SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Umrao
Vs
State of Haryana and Others
Criminal Appeals Nos. 1387 of 1999 and 1388/1999
(S. B. Sinha and P. P. Naolekar, JJ)
12.05.2006
S. B. SINHA, J.
1. The appellant before us in Criminal Appeal No. 1387/99 is the first
informant of First Information Report (FIR) No. 3 86 lodged on 17.9.1992 at
Narnaul Police Station in Tehsil Narnaul in relation to an occurrence which
took place at about 6/ 6.30 A.M. on that day wherein the respondent Nos.2 to 6
in Criminal Appeal No. 1387/99, respondents in Criminal Appeal No. 1388/99,
along with one Ram Dayal, were arrayed as accused for alleged commission of an
offence punishable under Sections 148, 302/149, 307/149, 325/149 and 506/149 of
the Indian Penal Code ('I.P.C.', for short). In the said FIR, it was alleged by
the appellant herein, Umrao, that at the said hour, i.e., 6/6.30 A.M. he went
to the tube well owned by his brother Rewti, along with his son-Raj inder and
his brother. They found that the accused persons were removing the electric
motor therefrom. On their asking the accused persons not to do so, Yad Ram
hurled a blow by the reverse side of "kassi", which he was carrying
in his hand, on the head of Rajinder (since deceased). Rajinder is son of the
appellant. He further hurled a blow with the said "kassi"on the head
of the deceased, who fell down. The accused-respondent No.2-Babu Lai and
respondent No.3-Ram Swarup also hurled several blows with "jelly" and
"lathi" respectively, on the waist and back side of shoulders of the
deceased. Respondent No.5-Golu Ram caused one injury on the head while
respondent No.6-Ramji Lai caused one injury on the left elbow and another on
left rib of the appellant-Umrao by giving several lathi blows. Yad Ram again
inflicted a "kassi" blow from its reverse side on the right rib of
Rewti. Ram Dayal caused injuries on the waist and one injury each on both the
hands of Rewti.
2. It is not disputed that some of the respondents also suffered injuries.
Rajinder (since deceased) was admitted in the Civil Hospital, Narnaul on
17.9.1992. He was discharged from the said hospital on 25.9.1992 at about 8
A.M. He was again admitted in the hospital on the same day. At about 9.25 P.M.
on 28.9.1992 he was operated upon by Dr. Sanjeev Dua (P.W.8). Rajinder expired
on 30.9.1992.
3. After the deceased was admitted to the hospital, an information was sent to
the Narnaul Police Station, whereupon the P.W.12-Anishi Lai, Head Constable
visited the hospital and recorded the statement of the appellant at about 2.30
P.M. The FIR was lodged on the same day at 2.40 P.M. on the basis of the said
statements.
4. The defence of the respondents as regards the death of the said Rajinder was
that after his discharge from the hospital on 25.9.1992, he fell down from the
staircase of his house at about 7.15 in the evening as a result whereof he
sustained head injuries leading to his death.
5. The accused persons, respondents Nos. 2 to 6 herein, together with said Ram
Dayal were put on trial for alleged commission of the said offences. The
Additional Sessions Judge, Narnaul, by reason of his judgment dated 30.11.1995
convicted them for commission of offences under Sections 148, 302/149, 307/149
and 325/149 of I.P.C., but, acquitted them of the charges under Section 506/149
I.P.C. The learned Trial Judge passed the judgment acquitting Ram Dayal having
regard to his age.
6. For causing the death of Rajinder, under Section 302/149 I.P.C. the
respondent Nos.2 to 6 herein were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life
and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- each. They were furthermore sentenced to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for four years under Section 307/149 I.P.C. for attempt
to murder Rewti and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years
for causing grievous hurt to the appellant herein. They were moreover convicted
under Section 148 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six
months. In default of payment of fine, the accused were to undergo further
rigorous imprisonment for one year. All the sentences were, however, directed
to run concurrently. The learned trialjudge, while recording the judgment of
conviction and sentence, relied upon the evidence of the appellant herein
(examined as P.W.9.) and one Har Dhian (P.W. 10) who were eyewitnesses to the
occurrence. The learned Trial Judge also noticed that the deceased had suffered
the following ante-mortem injuries:
"1. A lacerated wound 8.3 x 1 cms. On the right parietal temporal region.
