Karan Singh vs State Of M.P.
2023 Latest Caselaw 15081 MP

                      1

   IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                AT GWALIOR
                   BEFORE
      HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ROHIT ARYA
                      &
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL
    ON THE 13th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2023

       CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 112 OF 2001

  Between:-

  1.   KARAN SINGH, SON OF
  PRAHLAD SINGH, AGED ABOUT 35
  YEARS
  2.   RAJMOHAN,      SON     OF
  PRITHVI SINGH, AGED ABOUT 50
  YEARS,
  3.   PRAHLAD SINGH, SON OF
  PRITHVI SINGH, AGED ABOUT 70
  YEARS,
  4.   SUMER SINGH, SON OF
  PRITHVI SINGH, AGED ABOUT 65
  YEARS,
  5.   PAPPU ALIAS TORAN SINGH,
  SON OF PRAHLAD SINGH, AGED
  ABOUT 28 YEARS,
  6.   VIREN ALIAS VIRENDRA
  SINGH, SON OF KISHORE SINGH,
  AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS.
     OCCUPATION OF ALL OF THEM
  IS KASTKARI, RESIDENTS OF
  VILLAGE     KITHORI,    POLICE
  STATION    TYONDA,    DISTRICT
  VIDISHA (MADHYA PRADHESH)
                                 ........APPELLANTS
                                        2

(SHRI RK SHARMA- SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH SHRI V.K
AGRAWAL- ADVOCVATE, SHRI D.R. SHARMA & SHRI
S.N.DUBEY- ADVOCATES FOR APPELLANTS)

       AND

STATE    OF   MADHYA    PRADESH,
THROUGH POLICE STATION TYONDA,
DISTRICT VIDISHA (M.P.)

                                                       ........RESPONDENT

(SHRI A. K. NIRANKARI- PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR
RESPONDENT- STATE)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reserved on                   :       6TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023
Delivered on                  :       13th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       This appeal having been heard and reserved for judgment,
coming on for pronouncement this day, HON'BLE SHRI
JUSTICE DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL passed the following:-
                                JUDGMENT

Present Criminal Appeal u/S 374 of CrPC has been preferred by aforesaid appellants, challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26-12-2000 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Ganj Basoda, District Vidisha (MP) in Sessions Trial No.109 of 1998, whereby appellants have been convicted under Section 148, 302/149, 323/149 of IPC (on three counts) and sentenced to undergo one year RI under Section 148 of IPC, rigorous Life Imprisonment with fine of Rs.200/- under Section 302/149 of IPC and further, sentenced to undergo six months' RI under Section 323/149 of IPC. All sentences have been directed to

run concurrently.

(2) In brief, prosecution case is that complainant Bhagwan Singh (PW6) lodged a report at Police Station Basoda, District Vidisha stating therein that he is doing farming and yesterday i.e. 16-12-1997 his sons, namely, Guddu (PW1) and Balveer (PW5) had gone for gazing cattle and since it was too cloudy in the evening, his sons could not able to return home in time, therefore, his elder brother Majbhoot Singh had gone to bring them with him. Accused Rajmohan, Sumer Singh, Viren alias Virendra Singh, Prahlad Singh, Karan Singh, Pappu and Toppa of his Village were already hiding themselves in the bushes on the way. As soon as they left from there, without saying anything else, accused Rajmohan gave a blow on the head of complainant Bhagwan Singh by means of Katarna (a sharp-cutting weapon) due to which, he fell down on the spot. Thereafter, accused Karan Singh and Viren alias Virendra Singh also gave blows of Katarna on his elder brother Majbhoot Singh. On hearing hue and cry, his sons Guddu and Balveer who had gone for gazing the cattle, reached there with whom accused Sumer, Prahlad, Pappu and Toppa also committed marpeet by means of Katarna and lathi as a result of which they had also sustained injuries. Thereafter, all the accused persons fled away from the place of occurrence. Sambhu Singh (PW7) and Kamar Singh of his village picked up his elder brother Majbhoot Singh to home where he was declared dead. It is further alleged that one day before incident, accused persons had gone for grazing the cattle to the field of complainant party and on account of this,

