot, in a car, to the General Hospital, Gurgaon, where he succumbed to his injuries. On receipt of this information, in the form of medical ruqqa, Ex. PA, about the death of Sohan Lal, Sub-Inspector Suraj Bhan reached the hospital, where Hira Lal complainant and Bis Ram were found sitting near the dead-body of Sohan Lal. He recorded the statement of Hira Lal, Ex. PH, and sent it to the police station with his endorsement, Ex.PH/1, thereon, on which the case against the appellants was registered vide formal FIR, Ex PH/2. He prepared inquest report, Ex. PL, and sent the dead-body for post-mortem examination. He visited the place of occurrence, prepared rough site plan thereof, Ex. PM, and also called the photographer who took photographs, Exs. P3 and P4 (negatives Exs. P1 and P2) , of the scene of occurrence. He also took into possession blood-stained earth from there vide memo, Ex. PN, after making it into a sealed parcel. He searched for the appellants but could arrest them only on 10.8.1990, as earlier they remained absconding. On 12.8.1990, Raj Pal appellant got a lathi recovered in pursuance of his disclosure statement. Ex. PO, and the same was taken into possession vide memo, Ex.PO/1. Similarly, Jai Pal appellant also got recovered a ‘pharsi’ in pursuance of his disclosure statement, Ex. PP, and the same too, was taken into possession vide memo, Ex. PP/1.
5. After completion of investigation, challan was filed in court against the appellants by Inspector Jag Parvesh PW5.
6. On receipt of the case, by way of commitment, the trial court charged the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. and since they pleaded not guilty, the case was committed for trial.
7. The witnesses examined by the prosecution, in support of their case, are PW 1 Dr. B.M. Bhatnagar, PW 2 Dr. Sushil Goyal, PW 3 Mool Chand Punia, PW 4 Balwant Rai Bhatia, PW 5 Inspector Jag Parvesh, PW 6 Constable Maheshswar, PW 7 Jai Singh, PW 8 Head Constable Murari Lal, PW 9 Hira Lal, PW 10 Zile Singh and PW 11 Sub-Inspector Suraj Bhan.
8. After consideration of the evidence on record the trial court by its judgment dated 7.12.1996 found the appellant Raj Pal and Jai Pal guilty of offence under Se