Bone deep. Edges were irregular and contused.
2. A lacerated wound 3 x 1 cms on the left parietal region. It bled on
cleaning.
3. A lacerated wound 3x1 cms on the left shoulder. It was muscle deep and there
was an abrasion in continuation of 3 cms size.
4. A reddish contusion 5 x 1.5 cms on the left shoulder on its lateral aspect.
Swelling was present.
5. A reddish contusion 8 x 1.5 cms on the left scapular region, 4 cms from
injury No.4.
6. Multiple abrasions five in number from 1.2 x .5 cms to 1 x 1 cm. on the left
side of scapular region. Oozed blood was clotted.
7. A reddish contusion 10 x 1.5 cms on the left scapular region, 5 cms from
injury No.5.
8. A reddish contusion 15 x 1.5 cms on the left scapular region.
9. A reddish contusion 20x1.5 cms on the left side of the chest, 4 cms from
injury No.8.
10. A reddish contusion 14 x 1.5 cms on the right scapular region.
11. 13 x 1.5 cms reddish contusion on the right side of loin swelling was
present."
7. The Trial Judge further noticed that the appellant and the said Rewti had
suffered the following injuries on their person:
"Injuries sustained by the appellant-Umrao:
1. A lacerated wound 3x1 cms on the left front parietal region. It was bone
deep. Edges were irregular and contused.
2. A lacerated wound 1.5 x 1 cms on the left scapular region. It was having an
abrasion of 7 x .3 cms in the continuation of injury downwards.
3. A reddish contusion 5x3 cms on the left hand. Swelling was present on metacarpal
region.
4. Complained of pain on the left side of the chest with redness on the lower
half on chest.
5. A reddish contusion 2x2 cms on the left elbow."
"Injuries sustained by Rewti:
1. A reddish contusion 14 x 1 cms on the left side of chest. It was also
present on scapular region. Swelling was present.
2. A reddish contusion 6 cms x 1.5 cms on the right side of scapula.
3. A reddish contusion 6x1 cms on the left side of lion regions. Swelling was
present.
4. A reddish contusion 8x2 cms on the right side of lion. Swelling was present.
5. A reddish contusion 6x2 cms on the lateral aspect right side of chest.
Swelling was present X-ray was advised for ribs.
6. Abrasion 10 x .5 cms on the medical side of left forearm.
7. An abrasion 1x5 cms on the posterior of right middle finger."
8. On an appeal being preferred from the said judgment of conviction and
sentence by the respondents herein, the High Court, set aside the conviction of
respondents under Sections 148/149, 307/149 and 302/149 I.P.C. The High Court,
however convicted Ramji Lai for causing grievous and other injuries to the
appellant and sentenced him to undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment for
commission of an offence punishable under Section 325 I.P.C. and two years'
rigorous imprisonment for an offence punishable under Section 326 I.P.C. The
High Court furthermore convicted Golu Ram for causing injuries to the appellant
and sentenced him to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment for the offence
punishable under Section 325 I.P.C. and two years' rigorous imprisonment for
the offence punishable under Section 326 I.P.C, Babu Lai and Ram Swarup were
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years for commission of the
offence punishable under Section 326 I.P.C.