there was a quarrel took place between the complaint party and the accused party. On the basis of information of complainant Bhagwan Singh, an FIR Ex.P4 was lodged at Police Station Basoda, District Vidisha at around 05:20 in the morning on 17-12- 1997. Police prepared Panchanma of the dead body of deceased Majbhoot Singh and thereafter, it was sent for postmortem. As per autopsy report, the cause of death of deceased Majbhoot Singh was found to be due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of injury to the vital part of his brain and lung.

Injured Guddu, Balveer and Bhagwan Singh were also medically examined. Tyonda Police during investigation prepared a spot map and collected blood-stained and plain soil from spot. Viscera of deceased as well as blood-stained clothes were preserved for examination. Accused were arrested. Lathi from the possession of accused Sumer Singh, Prahlad Singh, Toppa, Pappu alias Toran Singh and Katarna (sharp-cutting weapon) from the possession of accused Rajmohan and Karan Singh were also seized. Statements of the witnesses were recorded. The seized articles were sent for chemical examination. After completion of investigation and other formalities, charge sheet was filed before the Court of JMFC from where the case was committed to the Sessions Court for its trial. Accused abjured their guilt and pleaded complete innocence. They pleaded that they have been falsely implicated. Accused Prahlad, Viren alias Virendra and Pappu in their defence stated that they were not present on spot at the time of occurrence. In order to prove charges, the prosecution examined as

many as 19 witnesses whereas, in order to lead their evidence accused examined Dr.BP Sharma, Dhiraj Singh and Raees as DW1, DW2 and DW3. After conclusion of trial, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the present appellants for the aforesaid offences as mentioned in para 1 of this judgment. Hence, this appeal. (3) Challenging the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, it is contended on behalf of appellants that although PW1-Guddu, PW5-Balveer and PW-6 Bhagwan Singh are alleged to be injured and eye-witnesses as well as related to the deceased, but their evidence is not reliable, because there are some inconsistencies in their evidence recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of CrPC. It is further contended that Assistant Sub-Inspector Jitendra Singh Sengar (PW-13) in para 23 of his evidence has specifically deposed that there were no bushes at the place of occurrence which appears the prosecution story doubtful. Although injured witnesses PW1-Guddu, PW5-Balveer and PW6-Bhagwan Singh in their evidence deposed that accused Rajmohan, Karan Singh and Viren alias Virendra had caused injuries by means of Katarna (a sharp-edged weapon) to deceased Majbhoot Singh on his head but in their statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of CrPC there is no such allegation, thus, the prosecution has exaggerated the allegation regarding killing of deceased by accused by means of Katarna (sharp-edged weapon). Although there is an allegation of causing injuries by means of Katarna on the head of deceased but as per opinion of doctor, there was no injury found on head of deceased caused by deadly weapon. It is further contended

that Dr. K.K.Shrivastava (PW11) has clearly deposed in paragraph 28 of his evidence that there was no injury by sharp-cutting weapon on the body of deceased and this fact has not been taken into consideration by the learned trial Court while passing the impugned judgment. Bhagwan Singh (PW6) in para 10 of his cross-examination deposed that accused Rajmohan gave two Katarna blows on the head of deceased and accused Karan Singh gave two Katarna blows on the head of deceased, but deceased had sustained total two injuries on his head which does not corroborate medical evidence as except this, there is no injury found on the body of the deceased. Prosecution has not given any explanation of injuries sustained by accused Rajmohan and Karan Singh in order to right of private defence which was necessary for prosecution, thus, in absence of explanation of injuries, the prosecution evidence has become incredible. Evidence of eye-witnesses is not supported by other circumstances, hence, their evidence is not reliable.

