Rattan Lal Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
EmailAppeal: Criminal Appeal No. 546 of 2001
Petitioner: Rattan Lal
Respondent: State of Madhya Pradesh
Apeal: Criminal Appeal No. 546 of 2001
Judges: R.C. Lahoti & Brijesh Kumar, jj.
Date of Judgment: Aug 20, 2002
Head Note:
CRIMINAL LAW
Evidence Act, 1872
a) Section 3 – Natural witness – Wife – Incident taking place, when deceased sitting on platform outside house – Wife inside – Emerging on hearing noise – Trying to intervene – Also injured – Went along injured husband to police station and hospital. Held that she was natural witness and believable. (Para 10)
b) Section 3 – Natural witnesses – Incident in village – Many persons witnessing – None coming forward – Assault by one brother upon other and third also witnessing held that villagers rightly have not taken sides in dispute of real brothers. (Para 11)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. The present case is a sad story of a family consisting of three brothers of whom one has died, the other is the accused and the third one an eye witness to the incident, for whom the blood relation with the living has proved to be thicker than with the one who has died and has turned hostile. The prosecution case rests on the sole testimony of an eye witness Kala Bai PW-11, the widow of the victim.
2. The accused-appellant has been convicted for the commission of offences punishable under sections 302 and 323 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life for the offences under section 302 IPC and to one year’s rigorous imprisonment for the offence under section 323 IPC. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. An appeal preferred by the accused appellant has been dismissed by the High Court. This is an appeal by special leave.
3. Rattan Lal the accused-appellant, Balaram the deceased and Gopal PW-14 are three real brothers. The prosecution case is that there was a separation in the family consequent whereupon Balaram (deceased) and Gopal started living together in one house while Rattan Lal, the accused-appellant separated and started living in a different house.
4. A major part of the property was taken possession of by Rattan Lal. Gopal the youngest brother was not given his share which continued to be possessed by Rattan Lal. Balaram, the deceased and his wife Kala Bai PW-11 were insisting on Rattan Lal to give the legitimate share of property to Gopal and that was the cause of dispute between the deceased and the accused.
5. On 7.4.1991, more than a month before the incident in which Balaram died, there was a dispute wherein the accused-appellant had given a beating to the deceased Balaram. The incident was reported to police as a non-cognizable offence under section 323 IPC. Balaram was medically examined by Dr. A.K. Jain PW-2 on 7.4.1991 and vide injury memo exhibit P/6 Balaram was found to have sustained five abrasions on his person, all caused by hard and blunt object like a lathi. On 19.5.1991, the date of the incident, at about 7.00 p.m., Balaram was sitting on the platform outside his house. Gopal was also there. The accused-appellant came there armed with lathi. There was some verbal exchange between the deceased and the accused regarding division of the property and share to be given to Gopal. The accused-appellant got enraged and opened an assault on Balaram. Hearing the hue and cry Kala Bai, who was inside the house, came out. She and Gopal tried to intervene. The accused-appellant did not spare the interveners and dealt lathi blows on the person of Kala Bai and Gopal too. Having dealt several lathi blows on the person of Balaram, thereafter, the accused-appellant ran away.
6. Balaram fell down severely injured. He was put on a cot and taken to P.S. Barnagar in a matador. The police station is situated at a distance of about 18 kilometres from the place of occurrence. The first information report of the incident was lodged by Kala Bai at about 11.30 p.m. Deceased Balaram, Kala Bai and Gopal, the three injured in the incident were referred for medico-legal examination to civil hospital, Barnagar. Dr. L.A. Kapadia, PW-1 examined the three injured persons. Balaram was found to have sustained the following injuries on his person.