9. The High Court set aside the conviction and sentence of Yad Ram under
Section 148, 325/149, 307/149 and 302/149 and sentenced him to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for five years under Section 304 Part-II I.P.C. for causing injury
on the head of Rajinder and directed him to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-, in default
whereof, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and also
sentenced him to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment under Section 326
I.P.C. for causing grievous injury to Rewti. It was directed that out of the
amount of fine of Rs.5, 000/-, which was to be deposited by accused-Yad Ram, a
sum of Rs. 1, 000/- to be paid to Rewti by way of compensation and the balance
of Rs. 4, 000/- to be paid to the appellant herein.
10. The High Court, in its judgment, opined that the claim of the appellant
that he and Ramji Lai had dug well was not borne out from his statement before
the police. His statement that he had installed the electric motor in the well
was also found to be not correct.
11. As regards the defence of the respondents was that the said well was dug by
them in their own land and it was Ram Dayal who installed the said motor and
obtained an electric connection. Before the trial court, defence witnesses were
also examined to show that the electric connection was obtained by Ram Dayal in
respect of the motor in question. The defence, however, contended that it was
in fact the complainant and other witnesses who were removing the electric
motor from the well and when they forbade them from doing so, they were
attacked. It was concluded that on the date when the accused Babu Lai, Ram
Swamp and Yad Ram came to know that the appellant herein and the others were
removing the motor, they came to the place of occurrence and asked them not to
do so. But, not only they did not pay any heed thereto, but also attacked and
caused injuries to Babu Lai, Ram swarup and Yad Ram, who, in exercise of their
right of self-defence, caused some injuries to the prosecution party.
12. The High Court recorded:
"....From the evidence available on record, we are of the view that the
occurrence must have been the result of a sudden quarrel between these two
parties, and that it was not a premeditated incident, because, even in the
F.I.R. itself it has been stated that when the complainant-party forbade the
accused Babu Lai took jaily, accused Yad Ram took a kassi and the other accused
took a lathi each and attacked them (complainant party)."
13. The High Court opined that it was the complainant-party who came to the
land of Ramji Lai where the well was situated, which was a joint well belonging
to both the parties. The High Court was also of the view that the appellant
along with his Rewti and his son had gone to the fields for no special purpose
and thus there was no question of respondents' forming an unlawful assembly
with the object of killing Rajinder and inflicting injuries to the
complainant-Umrao and Rewti. It was held:
"....This is obviously so because the accused-Ramji Lai could not have
expected these persons to come to the place of occurrence at that time. It is
clear from the evidence that accused-Ram Dayal had secured an electric
connection for the motor on 3.9.1992 i.e., a few days prior to the date of
occurrence whereas, even in November 1991 the service connection in the name of
Rewti was disconnected. Therefore, it is seen that disputes had arisen between
the parties with regard to the motor which had been installed by Ram Dayal.
Obviously, the accused-party would not remove the motor belonging to Ram Dayal
or even Rewti. The complainant party must have been aggrieved since Ram Dayal
had installed a motor and obtained a separate service connection also, while
they were not able to use the motor and because of this, there should have
arisen a dispute leading to a sudden quarrel between both the parties without
any pre-arranged plan, in which both the sides had sustained injuries."
14. It was further found that the injuries on the person of the
respondents-Babu Lai, Ram swarup and Yad Ram had not been explained. It, therefore,
came to the conclusion that there must have been a free- fight between the
parties in which persons from both the sides were injured.
15. It was concluded:
"These circumstances go to show that the contention of the prosecution
that the accused had formed themselves into an unlawful assembly with the
common object of killing Rajinder and causing injuries to Umrao and Rewti
cannot be accepted."
16. On the aforementioned premise the High Court took into consideration
individual roles played by the respondents herein. It also considered the
question as to whether death of Rajinder took place as a result of injuries
suffered by reason of injuries inflicted by the respondents or whether the
defence version was true.