The mandatory provisions enumerated under Section 157 of CrPC have not been followed which were required to be followed by Investigating Officer and the FIR has been deliberately delayed and copy of of the same was not sent to nearest Police Station but it was sent to a remote Police Station which is evident that appellants have been falsely implicated as there is no possibility of causing injuries by them to the complainant party. Accused- Injured Rajmohan along with Karan Singh had lodged a cross-FIR at PS Tyonda, District against the complainant party. Although

complainant Bhagwan Singh has alleged that accused have caused injuries on them but no such injury of deadly weapon was found and thus, presence of appellants at place of occurrence creates prosecution story doubtful because as per the allegation of prosecution, all accused persons were present on spot with deadly weapons by which deceased and injured persons were said to have sustained injuries in the incident but there is neither any injury of deadly weapon on deceased nor on the injured, therefore, no offence is made out either with aid of Section 148 or 149 of IPC or u/S 323 of IPC against appellants. At the time of preparing seizure memo during investigation by the police, there was no blood-stain found on the weapons or has any injury been found to be caused by any sharp- edged weapon on the body of deceased or the injured. The learned trial Court without properly appreciating prosecution evidence has committed an error in convicting and sentencing the present appellants vide impugned judgment. Hence, the appellants deserve to be acquitted and appeal filed by them deserves to be allowed.

(4) Relying judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Baliraj Singh vs. State of MP, AIR 2017 SC 2114, it is contended on behalf of appellants that the prosecution has utterly failed to put a strong case in order to attach the credence of above three injured witnesses i.e. Guddu (PW1), Balveer (PW5) and Bhagwan Singh (PW6) while assessing their evidence before the Court although above three witnesses are alleged to be eye-witnesses and related to deceased but there is obvious contradiction between their evidence

and medical evidence and there is no independent eye-witnesses from the village to corroborate their evidence. Further, relying on judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Hallu and Others vs. State of MP, AIR 1974 SC 1936, it is contended on behalf of appellants that it is the duty of the prosecution to obtain a clarification from the witnesses as to whether a sharp-edged weapon was used in the alleged incident by the accused person and relying on judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bhola Singh vs. State of Punjab AIR 1999 SC 767, it is contended on behalf of appellants that as per the opinion of doctor the injuries sustained by deceased could have been caused by hard and deadly weapon and there was no injury of sharp-edged weapon on the body of deceased which appears doubtful the evidence of above witnesses in regard to causing injuries to the deceased by which of accused by means of which weapon leading to death of deceased and it is highly improbable for use of sharp-cutting weapon by the accused persons in the alleged incident. (5) The next contention on behalf of appellants that accused Rajmohan and Karan were also injured in the incident in order to right to private defence and no explanation of injuries sustained by them is fatal to the prosecution case, which shows that the prosecution has suppressed the real genesis of case and an inference can be drawn against the prosecution that the prosecution has suppressed the real genesis and origin of occurrence and has not produced the true version. The witnesses who have specifically denied the presence of injuries on the person of accused is lying on

the most material point and, therefore, their evidence is not reliable and, thus, it is rendered probable so as to throw a doubt on the prosecution version. In this regard, reliance has been placed on the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Lakshmi Singh and Others vs. State of Bihar AIR 1976 SC 2263, Ram Singh and Others vs. State of Haryana AIR 1998 SC 1759 and S. Velayudhan vs. Krishnan 1998(1) MPWN SN 45. Relying on judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ram Sarup & Others vs. State of Haryana 1993 Criminal Law Journal 3540, it is also contended on behalf of appellants that it is the burden on the prosecution to prove its case including the manner of occurrence beyond reasonable doubt as defence version of the accused was a probable version of occurrence but the learned trial Court while passing the impugned judgment did not take into consideration this aspect and has wrongly convicted the present appellants.