1. Lacerated wound 4″ x ½” x ½” along the right eyebrow extending upto bridge of nose on right side.
2. Lacerated wound 2″ x ½” x ½” below the right eyelid.
3. Depressed fracture of right frontal bone.
4. Haematoma diffused on right side of the face.
7. Kala Bai wife of Balaram was found to have sustained a defused contusion on left leg. Gopal PW-14 was found to have sustained a defused contusion around left elbow and abrasion on the left hand. The injuries to all the three were caused by hard and blunt object. The injuries suffered by Kala Bai and Gopal were simple in nature. The injuries suffered by Balaram were all grievous in nature and dangerous to life. Dr. Kapadia advised all the injuries suffered by Balaram to be X-rayed and also to be examined by dental surgeon.
8. Dr. B.K. Rawaka PW-7 dental surgeon of civil hospital, Barnagar examined Balaram. He found the jaw of Balaram to have been fractured. Balaram had sustained injuries on the lips and inside the cheek also. In the opinion of Dr. Rawaka these injuries were caused by a hard and blunt object.
9. Before any X-ray could be taken Balaram died at about 4.00 p.m. on 20.5.1991. Autopsy on the dead body was performed by Dr. Kapadia. On internal examination, Dr. Kapadia found depressed fracture of right frontal bone as also of parietal bone. There was laceration in right hemisphere of brain. In the opinion of Dr. Kapadia, Balaram had died on account of acute head injury and shock following multiple injuries over skull inflicted on him before death. The lathi said to have been used by the accused for causing the injuries and seized by the police was shown to Dr. Kapadia during his examination in the court and Dr. Kapadia opined that injuries to Balaram could have been caused by such lathi.
10. The incident has been narrated by Kala Bai PW-11 vividly. Kala Bai is a natural witness to the incident as in the evening time when Balaram is said to have suffered the injuries he was sitting on the platform just outside the house and Kala Bai was present inside the house. She came out on hearing the noise and witnessed the assault by the accused on her husband. She herself has suffered an injury while intervening to save her husband from the assault by the accused appellant. She accompanied her semiconscious husband to the police station and lodged the F.I.R. within 5 hours of the time of incident. We have no reason to disbelieve her testimony. The same has been corroborated by the promptly lodged F.I.R., and the medical evidence. Though Gopal PW-14 is also an eye witness to the incident however it is writ large that he had to choose between the brother who has died and the brother who was alive. He resolved his dilemma by choosing to support the brother alive, the accused-appellant, and therefore, turned hostile.
11. Though it is said that there were other village people present at the time of the incident but none has come forward to support the prosecution case. It is clear that the villagers too have chosen not to take sides in a dispute involving the real brothers. Kala Bai has been believed by the learned sessions judge who recorded her statement. She has been found to be witness of truth by the High Court and we see no reason to take a different view.
12. We are, therefore, satisfied to hold that from the testimony of Kala Bai PW-11 the prosecution case alleging the accused appellant to have assaulted the deceased Balaram and caused several injuries on his person is proved beyond reasonable doubt. It is also proved that the accused-appellant caused simple injury to Kala Bai PW-11.
13. It was submitted by Dr. Sushil Balwada, learned amicus for the appellant that looking to the background and the nature of the assault, the accused-appellant could be said to have committed an offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder and punishable under section 304 Part-II IPC. We find it difficult to agree with the learned counsel. The accused appellant went to the house of Balaram armed with a lathi. In the assault he has chosen to aim at the head, a vital part of the body and dealt repeated blows on the head and then at other parts of the body. Blows on the head have been dealt with such force as to result in fracture of the frontal and parietal bones causing laceration of brain matter also. The accused-appellant can safely be attributed with the intention of causing such injuries as have actually resulted. Even if the accused-appellant did not have the intention of causing death, he certainly intended to cause such bodily injuries as he knew to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused. The manner of the assault and the nature of the injuries caused by the accused-appellant to the deceased clearly attract applicability of ‘secondly’ of section 300 of the IPC. The offence committed by the accused is, therefore, punishable under section 302 IPC so far as the injuries caused to the deceased Balaram are concerned. For the injury caused to Kala Bai PW-11, the injury being simple, the accused-appellant has been rightly convicted under section 323 IPC.