17. The High Court, upon analysing the materials on record came to the
conclusion that when Rajinder was admitted in the hospital on 17.9.1992, no
fracture was found on his head. His condition was found to be normal throughout
his treatment. No abnormality was detected in his condition, but, when he was
re-admitted in the evening of 25.9.1992, he was stated to have shown history of
vomiting after taking food. He was also found to be vomiting at the time of his
admission in the hospital. He was found to be in a delirious condition. After he
was brought to the hospital on that day, an X-ray was taken and a fracture of
the size of 3 cm x 0.4 cm on his head was detected. The C.T. Scan examination
also revealed that there was a large intra cerebral haemotoma.
18. The High Court noticed:
".. .The evidence of Dr. Sanjeev Dua (P.W.8) shows that as per C.T. Scan
report a very large intra cerebral haemotoma was found and there was also large
collection of blood in the brain. He specifically stated that it is unusual for
the patient to remain conscious after sustaining injury like this. Therefore,
if there was such an injury on the head of Rajinder on 17-9.1992 itself leading
to the above said consequences, it is improbable that he could have been
conscious throughout the period from 17-9-1992 to 25-9-1992 when he was
discharged finding no abnormality in him."
19. As regards the explanation offered by the prosecution that such head
injuries might not have been found in the X-ray taken and furthermore the death
might have taken place due to delayed complication, the High Court opined:
"In view of our findings above that the injury, which ultimately proved
fatal, was caused to Rajinder after the discharge from the Civil Hospital,
Narnaul but before his re-admission on the same night, that this injury could
not have been caused on the date of the occurrence namely, 17-9-1992, that the
accused had not constituted an unlawful assembly with the common object of
killing Rajinder or attacking the other injured, that a sudden quarrel had
ensued between the parties in which Yad Ram had inflicted two blows on the head
of Rajinder, and also in view of the fact that Yad Ram had only used the
reverse side of the kassi, we are of the view that none of the accused could be
convicted of an offence under section 148 or under section 302 read with
section 149 of the Indian Penal Code."
20. Mr. R.K. Kapoor, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant took
us through the judgment of the learned Trial Court to contend that the defence
story that the deceased-Raj inder had another fall from the staircase at about
7/7.15 on 25.9.1992 has been disbelieved therein on assigning cogent and
sufficient reason therefor. In this behalf our attention has also been drawn to
the following findings of the learned trial Judge:
"...I do not find any merit in the contention of the learned counsel for
the accused. It is true that Rajinder was admitted to the Civil Hospital,
Narnaul, on 17-9-1992 and was discharged on 25-9-1992 at 8 A.M. Dr. Vijay Singh
P.W.I, has stated in cross-examination that Rajinder was re-admitted on the
same date and was referred to the Medical College & Hospital, Rohtak, on
his advice. He has further explained that he has the experience of delayed
head-injury complications taking place within a period of two years. Dr. M.P.
Lomoria P.W.2, who had radiologically examined Rajender, has stated that he is
not an expert radiologist and that the X-ray machine installed at Narnaul in
the hospital is small one and sometimes bone injuries are not detectable. As per
copy of the MLR Ex.PN of Rajender, as many as 11 injuries were found on his
person, out of which two were lacerated wounds on the parieto temporal regions.
One injury was bone deep. Rajender was operated upon by Dr. Sanjeev Dua P.W.8
on 28-9-1992 and he was testified that had found blood collection inside the
brain. He has also stated that Rajender had died on 30-9-1992 because of the
hemorrhage in the brain. In cross-examination he stated that as per C.T. report
there was very large intra-cerebral haematoma with rupture of blood in the
ventricle and there was a fracture in his skull. He also stated that the
possibility of having received the head injury by Rajender after his discharge
on 25-9-1992 and before his re-admission on the same date could not be ruled
out. From the evidence of the aforesaid Medical Officers it is clear that the
fracture of skull of Rajender was not detected by Dr. M.P. Lomoria P.W.2, when
he had radiologically examined him. It was for this reason that Rajender was
discharged from the hospital on 25-9-1992, but on the same day he developed
complications because of the head injury. There was no external injury on the
head at the time of re-admission in the hospital as stated in re-examination by
Dr. Vijay Singh P.W.I."