(6) Relying on judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sukumaran vs. State represented by the Inspector of Police (2019) 15 SCC 117 and Laxman Singh vs. Poonam Singh & Others, AIR 2003 SC 3204, the next contention on behalf of appellants is that as per the provisions of Section 105 of Indian Evidence Act, it is not necessary for accused to plead in so many words that they had acted in self-defence. Though burden lies on accused to establish plea of self-defence but by referring to the circumstances and material on record, burden on the accused stands discharged by the Court and, therefore,the accused are not required

to call evidence in support of their pleas.

(7) Per contra, the learned counsel for the State by supporting the impugned judgment submits that the learned trial Court after appreciating and marshalling the evidence in proper perspective has rightly inflicted Life Imprisonment on the appellants looking to the nature of injuries sustained by deceased as well as the injured and, therefore, appeal preferred by appellants deserves to be dismissed.

(8) Before entering into to the rival conventions of parties, this Court thinks it apposite to go through the evidence of following material witnesses.

(9) One of the injured witnesses, namely, Guddu (PW1) in his evidence deposed that his grand-father's name is Majbhoot Singh (since deceased). On the date of alleged incident, his father and grand-father as well as his younger brother Balveer were coming to house from his back nearly a distance of 20-25 feet away and when they reached near the bushes on the way, they saw that accused Viren alias Virendra Singh, Rajmohan, Sumer Singh, Prahlad Singh, Toppa and Pappu Singh were already hidden themselves in the bushes on the way. Virendra Singh and Rajmohan were armed with farsa (sharp-edged weapon) while the rest of accused were armed with sticks attached with iron. All accused persons came out of bushes and started beating by means of farsa and lathi by which he had sustained injuries on his teeth, head, legs, waist and his left finger was cut. This witness in para 5 of his examination-in-chief deposed that he cannot tell which of the accused persons had

caused injury on his body and due to injury he fell on the ground and became unconscious and he did not know that was happened with him. This witness in para 10 of his cross-examination deposed that he did not know as to whether on 16-12-1997 accused Rajmohan had lodged any report against him, his brother Balveer and father Bhagwan Singh regarding commission of marpeet with the accused party and he also did not know as to whether in the Court there is any case is going on against him and also did not know as to whether accused Rajmohan and Karan Singh had assaulted him by causing any injury. This witness in para 11 of his cross-examination deposed that he had narrated in his house that buffaloes of the accused party had entered in their field and when he objected to it, they abused in filthy languages and committed marpeet and he neither felt nor felt bad by being abused.

This witness in para 16 of his cross-examination deposed that accused Sumer Singh first hit him on his head by means of lathi and again, he had caused a lathi blow due to which he fell on the ground and became unconscious. This witness further admitted that he cannot tell how much time he became unconscious and became conscious in Basoda Hospital and he did not know who had brought him from the spot to hospital. This witness in para 18 of his cross-examination further deposed that accused Karan Singh was armed with a lathi (stick) and in his police diary statement Ex.D1 he did not disclose that accused Karan Singh had caused any injury by means of Katarna (a sharp-cutting weapon) to his grand- father Majbhoot Singh although he is known about the said weapon

and further, deposed that accused Rajmohan was armed with Katarna (sharp-cutting weapon) but he cannot tell as to whether accused Rajmohan had hit his grand-father Majbhoot Singh by means of Katarna or as to whether his grand-father Majbhoot Singh was killed by shearing. This witness further deposed that in his police diary statement Ex.D1 he had narrated the police that accused Rajmohan had inflicted Katarna blow but he cannot tell the reason as to why police had not written it.