14. We do not find any merit in this appeal. The same is held liable to be dismissed and is dismissed accordingly. The conviction of the accused-appellant along with the sentences passed thereon, as recorded by the trial court and upheld by the High Court is maintained.
15. Before parting, we place on record our appreciation of the valuable assistance rendered at the hearing by Dr. Sushil Balwada, the learned amicus curiae.
1. The present case is a sad story of a family consisting of three brothers of whom one has died, the other is the accused and the third one an eye witness to the incident, for whom the blood relation with the living has proved to be thicker than with the one who has died and has turned hostile. The prosecution case rests on the sole testimony of an eye witness Kala Bai PW-11, the widow of the victim.
2. The accused-appellant has been convicted for the commission of offences punishable under sections 302 and 323 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life for the offences under section 302 IPC and to one year’s rigorous imprisonment for the offence under section 323 IPC. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. An appeal preferred by the accused appellant has been dismissed by the High Court. This is an appeal by special leave.
3. Rattan Lal the accused-appellant, Balaram the deceased and Gopal PW-14 are three real brothers. The prosecution case is that there was a separation in the family consequent whereupon Balaram (deceased) and Gopal started living together in one house while Rattan Lal, the accused-appellant separated and started living in a different house.
4. A major part of the property was taken possession of by Rattan Lal. Gopal the youngest brother was not given his share which continued to be possessed by Rattan Lal. Balaram, the deceased and his wife Kala Bai PW-11 were insisting on Rattan Lal to give the legitimate share of property to Gopal and that was the cause of dispute between the deceased and the accused.
5. On 7.4.1991, more than a month before the incident in which Balaram died, there was a dispute wherein the accused-appellant had given a beating to the deceased Balaram. The incident was reported to police as a non-cognizable offence under section 323 IPC. Balaram was medically examined by Dr. A.K. Jain PW-2 on 7.4.1991 and vide injury memo exhibit P/6 Balaram was found to have sustained five abrasions on his person, all caused by hard and blunt object like a lathi. On 19.5.1991, the date of the incident, at about 7.00 p.m., Balaram was sitting on the platform outside his house. Gopal was also there. The accused-appellant came there armed with lathi. There was some verbal exchange between the deceased and the accused regarding division of the property and share to be given to Gopal. The accused-appellant got enraged and opened an assault on Balaram. Hearing the hue and cry Kala Bai, who was inside the house, came out. She and Gopal tried to intervene. The accused-appellant did not spare the interveners and dealt lathi blows on the person of Kala Bai and Gopal too. Having dealt several lathi blows on the person of Balaram, thereafter, the accused-appellant ran away.
6. Balaram fell down severely injured. He was put on a cot and taken to P.S. Barnagar in a matador. The police station is situated at a distance of about 18 kilometres from the place of occurrence. The first information report of the incident was lodged by Kala Bai at about 11.30 p.m. Deceased Balaram, Kala Bai and Gopal, the three injured in the incident were referred for medico-legal examination to civil hospital, Barnagar. Dr. L.A. Kapadia, PW-1 examined the three injured persons. Balaram was found to have sustained the following injuries on his person.
1. Lacerated wound 4″ x ½” x ½” along the right eyebrow extending upto bridge of nose on right side.
2. Lacerated wound 2″ x ½” x ½” below the right eyelid.
3. Depressed fracture of right frontal bone.
4. Haematoma diffused on right side of the face.
7. Kala Bai wife of Balaram was found to have sustained a defused contusion on left leg. Gopal PW-14 was found to have sustained a defused contusion around left elbow and abrasion on the left hand. The injuries to all the three were caused by hard and blunt object. The injuries suffered by Kala Bai and Gopal were simple in nature. The injuries suffered by Balaram were all grievous in nature and dangerous to life. Dr. Kapadia advised all the injuries suffered by Balaram to be X-rayed and also to be examined by dental surgeon.