21. It was urged that the High Court committed a serious error in holding that
no offence under Section 307/149 I.P.C. was made out for causing injuries to
Rewti, in view of the clear findings of the learned Trial Judge relying on or
on the basis of the deposition of Dr. A.K. Chhakkar (P.W.7). According to the
learned counsel seven injuries were found on the person of Rewti and thus,
there was a possibility that the said injuries could prove to be dangerous to
life. It was also urged by Mr. Kapoor that the High Court also committed an
error in arriving at the finding that there was a free-fight between the
parties, in view of the fact that it was not necessary on the part of the
prosecution to explain the injuries on the person of the respondents herein.
22. In the instant case, we are only concerned with the question as to whether
the respondents had any intention to cause the death of the deceased Rajinder
and attempt to murder Rewti.
23. The fact that the parties were armed, is not in dispute. The plea of the
respondents was that the injuries were inflicted on the deceased Rajinder as
also upon the appellant and Rewti in exercise of their right of self-defence.
It may not be necessary for the prosecution to explain the injuries on the
person of the accused in all circumstances, but, it is trite that when such a
plea is raised and the court opines that the version of the accused persons may
be correct, the explanation of injuries on the person of the accused cannot be
put to a back seat or cannot simply be ignored. We have perused the evidence of
Dr. Sanjeev Dua, who examined himself as P.W.8. Dr. Dua, in his evidence,
stated that the possibility of Rajinder having received head injury after the
discharge at 8 a.m. on 25.9.1992 and before his re-admission on the same day at
9 P.M. in the Civil Hospital, cannot be ruled out. On re-examination by the
prosecution Dr. Dua categorically stated that as there was a head injury, he
did not go into the detail. The evidence of Dr. Dua, whereupon the learned
Trial Judge, inter alia, relied upon is suggestive of the fact that the
possibility of the said deceased Rajinder suffering a head injury after he was
discharged from the hospital could not be ruled out. It is not in dispute that
X-ray of the head of the deceased was taken when he was admitted in the
hospital on 17.9.1992 but no such injury was detected. The subsequent
explanation offered by the prosecution that a small fracture might not have
been noticed in the X-ray machine, is a matter of surmise and conjecture. We
have noticed hereinbefore that Dr. Sanjeev Dua-P.W. 8, who had operated upon
the deceased, categorically stated that the fracture was significant. Even
according to the doctor such a fracture might have been suffered by the
deceased after he was discharged from the hospital.
24. Evidently, the High Court was right in its finding that the appellant could
not be found to be guilty for causing the death of the deceased Rajinder.
25. Similarly, the findings of the High Court to the effect that the
respondents had not formed any common intention, therefore, cannot be said to
be suffering from any legal infirmity. The fact that both parties caused
injuries to the members of the other side is not in dispute. The fact that the
well was situated on the land of the respondent, is also not in dispute. It has
been found as of fact that the electric motor installed in the well belonged to
one of the respondents.
26. The prosecution laid a false claim thereover. It is in this situation, the
respondents cannot be said to have committed any offence if they had been
removing the motor, which was installed by them, from the well, which is said
to be jointly owned by the parties. If, on the other hand, defence version is
to be accepted, the appellant and the other witnesses having no right over the
said motor, could not have removed the same from the well. In any view of the
matter, the dispute was in regard to removing of the motor from the well. The
High Court, thus, cannot be said to have committed any error in arriving at the
finding that the respondents had no common object either to cause death of the
deceased Rajinder or to attempt to cause murder of Rewti. It is now well
settled that if two views are possible, the appellate court should not
interfere with the judgment of acquittal passed by the court below.
27. We are satisfied upon examination of the materials on record and in
particular, evidence of P.W.8, that the view taken by the High Court is a
possible view.
We, therefore, find it difficult to interfere with the impugned judgment of the
High Court. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed.
J