(10) Another injured witness, namely, Balveer (PW5) in para 1 of his examination-in-chief deposed that when they had gone to Charnoi land of his village, he saw that accused Rajmohan, Karan and Viren alias Virendra were beating. Accused Rajmohan was having a Katarna (sharp-cutting weapon), accused Viren alias Virendra was having a luhangi and accused Karan Singh was having a Katarna and other accused persons Sumer Singh, Pappu, Toppa and Prahlad Singh were also committing marpeet with Bhagwan Singh. All the accused persons thereafter started committing marpeet with his brother Guddu and when they tried to commit marpeet with him, he quickly escaped from the place of occurrence. This witness further deposed that he had also sustained a luhangi blow on his head caused by accused Pappu. Accused Sumer Singh had inflicted a lathi blow on his left hand. Guddu had sustained injuries on his head, teeth and back due to which he had fallen at there and then, he ran towards his home and narrated the incident to his sister-in-law Anita Bai by which his sister-in-law Anita Bai had gone to the spot and brought Guddu, Majbhoot

Singh and Bhagwan Singh to home. This witness in para 5 and para 6 of his examination-in-chief deposed that Majbhoot Singh died on spot whose autopsy was conducted in Hospital and he did not know as to why accused had committed marpeet with them. This witness in para 8 of his cross-examination admitted that 35 bigha of land was in the name of deceased Majbhoot Singh and Sabba Bai, daughter of deceased Majbhoot Singh had given an application for mutation of land before the Tahsildar and he did not know as to whether there is any land dispute between his family with Sabba Bai. This witness in para 15 of his cross-examination deposed that in his presence accused Rajmohan had inflicted one Katarna blow and accused Karan Singh had inflicted one Katarna blow and accused Viren alias Virendra had inflicted luhangi blow twice on deceased Majbhoot Singh.

This witness further in para 16 of his cross-examination deposed that Katarna blow given by accused Rajmohan was hit on the front side of head, Katarna blow given by accused Karan Singh was touched back side of head and luhangi blow given by accused Viren alias Virendra was hit on the shoulders of deceased Majbhoot Singh and this fact was told by him to the police and he cannot say as to why the police did not mention this fact in his police diary statement Ex.D3. This witness in para 23 of his cross-examination stated that his village Sikroda is three miles away and he cannot tell as to whether in the evening at around 05:00, Sapanch Aliya or his uncle had gone with them for lodging a report. This witness in para 26 of his cross-examination admitted that prior to incident, there

was no dispute with accused party and further admitted that against him, accused had lodged a report at Police Station Tyonda in which case he, his brother Guddu and brother Bhagwan Singh were made accused. He had not seen the injuries sustained by accused appellants Rajmohan and Karan Singh and did not know that treatment of such two accused was going on in Tyonda Hospital. This witness admitted that on the date of incident in the morning a quarrel had taken place between his brother Ramsevak and accused persons, over the dispute of grazing buffaloes and when quarrel took place, he was not present at spot and his brother Ramsevak had narrated him about the quarrel took place with him. (11) Further, complainant injured Bhagwan Singh (PW6) who is author of FIR, in para 1 of his examination-in-chief deposed that Majbhoot Singh who, on the date of incident, was coming from his back, was attacked by accused Rajmohan and Karan Singh by means of Katarna and thereafter, the rest of accused Sumer Singh, Pappu armed with luhangi, Toppa and Prahlad Singh armed with lathi committed marpeet. This witness in para 10 deposed that accused Rajmohan had hit two blows of Katarna on the head of Majbhoot Singh and accused Karan Singh had hit two blows of Katarna on the head of Majbhoot Singh and again, accused Viren alias Virendra had also given two blows of Katarna on the head on Majbhoot Singh and Majbhoot had sustained total six injuries on his body out of which, two-three injuries were on his waist and back. This witness in para 22 deposed that no case is lodged by accused against them for causing assault and accused may file a

report against them in PS Tyonda; he did not know as to whether accused Rajmohan and Karan were injured in the incident and did not know as to whether both of accused Rajmohan and Karan were medically examined. This witness further deposed that prior to the incident, either there was any dispute or there was any quarrel even with his son Ramsevak.

