State Vs Sohan Lal

As there was difference of opinion amongst the two Hon’ble Judges of this High Court while deciding this appeal, the Hon’ble Chief Justice referred the case to this Court as the third Judge.

¶13

The respondents herein i.e. Sohan Lal and Leela Devi alongwith one Ashok Kumar were tried for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 307, 323, 325 and 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶14

The case of the prosecution was that it was pursuant to the statement of the complainant Prithvi Singh under Section 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes

¶15

2

¶16

154 Cr.P.C. recorded by ASI Surinder Singh that the law enforcing machinery was set in motion. It was reported by the complainant that he was an agriculturist in village Uttapar, upon which he had sown maize crop. To save the crop from wild animal he had constructed temporary hut in his land, where he alongwith his wife Sita Devi stayed during the night.

¶17

On 11.09.2002, at about 7:30 p.m. accused Sohan Lal let loose his three dogs and set them against him and his wife Sita Devi. He requested the accused Sohan Lal to take care of the dogs upon which he alongwith accused Ashok Kumar came with axes and accused Leela Devi also came with a stick (danda) and started beating them.

¶18

The accused Ashok Kumar is alleged to have inflicted 2-3 blows with axe on the head of Sita Devi from where the blood oozed out. When he tried to save his wife, accused Sohan Lal struck the blows with axe on his head. The accused Leela Devi also gave stick (lathi) blow to his wife and also to him. He raised an alarm and on hearing his cries, his son Balbir and other villagers also known to the Balbir came to the spot. He alongwith his wife was brought to BBMB Hospital at Nangal and his wife was shifted for further medical treatment to PGI Chandigarh. The accused tried to kill them with an axe.

¶19

On the basis of the statement of the complainant FIR Ext. PW-13/A was registered in the concerned police station.

¶20

3

¶21

Thereafter police started investigation in the case and completed all codal formalities.

¶22

On conclusion of the investigation, a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was prepared and filed before the learned Trial Court. The accused were charge-sheeted for the aforesaid offences.

¶23

In support of its case, prosecution examined as many as 21 witnesses and on conclusion of the prosecution evidence, the statements of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded by the learned Trial Court wherein the accused pleaded innocence and alleged that they had been falsely implicated.

¶24

In defence the accused also examined two witnesses.

¶25

Accused Ashok Kumar was convicted for the commission of offence punishable under Section 307 IPC, whereas respondent Leela Devi was held guilty for the commission of offence punishable under Section 323 IPC, however, she was granted the benefit of Section 3 of the Probation of the Offenders Act, 1958 after due admonition. whereas the respondent Sohan Lal was acquitted of all the charges.

¶26

The State filed appeal being Cr.A. No. 273 of 2011 for enhancement in the case of accused Ashok Kumar, while Ashok Kumar filed Cr. A. No. 135 of 2011 assailing therein his conviction. Whereas the instant appeal came to be filed by the

¶27

4

¶28

State seeking conviction of accused Sohan Lal and Sita Devi for the aforesaid offences.

¶29

As observed above, there was difference of opinion amongst two Hon’ble Judges comprising Division Bench, whereas Justice Sureshwar Thakur, Judge dismissed both the Cr. A. No. 135 of 2011 and Cr. A. No. 273 of 2011, however, he allowed the instant appeal Cr.A. No. 402 of 2011 by convicting both the respondents i.e. Sohan Lal and Leela Devi for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC. Whereas, Justice Anoop Chitkara, Judge, concurred with Justice Sureshwar Thakur, Judge with regard to dismissal of Cr. A. No. 13 of 2011 and Cr. A. No. 273 of 2011, however, the Hon’ble Judge dismissed the instant Cr.A. No. 402 of 2011 and that is on account of difference of opinion, the matter has been listed before this Court.

¶30

Before proceeding in the matter it needs to be noticed that as regards accused Ashok Kumar, he aggrieved by the judgment of conviction passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge had preferred Criminal Appeal No. 1751 of 2019 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, wherein his sentence was reduced from 4 years to 2 years and compensation of Rs. One lac was imposed as would be evident from the order dated 25.11.2019.

¶31

The gist of the case of the prosecution has already been reproduced here-in-above, therefore, what is required to be

¶32

5

¶33

considered by the Court is the evidence that has come during the course of the investigation.

¶34

PW5 Bimla Thakur, Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Makri stated that Sohan Lal and Prithvi Singh were having land dispute inter-se them. It has also come on record that the Investigation Officer took into possession one axe from accused Sohan Lal vide Ext. PW18/D and also took into possession one danda from accused Leela Devi. The witnesses of said recovery were Ram Chand (PW-3) and Ram Lal (PW-4). However, during examination both these witnesses turned hostile and did not support the prosecution story regarding the recovery of weapons at the instance of the accused.

¶35

The police sent the recovered articles to FSL and vide report Ext. PW-18/G, human blood was found on axe and on the sample of mud, but no grouping could be done.

¶36

After recording prosecution evidence, statements of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded. Accused Sohan Lal in his statement took a specific plea that he was innocent and due to civil litigation, he was implicated in a false case. He further stated that neither scuffle had taken place with him nor he had given any beating to the injured persons.

