The judgment establishes the principle that telephonic information may not constitute the FIR, and the prosecution is not obligated to explain minor injuries sustained by the accused. It also emphasizes the credibility of witness testimonies despite minor contradictions.

JUDGMENT :

M. C. GARG, J.

All the aforesaid appeals arise out of the common judgment delivered by the Additional Sessions Judge, Biora, District - Rajgarh in Sessions Trial No. 12/2000. In the said case the appellants were charged for having committed offences under sections 147, 148, 302, 302/149, 342, 323 and 323/149 of Indian Penal Code. The allegations were, that on 9th of December, 1999 at about 7 p.m. in village - Rampuriya of police station Suthaliya, appellants constituted an unlawful assembly outside the house of Pukharaj Singh (hereinafter referred to as the place of incident) with common object to cause death of Umraosingh (The deceased) and for inflicting injuries to Pukharaj Singh, Kesarsingh, Manoharsingh and Daryavsingh by using farsis and lathis. They not only caused injuries to the deceased with farsi and lathies but also dragged him inside the house of Chandarsingh, where also he was beaten. The Police after reaching to the place of incident got released the deceased from illegal custody, but later while being in hospital, he succumbed to the injuries. Pukharaj Singh, Kesarsingh, Manoharsingh and Daryavsingh were also injured in this incident on account of injures caused to them by the appellants by using farsis and lathies.

2. Prosecution case has been set out by the trial Court in para Nos. 3, 4 and 5 of the impugned judgment which are reproduced hereunder for the sake of reference :

3 After the charges were framed by the Sessions Court, the appellants denied the charges and took a defence that they had been falsely implicated in this case. Appellants Prem Singh, Fateh Singh and Karan Singh took a plea of Alibi and also produced fourteen witnesses in defence. According to DW-1 Mahendrasingh, DW-2 Rajeshkumar, DW-3 Bharat Verma, DW-4 Balram, DW-5 Mansingh and DW-6 Shivcharan, Premsingh was in Biora. According to Purji-DW-8 and Premsingh DW-9, on the date of incident, accused Premsingh was sent to Gram- Khanota. Narayansingh DW-7 and Ramkaran DW-10 stated that on the date of the incident, Karansingh was in village- Bhagora. Kanwarlal DW-11 and Harisingh DW-12 stated that at the time of incident, accused Fatehsingh was not present at the spot, but was near the well. Ramcharan DW-13 and Dhansingh DW-14 deposed that on the date of the incident, the appellants did not come to village - Rampuriya. However the plea of alibi did not find favour with the trial Judge.

4. The trial Court for its consideration framed the following questions :-

5. While answering these questions, it was held by the learned Trial Judge that death of deceased was homicidal. Appellants constituted unlawful assembly at the place of incident, with common object of causing death of deceased and injuries to Pukharajsingh, Manoharsingh and Daryavsingh. Appellants were armed with weapons like farsis and lathis. Members of unlawful assembly i.e. appellants at that time, by using force and using aforesaid weapons which are capable of causing death of person to whom injury was caused with these weapons, in furtherance of their common intention, caused injuries to the deceased and also to PW Pukhraj Singh, Daryavsingh and Manohar Singh with farsis and lathis. Thereafter, the deceased was dragged by them inside the house of Chandersingh, where also he was beaten and ultimately succumbed to death. All this was done by the Appellants as members of unlawful assembly with the common objective of causing death of Umraosingh and inflicting injuries to the witnesses.

6. The aforesaid decision was arrived at by the trial Judge relying upon the testimony of PW-4 Pukharajsingh who is the FIR maker, PW-2 Daryavsingh who had also informed the police about the incident besides the testimony of other eye witnesses including PW-3 Kesarsingh, PW-6 Narayankunwarbai and PW-9 Tejkunwarbai. The trial Court also took into consideration the medical evidence in the form of report given by PW-1 Dr. R. K. Agrawal and PW-12 Dr. Pradeep Jain who conducted post-mortem report on the dea