(12) Dr.KK Shrivastava (PW11) who had conducted postmortem of deceased Majbhoot Singh in para 14(3) of his cross-examination deposed that cause of death of deceased was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of injury to vital part of brain and lung and death of deceased was within 12-14 hours of postmortem examination and the injuries suffered by deceased were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. This witness again in para 28 of his cross-examination admitted that injuries sustained by deceased could have been caused by hard and deadly weapon and there was no injury of sharp-edged weapon on the body of deceased. Dr.KK Shrivastava (PW11) had also medically examined injured complainant Bhagwan Singh (PW6), injured Guddu (PW1) and injured Balveer (PW5). According to opinion of doctor, the injuries sustained by above-said three injured may be caused by hard and blunt object and simple in nature.

(13) Accused- injured Rajmohan and Karan Singh in order to lead their evidence examined Dr. BP Sharma as DW1. Dr.BP Sharma (DW1) in his evidence deposed that on 16-12-1997 he was posted in Primary Health Centre, Tyonda and at around 09:20 in the night, he medically examined injured- accused Rajmohan and

found following injuries on his body:-

''(i) Incised wound on right side parietal region of head of size about 6cm x 1½ cm x 1cm with sharp edged margins suspected fracture;

(ii) Lacerated wound on right side frontal region of head of size about 6 cm x1 ½ cm x 1 cm suspected fracture;

(iii) Lacerated wound on frontal region of head medial to injury no.2 size about 4 cm x 1 ½ cm cm x 1 cm suspected fracture;

(iv) Lacerated wound on forehead right side and near hairline size about 3x 1 ½ cm x 2 cm;

(v) Contusion on right hand middle and ring finger middle part each one size about 4 cm x 3 cm suspected fracture in middle finger of middle phalanx;

(vi) Contusion on right side posterior chest over lower part size about 7cm x 6 cm suspected fracture rib;

(vii) Abrasion on left hand on ring finger outside size 2 x 1 cm;

(viii) Contusion on left upper arm upper part aspect size about 6 cm x 5 cm.'' According to opinion of doctor, all injuries are looking to simple in nature and can be caused by hard and blunt and rough object, except Injury No.1 can be caused by sharp-edged object. Report is Ex.D6.

(14) Similarly, Dr. BP Sharma (DW1) had medically examined injured- accused Karan Singh on the same day and found following injuries on on his body:-

''(i) Incised wound on right side parietal region of head of size about 7 cmx1cm x 1cm with sharp edged margins suspected fracture;

(ii) Lacerated wound on left side occipital region of head of size about 3 cm x 1 ½ cm x 1 cm;

(iii) Contusion on left leg calf region lateral aspect of size about 7 cm x 6 cm suspected fracture;

(iv) Contusion on left shoulder size about 6 cm x 5 cm

suspected fracture;

(v) Contusion on left little finger size about 3 cm x 2 cm;

(vi) Contusion on left elbow posterior-lateral aspect size about 8 cm x 6 cm suspected fracture.'' According to opinion of doctor, all injuries are looking simple in nature and can be caused by hard and blunt and rough object except Injury No.1 which can be caused by sharp edged object. Report is Ex.D7.

(15) So far as contention on behalf of appellants that Assistant Sub-Inspector Jitendra Singh Sengar (PW-13) in para 23 of his evidence has specifically deposed that there were no bushes at the place of incident which appears the prosecution story doubtful is concerned, the same cannot be accepted as the said ASI was not obviously present when the incident took place, he has to derive the knowledge as to when, where and how the incident happened from the witnesses who had seen the incident. Therefore, the said contention deserves to be rejected.

(16) So far as right to private- defence is concerned, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Darshan Singh vs. State of Punjab and Another (2010) 2 SCC 333 has laid down following 10 golden principles after analyzing Sections 96 and 106 of IPC regarding right to private defence as under:-

"(i) Self- reservation is the basic human instinct and is duly recognized by the criminal jurisprudence of all civilized countries. All free, democratic and civilized countries recognize the right of private defence within certain reasonable limits.