8. Dr. B.K. Rawaka PW-7 dental surgeon of civil hospital, Barnagar examined Balaram. He found the jaw of Balaram to have been fractured. Balaram had sustained injuries on the lips and inside the cheek also. In the opinion of Dr. Rawaka these injuries were caused by a hard and blunt object.
9. Before any X-ray could be taken Balaram died at about 4.00 p.m. on 20.5.1991. Autopsy on the dead body was performed by Dr. Kapadia. On internal examination, Dr. Kapadia found depressed fracture of right frontal bone as also of parietal bone. There was laceration in right hemisphere of brain. In the opinion of Dr. Kapadia, Balaram had died on account of acute head injury and shock following multiple injuries over skull inflicted on him before death. The lathi said to have been used by the accused for causing the injuries and seized by the police was shown to Dr. Kapadia during his examination in the court and Dr. Kapadia opined that injuries to Balaram could have been caused by such lathi.
10. The incident has been narrated by Kala Bai PW-11 vividly. Kala Bai is a natural witness to the incident as in the evening time when Balaram is said to have suffered the injuries he was sitting on the platform just outside the house and Kala Bai was present inside the house. She came out on hearing the noise and witnessed the assault by the accused on her husband. She herself has suffered an injury while intervening to save her husband from the assault by the accused appellant. She accompanied her semiconscious husband to the police station and lodged the F.I.R. within 5 hours of the time of incident. We have no reason to disbelieve her testimony. The same has been corroborated by the promptly lodged F.I.R., and the medical evidence. Though Gopal PW-14 is also an eye witness to the incident however it is writ large that he had to choose between the brother who has died and the brother who was alive. He resolved his dilemma by choosing to support the brother alive, the accused-appellant, and therefore, turned hostile.
11. Though it is said that there were other village people present at the time of the incident but none has come forward to support the prosecution case. It is clear that the villagers too have chosen not to take sides in a dispute involving the real brothers. Kala Bai has been believed by the learned sessions judge who recorded her statement. She has been found to be witness of truth by the High Court and we see no reason to take a different view.
12. We are, therefore, satisfied to hold that from the testimony of Kala Bai PW-11 the prosecution case alleging the accused appellant to have assaulted the deceased Balaram and caused several injuries on his person is proved beyond reasonable doubt. It is also proved that the accused-appellant caused simple injury to Kala Bai PW-11.
13. It was submitted by Dr. Sushil Balwada, learned amicus for the appellant that looking to the background and the nature of the assault, the accused-appellant could be said to have committed an offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder and punishable under section 304 Part-II IPC. We find it difficult to agree with the learned counsel. The accused appellant went to the house of Balaram armed with a lathi. In the assault he has chosen to aim at the head, a vital part of the body and dealt repeated blows on the head and then at other parts of the body. Blows on the head have been dealt with such force as to result in fracture of the frontal and parietal bones causing laceration of brain matter also. The accused-appellant can safely be attributed with the intention of causing such injuries as have actually resulted. Even if the accused-appellant did not have the intention of causing death, he certainly intended to cause such bodily injuries as he knew to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused. The manner of the assault and the nature of the injuries caused by the accused-appellant to the deceased clearly attract applicability of ‘secondly’ of section 300 of the IPC. The offence committed by the accused is, therefore, punishable under section 302 IPC so far as the injuries caused to the deceased Balaram are concerned. For the injury caused to Kala Bai PW-11, the injury being simple, the accused-appellant has been rightly convicted under section 323 IPC.
14. We do not find any merit in this appeal. The same is held liable to be dismissed and is dismissed accordingly. The conviction of the accused-appellant along with the sentences passed thereon, as recorded by the trial court and upheld by the High Court is maintained.
15. Before parting, we place on record our appreciation of the valuable assistance rendered at the hearing by Dr. Sushil Balwada, the learned amicus curiae.