¶37

Leela Devi in her statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. stated that she was innocent and at the time of alleged incident was in fact cutting grass and it was then Prithvi Singh

¶38

6

¶39

and Sita Devi came there and told her that the land was belonged to them and attacked her with axe and spears. She further stated that her husband Sohan Lal was unwell and he was present inside and on hearing her cries, rescued her from the clutches of the complainant and his wife. She further stated that she did not enter into any scuffle with them.

¶40

The accused also led defence evidence. Accused Leela Devi tendered in evidence a medico legal certificate Ext.DW-2/A, wherein there was a mention of six injuries.

¶41

Even though these injuries were simple in nature but then it is required to be seen that whether these injuries were connected with the incident or were received prior of subsequent to the incident.

¶42

As regards the prosecution, it did not explain that these injuries were received prior or after this incident, whereas it is the specific case of the defence that Leela Devi was cutting grass and it was the complainant who restrained her from her doing so and started beating to her while she was alone.

¶43

DW 2 Dr. Jatinder Mahajan, who examined Leela Devi, recorded her history of having received injuries due to beatings, meaning thereby that the version put-forth by Leela Devi has been duly corroborated by DW-2 Dr. Jatinder Mahajan. This witness was cross-examined wherein he stated that Leela Devi was examined on the application of the police. He further

¶44

7

¶45

stated that it was possible that these injuries could be received if a person fall on hard surface, but then this is not the case set up by the prosecution that she received injuries while falling. He further stated that injury No. 1 on her nose had a fracture.

¶46

As observed above, the learned Trial Court did not find the evidence led by the prosecution to be credible enough to convict Sohan Lal for any of the offence and did not find evidence credible enough to convict Leela Devi for 307 IPC and she was convicted under Section 323 IPC but she was given the benefit of Section 3 of the Probation of the Offenders Act.

¶47

Once Leela Devi is found to have sustained injuries, then it is the credibility of the injured person, which is also required to be taken into consideration. The specific case of Prithivi Singh and his statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C. is that Sohan Lal and Ashok Kumar was carrying axes and Leela Devi was carrying danda. He further stated that Ashok Kumar inflicted axe blow on the head of Sita Devi and when he tried to rescue his wife then Sohan Lal inflicted axe blow on his head. When Prithvi Singh appeared in the Court and gave his statement on oath during trial, he made material improvement in his version and took a different stand by stating that Ashok Kumar was armed with kulhari and accused Sohan Lal and Leela Devi armed with dandas.

¶48

8

¶49

As per the statement of Prithivi Singh under Section 154 Cr.P.C., Ashok Kumar and Sohan Lal were carrying axes with them, whereas in the statement made before the Court, it was stated that Sohan Lal was carrying a danda. Now, if Sohan Lal was already armed with an axe, then where was the need for him to take axe from Ashok Kumar. This Court cannot ignore the fact that there is no allegation whatsoever led by the prosecution that Sohan Lal had inflicted any injuries with danda.

¶50

The entire evidence led by the prosecution clearly indicates that the occurrence had taken place due to a trivial issue. The accused were not carrying lethal weapons and in fact had not inflicted injuries with them.

¶51

This is not a case where the incident took place due to prior meeting of mind or was well planned conspiracy, rather the incident took place at the spur of moment. Therefore, Section 34 IPC cannot be invoked to attribute all injuries upon Sohan Lal and Leela Devi and, therefore, at best, the accused Sohan Lal and Leela Devi can be held liable only for the individual acts committed by them. As regards the use of axe to give blow to the complainant by Sohan Lal, the same cannot be believed in view of the contradictions as pointed out.

¶52

As regards accused Leela Devi, the prosecution has failed to prove that any grievous injuries were caused by her due to the danda blow and in such circumstances, the learned Trial

¶53

9

¶54

Court rightly convicted her for causing simple injuries and convicted her under Section 323 IPC and later on granted the benefit of Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act by letting her on after admonishing.

¶55

If this was not enough, the Court needs to notice that the case set up by the prosecution is that when the statements of PW1 Prithvi Singh and PW-2 Sita Devi on oath as well as under Section 154 Cr.P.C. are perused, even then no reference is made about there being any scuffle with the accused Leela Devi.

¶56

No doubt, the law is well settled that the prosecution is not required to explain minor injuries suffered by the accused persons, therefore, the accused cannot derive any benefit on this ground, however, absolute silence about the severe injuries suffered by Leela Devi bring out the two genesis of the case that have been suppressed by PW1 Prithvi Singh and PW-2 Sita Devi, who do not qualify to be termed as sterling witnesses, but they could not explain, how the accused Leela Devi received injuries.

¶57

In view of the aforesaid discussion and for the reasons stated above, I find no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed.

¶58

(Tarlok Singh Chauhan) Judge

¶59

7^th May, 2024 ( sanjeev)

State v. Sohan Lal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State v. Sohan Lal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jiwan Lal Vs Achhru Ram and Another

Anil Kumar and Others Vs Rakesh Kanwar

Prem Singh Vs Shangru Ram

M/S Vardhman Ispat Udyog Vs Kamlesh Saklani

Malkiat Singh Vs Sandeep Kumar and Others

Rajesh Kumar Jhanji Vs State of Hp and Others