(ii) The right of private defence is available only to one who is suddenly confronted with the necessity of

averting an impending danger and not of self-creation.

(iii) A mere reasonable apprehension is enough to put the right of self-defence into operation. In other words, it is not necessary that there should be an actual commission of the offence in order to give rise to the right of private defence. It is enough if the accused apprehended that such an offence is contemplated and it is likely to be committed if the right of private defence is not exercised.

(iv) The right of private defence commences as soon as a reasonable apprehension arises and it is coterminous with the duration of such apprehension.

(v) It is unrealistic to expect a person under assault to modulate his defence step by step with any arithmetical exactitude.

(vi) In private defence the force used by the accused ought not to be wholly disproportionate or much greater than necessary for protection of the person or property.

(vii) It is well settled that even if the accused does not plead self-defence, it is open to consider such a plea if the same arises from the material on record.

(viii) The accused need not prove the existence of the right of private defence beyond reasonable doubt.

(ix) The Penal Code confers the right of private defence only when that unlawful or wrongful act is an offence.

(x) A person who is in imminent and reasonable danger of losing his life or limb may in exercise of self- defence inflict any harm even extending to death on his assailant either when the assault is attempted or directly threatened."

(17) From the evidence of Dr.BP Sharma (DW1) who had medically examined appellants-accused Rajmohan and Karan Singh, deposed that all the injuries sustained by both of accused Rajmohan and Karan Singh are simple in nature and can be caused by hard and blunt and rough object, except Injury No.1 which can

be caused by sharp-edged object.

(18) From the evidence of above-said three injured eye-witnesses i.e. Guddu (PW1), Balveer (PW5) and Bhagwan Singh (PW6) although there appears some minor contradictions and omissions regarding causing of injury by which of weapons by which of the accused to deceased Majbhoot Singh and them, but it is well-settled principle of law that minor contradictions, omissions or inconsistencies do not affect the core of prosecution case and should not be taken to be a ground to reject prosecution evidence wholly. The fact that although above-said three injured witnesses are related to deceased Majbhoot Singh is not in dispute but existence of such relationship by itself does not render evidence of these witnesses untrustworthy. Where, above three eye- witnesses to occurrence have himself been injured in alleged incident, their evidence is generally considered to be reliable. (19) In view of aforesaid analysis, it is clear that there are inconsistencies in the statements of injured eye-witnesses in regard to the weapon with which injury has been caused and by which of appellants. From the evidence of Dr.BP Sharma (DW1), it is also clear that two of accused, namely, Rajmohan and Karan Singh sustained simple injuries caused by hard, blunt and rough object along with one injury of sharp-edged weapon. Therefore, it appears that in a sudden dispute taking place between the parties, appellants have caused injuries to deceased exceeding the right of their private defence. Therefore, their act will fall under Exception-4 of Section 300 of IPC. Accordingly, conviction of appellants under Section

302/149 of IPC is altered to Section 304 Part II/149 of IPC for culpable homicide not amounting to murder with sentence of seven years RI and fine as imposed by trial Court under Section 302/149 of IPC. The findings of conviction and sentence of appellants recorded by the trial Court under Sections 148, 323/149 (on three counts) of IPC are hereby affirmed.

(20) In the light of aforesaid, present appeal deserves to be and is allowed in part. Appellants are on bail, their bail bonds shall stand cancelled. From perusal of record, it appears that none of appellants has suffered jail sentence of seven years, they are directed to surrender before the concerning trial Court for undergoing the remaining jail sentence, failing which the trial Court shall be at liberty to issue arrest warrant against them.

A copy of this judgment along with record be sent to trial Court for information and compliance.

      (ROHIT ARYA)                      (DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL)
          JUDGE                                    JUDGE




MKB

             MAHENDRA BARIK
             2023.09.15 02:59:22
             +05'30'